Talk:Syd Barrett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syd Barrett article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Syd Barrett has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result October 23, 2005 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article (musicians)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Syd Barrett is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!

	This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

NOTE: Please add new topics to the bottom. Thank you.

Archives
1: May 2004 - July 2006

Contents 1 Major Clean-Up Needed 2 Death 3 Syd Barrett The Guitarist 4 Was it diabetes or cancer? 5 Removed external link 6 original research 7 Sections 8 Fillmore Auditorium 9 Profile Photograph 10 Semi-protection 11 Meaning of DSOTM lyrics: a subjective pov 12 The Orb 13 Mental Illness section needs shifting or the intro and bio needs rewrite 14 It Would Be So Nice / Julia Dream 15 See Emily Play 16 Archive 17 Have You Got It Yet? 18 Bad Link "The Radio One Sessions (March, 2004): " 19 Musical influences 20 RIP Syd 21 Burial 22 Photo 23 here we go again 24 Poll on keeping a paragraph on Mental Illness or deleting it 24.1 Support Keeping (comment on whether you think edits should be made) 24.2 Support Deleting Material as it stands or Altogether (specify) 24.3 Comments, discussions 25 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 26 Asperger Syndrome? Ridiculous! 27 Spelling: British English 28 Tributes 29 Good article Review of GA status 30 English/British 31 Drugs 32 The Lost Years

[edit] Major Clean-Up Needed

I don't know a lot about Roger Barrett, but I do know that a lot in this article is bullshit and it needs a major clean-up. Especially the 'Wish You Were Here' section.

While I agree that this article needs much work (although far fewer urban legends about Syd can be found here than many other places), what exactly is your problem with the "Wish You Were Here" section, other than a lack of references (which are easily found, just nobody's bothered putting any in)? The story is well-documented, and if you take a look at the mention of the incident in the Pink Floyd article you'll find referenced interviews as recent as this year with Gilmour and Mason talking about it. - dharmabum 01:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death

The BBC just announced the death of Syd a few minutes ago. On BBC News 24, the words used to summarise his biography were (I now realise on reading our article) a verbatim quote from the introduction. I don't believe they credited us. Let's sue! :) --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"He died very peacefully a couple of days ago" it sayd on the BBC. Does anyone have the actual date? (I'm not the only one confused on this...)

RIP: 7/7/2006 10am

[edit] Syd Barrett The Guitarist

Syd was a remarkable guitarist for his free-form style in playing chords (and not the echo, the tapes or the effects): his rhythm guitar, as well as his minimalist an dissonant solos, can be seen as the main influence on punk, post-punk and grunge guitarists, and still is the main influence on indie bands as of today. No other guitarist of 1960s could claim this. It would be nice if someone can help me to put this properly in the article.--Doktor Who 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Died July 7th at 10 am

"and still is the main influence on indie bands as of today."

This is completely subjective. Why was it allowed in the article? Have you polled every "indie" band in America, and did you define "indie" as a genre or as unsigned by a major? Does Sonic Youth count even though they've been on a major since the 80's? This is completely below standard. Let's not get carried away because of recent events. The primary loyalty should be to the quality of the site, not the man's memory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.99.250.45 (talk • contribs).

I have removed that line. It wouldn't stand without numerous citations. Furthermore, I don't think enough citations exist in the world to prove that "no other guitarist of the 1960s" could claim the same thing. Kafziel 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

indeed before putting my sentence there, i asked advice, my comment above was posted before my edits; none answered and I went on; as I realize, maybe my comment is too subjective (maybe) in this context, I havent started an edit war. Anyway, comments posted by anonimous users, in this case may look a sort of personal attack: how can this 204.99.250.45 know me so well to claim that I am not aware of american "indie" rock scene? Believe me, I do not want to harrass anyone, Im just a little Wikignome here, sometimes I really cant understand people.... --Doktor Who 00:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I am pretty sure that my statements can be proven from a technical point of view, but I understand that this is not a music course for guitarists, maybe I would better contribute somewhere else; I guess that there is a sort of Wiki project on this subject, and I will seek it later. --Doktor Who 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was it diabetes or cancer?

Getting conflicting reports...the Pitchfork article (www.pitchforkmedia.com) is saying that he died of cancer, and includes quotes from his brother. Are many news outlets just assuming that he died of diabetes complications since he suffered from diabetes?

The Daily Mail says it was cancer. Of course, if he did have both cancer and diabetes, both could be causes of death.

At the moment, the AP article is saying the cause of death has not been disclosed yet.--Undertow87 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to braindamage.co.uk, generally the most reliable source for Floyd information (they're in regular contact with Floyd management and so on), his family confirmed that his passing was due to complications relating to the diabetes. - dharmabum 22:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read at least one other source (possibly BBC website, I can't recall) indicating diabetes as the cause of death, but I'd wait with adding this until more sources confirm that diabetes was the cause, or until the band's official statement, if any, goes public.--Undertow87 23:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian obituary has his death as bign caused by cancer (confirmed by Brother Alan) see: [1] — Rod ^talk 17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like the same "He died peacefully at home" statement from his brother that's been used on many sites - some saying diabetes complications, some saying cancer.Yankees76 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess cancer can be considered a "complication from diabetes". I'm still puzzled about why other sources aren't citing cancer as the actual cause instead of giving a vague cause. I suppose for now you could say his death was "diabetes-related, possibly caused by cancer, according to some cites," and mark the citations for the articles saying cancer was the cause.--Undertow87 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, there should be no mention of cancer. The only statement from the family or the band members simply says "complications arising from diabetes"; if the complications included cancer and they wanted the world to know it, they would have said so. Just because reputable newspapers publish something, that doesn't make it true. - dharmabum 22:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially since the cancer tidbit has appeared in only a few articles, to my knowledge.--Undertow87 23:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed external link

I removed the external link to "Have You Got It Yet?" CDs. This is a BOOTLEG collection, and therefore infringes on copyright and is unsuitable. TheQuandry 02:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original research

"There is also the possibility that the sudden death of his father (a respected pathologist) when he was 11 caused him considerable anguish and left emotional scars that probably sowed some of the seeds of his later malaise. The subject matter of a lot of his songs, the nursery rhymes and fairy tale fantasies, were reminiscent for him of a "happier" period of his childhood before his father's death."

Please delete that. 141.211.4.25 03:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and deleted. Many people have similar background without similar outcome. Although other causes are also speculated upon in this section this paragraph seems both dubious and unneccessarily intrusive upon his family life. Richard 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

   1 Biography
   1.1 Early years
   1.2 Pink Floyd years (1965–1968)
   1.3 Solo years (1968–1972)
   1.4 Later years (1972-2006)
   1.5 The Wish You Were Here sessions
   1.6 Compilations
   1.7 Last years

Shouldn't sections 1.5 to 1.7 be "subsections" of 1.4 ? --Astroguato 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. --Doktor Who 03:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did it, although I think the whole Biography should be split into Biography and Musical Career or something like that. Unfortunately don't have time to do it now. --Astroguato 09:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just done it. However, the 'Early years' section looks really short. Maybe it should be expanded? I've moved the 'Mental illness' section so that it's in a more logical place because of the order of events. Yeah, looking at the article now, that was a good idea from Astroguato becauase the ordering looks much more logical. ( Davehard 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC) )

[edit] Fillmore Auditorium

Pink Floyd never played the Fillmore West in 1967 with Syd - it was the Fillmore Auditorium. They did play the Fillmore West twice in 1970.

[edit] Profile Photograph

The profile photograph is due to expire very soon and should be replaced with something legit. Dwayne Kirkwood 23:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do help and try to find something "legit". The copyright paranoia which is seemingly enforced by a small handful of people on Wikipedia regarding band and musician photos found in dozens of places is exceedingly tiresome; please, if you can find something that will satisfy them, let us know here. - dharmabum 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

It is said that this article is semi-protected due to "precautionary". However, it is listed on the rules that:

"Semi-protection should not be used:

• as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.74.103.209 (talk • contribs).

I agree as I saw no real evidence of vandalism prior to the tag, only increased editorial activity. If no further comment on this topic argues convincingly otherwise in the next 48 hours then I will remove tag. Richard 11:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of DSOTM lyrics: a subjective pov

A later line in the song references "the band you're in starts playing different tunes", which is a situation Barrett often got into when suffering from the symptoms of his mental illness. I strongly suspect that this is subjective and non-factual. --Doktor Who 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While I find it hard to believe that Waters wasn't thinking of Syd when he penned this lyric, it's never been confirmed in an interview or other source I can find, making it original research. - dharmabum 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Orb

I have found a strange sentence in The Orb article: The album reached number six in the UK, but critics hated it, even comparing Paterson to Pink Floyd's Syd Barrett. --Doktor Who 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mental Illness section needs shifting or the intro and bio needs rewrite

Due in part to the article's recent rearrangement this section currently launches into this topic without any prior general information about when Barrett became ill and the effect it on his career. This section ought to be put back where it was before or placed after a fuller summary of his life. Richard 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It Would Be So Nice / Julia Dream

I'm not sure but I think Syd Barrett was in the band when they released It Would Be So Nice / Julia Dream. If you search the single cover in Google, you'll see that in the Pink Floyd photo, there is Syd Barrett. But I also know that the one who sings Julia Dream is David Gilmour. So there is a little bit confusion for me. Do you have any information about it? Because if Syd is in Pink Floyd in this time period, we should add It Would Be So Nice / Julia Dream single in his discography

It is described by Schaffner as their first effort without Syd, so I guess the single cover just came from a slightly older photo. - dharmabum 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Emily Play

Can anyone cite a source for the See Emily Play single charting as US # 134? Since the Billboard singles chart is only the Hot 100, with an occasional "bubbling under" of ten more singles yet to chart, this seems unlikely. (Rebecca, 7/18/06)

[edit] Archive

Is it time to archive (part of) this page?--Doktor Who 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It was up over 45kb, so I archived. - dharmabum 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have You Got It Yet?

Someone removed any links in the article to Have You Got It Yet?, the bootleg compilation of Barrett rarities such as the 1974 studio sessions, under the justification that it's an illegal set and it shouldn't be promoted. While I agree that a link to external download sites that host the collection is problematic from a copyright perspective and shouldn't be included, not mentioning the collection or including a link to its Wiki article is a detriment to the article IMO. It is amongst the most famous and widely-traded RoIOs out there and I'm sure anyone interested in Barrett would want to learn about it when reading the article. If nobody can come up with a good argument why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all in the next couple of days I'm going to re-add a mention of it to the "Compilations" section. - dharmabum 02:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included because 1) It's a link to a set of bootlegs, which included illegal copies of recordings Barrett made. So-called "fans" of Barrett shouldn't be promoting the stealing of his work, whether someone benefits financially or not. IMHO, the only reason EMI hasn't pursued the creators of this is because it's not financially worthwhile (meaning: it would cost a great deal of money and since Syd Barrett bootlegs probably only reach a small fringe of people, it wouldn't make as much difference as, say, prosecuting people who fileshare Pink Floyd songs). 2) The Wiki listing for "HYGIY?" should be deleted as well, based on this logic. There are many bootlegs of Barrett's work out there and it sounds a lot like self-promotion when people keep saying its one of "the most widely traded and famous of RoIO's". This may be, but it doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for an encyclopedic reference. 3) Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote illegal activites. TheQuandry 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm not suggesting providing links to the bootlegs, just a mention of them and a wikilink to an article about them. The set does not include any music released commercially on an album, meaning it doesn't impact album sales, which is more likely why EMI doesn't bother about it. 2/3) I don't understand how self-promotion is involved. I certainly didn't have a part in creating the collection, and if you were to spend a little time on various concert-trading and Pink Floyd fan sites, you'd see how widely it's discussed and traded. Should we delete murder as well? Just because Wikipedia discusses something illegal doesn't mean it's promoting it.

The fact remains; people reading about Barrett are entitled to know about a musical collection which features Barrett's unreleased material. - dharmabum 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I just realized I haven't yet pointed out that the legal status of unpublished or audience-recorded live material is in a grey area, and it's not even clear whether it's illegal or not; see ROIO for more information. - dharmabum 20:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that a link to the listing of "bootlegs" is adequate. HYGIY? is nice, but there are hordes of other bootlegs that are just as important and most of which are also traded.

Also: I believe the legal status is pretty clearly in support of the illegalization of pirate/bootleg recordings. During the early 1990s, huge numbers of Pink Floyd (and Barrett) bootlegs were pressed in Italy, by companies like Great Dane. These companies were allowed to operate based on the assumption that they were collecting a portion of their earnings and depositing them in an account that the artists could, theoretically, claim as sales earnings. Great Dane (who are/were recognized as one of the premier sources of Pink Floyd bootlegs, particularly with their huge, comprehensive Total Eclipse set went out of business because of the Gatt Treaty [2], which closed this loophole. Therefore, legislation exists to imply that the production and dissemination of unreleased and live recorded but not offically released material is against the law. I would argue that Total Eclipse is as important to Pink Floyd fans in general as HYGIY? is to specific Barrett fans, but there's no Wikipedia listing for it.

Furthermore: murder and HYGIY? are apples and oranges. There is nothing commercial about murder to promote, but HYGIY? is, arguably, a commercial product. TheQuandry 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as ROIOs are traded freely, as they usually are, they are not commercial products. Moreover, getting ROIOs is currently the only way to listen to such recordings. Since there is already an article for Have You Got It Yet?, I think it'd be a waste not to link the article from Barrett's article. --Astroguato 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There are not "hordes" of other bootlegs that are just as important, relating to Barrett specifically; while there are many which collect Floyd material, there are VERY few that are easily available which contain Barrett's solo rarities as this one does. In addition, Total Eclipse was a for-profit publisher collection which sold for hundreds of dollars, a very different situation than the non-profit for-free trading which HYGIY? was released under. - dharmabum 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm tempted to get into an academic debate about the legality of various recordings, I think we're beginning to stray from the point. We're mired in discussion of what makes a recording legal or illegal in various countries. No offense, but I feel that TheQuandry has a point of view opinion against bootleg recordings which is causing him/her to advocate censoring any specific mention of these recordings in this article. I have still not seen a good Wikipedia policy reason to prevent an internal Wikipedia link to a prominent compilation which is the only source for a considerable portion of an artist's unreleased output, regardless of the legal status of said collection.

Wikipedia does not make the law; Wikipedians make the decision on what is notable enough to include in an article about any given subject. At least one other user and I assert that the HYGIY? collection is notable enough to include in the Barrett article. TheQuandry makes an argument against including it which is unrelated to notability. I'd like to see a consensus about HYGIY?'s notability, considering its status as the only widely available source for the majority of Barrett's commercially unreleased material. - dharmabum 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to have a fight about it. If you guys feel so strongly about it and want to re-add it, go ahead. :-) TheQuandry 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't looking for a fight either. If the music publishers involved would be willing to release all of the unreleased Barrett material I'd be more than happy to see any mention of bootlegs removed. As I see it in the article, someone looking for Barrett info not being made aware that powerful material chronicling his deterioration like "Scream Thy Last Scream" is easily available is doing a disservice to the Wikipedia reader, not the music company. - dharmabum 07:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Made one change to reflect the fact that there are currently 19 vols of HYGIY. I believe there's a current discography online, will check and add a link to it in the HYGIY article if need be. I'd rather the casual reader didn't get the impression there are 19 vols of Syd outtakes available. (The later volumes are peripheral--interviews, radio shows, cover versions, pics, etc.) But since that's covered under the HYGIY entry, best not to add extra verbiage to this one. Thanks again. SFC 129.44.249.250 22:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the VCDs and photo discs and so on, my mistake. - dharmabum 22:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link "The Radio One Sessions (March, 2004): "

--Msalt 19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)The link on this page for the album "The Radio One Sessions (March, 2004)" actually takes you to a Damned album of the same name.

I removed the wikilink to the incorrect article. Feel free to be bold in future when you see such an obvious error. - dharmabum 09:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musical influences

I suspect that user:R.christie is planning to remove any info regarding Barret's influence on other artists. He has put the template citation needed near the sentence that I edited some weeks ago:

Barrett is seen as a remarkable guitarist for his free-form style in playing syncopated chords, and also for the use of echo, tapes and other effects; the style of his rhythm guitar, as well as his often minimalist and dissonant solos, are seen even today as a major influence on punk, post-punk, and similar scenes.

Before posting that sentence, I asked permission here, as everybody can read in this page. The sentence is the correct and logical introduction to the following content in the same paragraph. But maybe he's only attacking me personally (I hope it's not true), becouse he didn't put any template near a similar sentence:

He was also an innovative guitarist, exploring the musical and sonic possibilities of dissonance, distortion, feedback, and the echo machine; his experimentation was partly inspired by free improvisation guitarist Keith Rowe. One of Barrett's trademarks was playing his Fender Esquire guitar by sliding a Zippo lighter up and down the fret-board through an old echo box to create the mysterious, otherworldly sounds that became associated with the group.

--Doktor Who 13:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that User Doktor Who posted the above sentence on this page is irrelevant to the fact that if it is non-citable then it amounts to being original research.

The statement in question reads "the style of his rhythm guitar, as well as his often minimalist and dissonant solos, are seen even today as a major influence on punk, post-punk, and similar scenes". Note the use of qualifying term "major". This is no small claim. It ought to be substantiated. [Personally I think it is a glaring overstatement, I write from the viewpoint of one who has been a admirer of barrett for some 35 years and has been a professional guitarist for almost as long]. As it is, the assertion stands as being Wikipedia's viewpoint. Wikipedia isn't in the business of expounding viewpoints. There ought to be no problem here, as the statement is opinion as such it is either citable or it amounts to original research. Simply listing many admirers of Barrett, or artists who "covered" his work doesn't come close to justifying the claim that Barrett's guitar playing was a "major" influence on punk, post punk or (the nebulously termed) "similar scenes". Only a much more careful analysis of the musical and technical aspects of Barrett's playing style and typical elements of the other mentioned guitar styles can do that. The article provides none.

Articles of this vein are notorious on Wiki for frequently being written by fans (an abbreviation of fanatics) of the artists in question, as such the articles are often taken very personally by such authors who don't always bring a detatched POV to the table. How the simple request for a cite somehow amounts to personal attack is beyond me (not to mention that Dr Who is a nom de plume).

IMO the statement should be tempered, e.g. that Barrett had 'some influence' on other artists and scenes would be sufficient. Or if it's such a widely known fact that he was a "major" influence on the particular scenes then simply provide a citation so readers of Wikipedia know where the claim comes from. Richard 10:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not (anymore) a fan of Syd Barrett, I do not listen to him or Pink Floyd, though I have been into such music for some stages of my life, a long time ago. Dating from mid 1980s, my fav music is: David Sylvian, Robert Fripp, Andy Summers, Pat Metheny & Lyle Mays, most of ECM label releases, most of German electronic music, a great part of Canterbury scene and British prog rock and so on. You can even delete that section or the whole article: with all due respect, I can't improve this article for now, I don't have spare time to spend here. I can play guitar and what I can tell is that he was the first guy to play rhythmic chords in a non-bluesy style, the first with a European or British sound, and this is a commonly shared opinion among musicans, at least here in Europe. From a more technical point of view, Gilmour never used to play interesting rhythm sections, indeed Waters had to play rhythm guitar in WYWH/Animals (a few songs). I strongly suspect that Barrett tried to play what we now call punk with some ska influences when he was recording sessions for his solo works, and Monsieurs bluesy Pink Floyd didn't understand. I have read so many music magazines in last 25 years that I do not really want to seek anything for now, it's summer and I do not really have time. With regard to reference, you should delete 99 % of music related articles here at Wikipedia, none provides serious offline references. --Doktor Who 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for so neatly underlining my case. Richard 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page Richard, bye.Doktor Who 13:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag added Aug 22 for same reasons as above. "... all these artists have a very distinct Barrett influence in their music, with regard to the style of his rhythm and lead guitar, his sonic wizardry and the beauty of his songwriting." Unless cited this is POV of Doktor Who, who failed to provide citation for similar statement since removed. It is also not encyclopedic in style. RichardJ Christie 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to this comment cos it was summer. AS it can be seen at the history of this article, I didn't write that here. Got it? Please see WP:HAR. Why none stopped these strange comments? Not only that Mr Christie accused me to have invnted and written all that stuff regarding Barrett's influence (some sentences have been here for months), but it's the first time I hear that Barrett's music didn't influence anyone. Tangerine Dream have released an album dedicated to the "Madcap", or this is original research?--Dr. Who 12:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Syd

I don't care what anyone says about Syd Barrett... He was a revolutionary pop genius. Long after all the nay-sayers are dead and gone, people will still talk about Syd.

As much as I respect Waters & Gilmour, it was Syd who went to the edge and brought back Space Rock... Reclusive loony or not, he was a pioneer and he deserves major respect.

Just listen to the mad drama of Interstellar Overdrive...

Fame isn't for everyone. Who's to say that gardening and abstract painting are any less rewarding than being a "Rock Star?" And in the end, it is the music that matters the most.

"And what exactly is a dream, and what exactly is a joke?" (from Jugband Blues) - Syd Barrett 1946-2006

JahSun 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burial

Do you have some info about where he was buried (or ashes dispersed) ? 83.79.34.28 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He was cremated at the Cambridge Crematorium and his funeral service was held on July 17, 2006 with just close family and friends. There was a newspaper article about laying him to rest in Cambridge. (Mary, 8/31/06)

[edit] Photo

The photo currently there - Image:Syd1971.jpg - is tagged for removal. It seems to be the same as the cover for the Peel Session EP. Anyone know its source ? Anyone got a copy of the EP to hand to see if that says anything ? -- Beardo 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the same photo. The jacket doesn't mention the photo specifically, but if someone wants to contact the label maybe they could get permission that way. Although, Mick Rock has a huge number of Barrett photos and I'm guessing he'd be willing to let us use one of those. I could be mistaken about that. TheQuandry 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] here we go again

With disappointment I note material (copied below) creeping back into this article. Although it is cited it remains hearsay and from second hand reports (which may well sell books but can't, IMO, be regarded as reliable). In short and in IMO it's immature crap and adds very little (apart from a perverse sense of voyeurism) to a section supposedly seriously addressing Barrett's illness. I invite comment before deleting it.

"Many stories of Syd's erratic behavior off stage as well as on are generally well-documented. In Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey, author Nicholas Schaffner interviewed a number of people who knew Barrett before and during his Pink Floyd days. These included friends Peter and Susan Wynne Wilson, Duggie Fields (with whom Barrett shared a flat during the late 1960s), among others. One story that Schaffner gleaned had Barrett locking a girlfreind in a room for several days, pushing food under the door so she could eat. Another involved a friend arriving at Barrett's flat, only to hear a loud banging coming from inside. After entering and asking one of the groupies and hangers-on who tended to make themselves at home at the flat during this period "what that awful noise was," the response was "Oh, that's just Syd having a bad trip. We've locked him in the cupboard." Furthermore, in the book "Madcap: The Half-Life of Syd Barrett," author Tim Willis wrote of a story told to him about a terrible quarrel between Barrett and his then-girlfriend which ended with Barrett smashing an acoustic guitar over her head."

--RichardJ Christie 09:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. The fact that these stories ARE cited, and by several honorable and reliable sources is good enough for me. The fact is, that if we want to dismiss the stories in question as "hearsay", then 90% of everything else about Barrett (aside from his name, the titles of his songs and the fact that he played in Pink Floyd) should also be considered hearsay and deleted. (Including the famous story of Barrett wandering in to the Wish You Were Here recording sessions, which is also secondhand information from the members of Pink Floyd. Are they more reliable than Duggie Fields or the Wynne-Wilsons just because they're famous musicians?)

I think stories that have been told by people who were actually there, living and interacting with Barrett on a daily basis and who were friends with Barrett at the time are as reliable as anything told by the members of Pink Floyd (or anyone else for that matter). Nobody has included any of the myriad of unsubstantiated "myths" about the man (simply because these are uncited). I feel that if the information about Barrett's behavior has appeared in numerous reliable printed sources, then it's perfectly okay to include it here to help illustrate the level of instability Barrett was driven to as a result of his heavy drug use, the huge stresses put on him by record company management and fans, and his own deep-seated mental issues. It's educational, informative and not in poor taste to try to learn more about this and discuss why he ended up as he did and how others could, perhaps, avoid the same fate. Furthermore, I feel that the reasoning behind NOT including this information tends to be rooted in hero worship. Does anyone else have input? TheQuandry 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not, primarily, so much a matter of reliability (although my post may give that impression) as it is a matter of relevance and encyclopedic style. The article already has good example of Barrett's reportedly irrational behaviour, amply sufficient for illustration of relevant events. Why is there call for more? Where do you draw the line? I cannot understand the compulsion of some people to relate this sort of material, especially when it is of arguable authenticity. Previously the article had a spurious interpretation of the teeth brushing incident. This material is both redundant and irrelevant. It is not educational, it does not further understanding of Barrett's illness, it just tips the article toward a tabloid or a fanzine style format. It's tittle-tattle. It's gratuitous. Pushing food under the door? - give me a break, was she fed on pancakes?

--RichardJ Christie 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts. Regarding "arguable authenticity," if reliable sources are provided as citations, then what's the problem? This is all common knowledge among Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd fans. Failing to make note of it here doesn't make it any less true, nor does it erase the fact that Barrett was a profoundly disturbed individual.

I believe it is relevent to the nature of the article, keeping in practice with "telling the whole story". Articles about Barrett, particularly since his death, have mostly been along the lines of the "mysterious magical hero" who "liked to paint" and "ride his bike" and was once "a rock star". By NOT relating the bad stories with the good, taken from many reliable printed sources, makes the article one-dimensional and, IMO, closer to fancruft than it would otherwise be if we include them. By censoring the bad, we reduce the value of the good.

Maybe she WAS fed on pancakes. :-) TheQuandry 15:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose a new section. Wasn't Barrett a nutcase. Then all contributers can add their fave "Mad Syd" anecdotes and kid themselves that they are adding something useful. --RichardJ Christie 09:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay.... since you haven't provided any specific reasoning to countermeasure my last commentary, I'll assume you're going to let it stand. TheQuandry 14:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The text as quoted above is terribly non-encyclopedic. There is a list of people interviewed, then a list of anecdotes with no connection between the two. At the very list any such anecdotes need to have their original source attributed - "Fred Bloggs said..... whilst Enry Iggins told the story of ....." sort of thing. -- Beardo 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Material has been deleted --RichardJ Christie 11:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Material has been re-added. You can't just remove things out of hand when you haven't provided a reasonable explanation for it, and when someone else has provided a perfectly reasonable statement for keeping it. Just because something is "unencyclopedic" in format doesn't mean it should be deleted. As Beardo stated, it needs to be reformatted to a proper style. He wasn't giving you an excuse to wipe it out entirely. I'll attribute the statements properly as soon as possible.

If you persist in deleting this, I'll have to take it to arbitration. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it okay for you to erase it. TheQuandry 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RC - the material at present is not properly attributed. If you want to include some of this, get the attribution clear. -- Beardo 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have again deleted gossip attributed to unknown persons. I welcome arbitration from Wikipedians not involved in this project.--RichardJ Christie 12:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1) A distinction must be made between material published in books for fan-bases, which are eager for any information about the focus of their adoration and an encyclopaedia. In this case who are those groupies and hangerons relating these tales? Has the author checked their authenticity (for example have two of these tales been confirmed by the woman in question)? Is this citable?

2) Are these stories relevant in an encyclopaedia? I have no objection to this material appearing in a book on Barrett written for profit, but an encyclopaedia has an obligation to present facts or clearly state that material is merely opinion/conjecture. This material adds nothing to the article except IMO, gratuitous titillation. It therefore must be watertight to merit continued inclusion. That means names to the observations, not merely that some author gleaned such and such. --RichardJ Christie 13:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, delet it. This article about mental illnes are so dangerous and disgusting.I don't know why people have this morbid obcession about a dead man's life.Jesus, Mary & Joseph!!!Are the writers doctors? Are the writers journalists?Have the writers some respect for Barret's dignity as a human being? Have the writers some ethical training? I don't think so! If I were Barret's relative, I WILL CONTACT A ADVOCATE TO STRIKE AGAINST ANY GUY WHO THINK THEY KNOW ABOUT SYD BARRET'S PRIVATE LIFE OR HEALTH!!! Sorry for the anger.Bryard - São Paulo, SP, Brazil 04:13, 04 April 2007 (GMT)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger Syndrome? Ridiculous!

Although it's true that some say that Barrett suffered Asperger Syndrome, no one who knows a bit about the autistic spectrum, schizophrenia and the life and work of Barrett can doubt this is nonsense. Before his retiremnt, Barrett was able to write wonderful, creative songs, play guitar, form and sing in a famous rock band, establish relationships with friends and lovers, have regular conversations with people, etc., many things that persons with Asperger would find very difficult to do. His later mental problems became evident during his twenties and seem to have some relation with him taking drugs. All the symptoms point to a paranoic or some other kind of schizophrenia, which is also what his fomer colleague Roger Waters explains in "The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett's legend". It is true that he also may have been "weird" before his collapse and even before the Floyd, perhaps showing traces of a schizoid personality (which later could have derived to schizophrenia)- but not an autist at all!

Please remove the mention to the "Asperger Hypothesis" from the article because it is simply ridiculous.

The relevant text reads "A diagnosis of bipolar disorder is also possible, most likely Bipolar I [sic] . Additionally, some have suggested that Barrett had traits associated with Asperger syndrome."

Both statements are unsupported by citation (who exactly are the "some"?). I support the case for their removal. RichardJ Christie 10:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remove that sh.., thanks.Dr. Who 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it seems like a gross misdiagnosis, but this WAS published someplace... I want to say in Mojo or Q. Let me see if I can find it. TheQuandry 15:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the reference. Tim Willis(!) said it in his article with The Observer. Cited. TheQuandry 15:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A good reference/footnote , thank you for including it. RichardJ Christie 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

His sister said that Barrett "(...) always had an extraordinary mind, bordering on the autistic or Aspergic (...)" (source: [3])

nk: urm, sorry if im doing this wrong. anyway, i haven't checked on ol' barret's page in months and months. you guys have done a great job with the new information and organization. props.

[edit] Spelling: British English

I understand that since the subject of the article is English, the language of the article should be British English. Any objections? Trishm 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

yes.. should we right articles about the 1300s in old english? thats ridiculous i would venture a guess and say that the largest single group of english speaking users of wiki would be americans, so from a practical perspective its pointless. and how would you propose (hypothetically speaking) to change this entire article to british english? have a brit proof read it and change the spelling and grammar? I would love to see a reporter affect an english accent when talking about the queen
-joe (no profile yet) - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.9.50 (talk • contribs) on 21:37, 7 January 2007.

You may think it ridiculous, but it is wikipedia policy. There are many contributors from the UK and other Anglophone countries (whose English is closer to British than American). see WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(national_varieties_of_English). There are many Brits contributing to this article and related article. (Note the comments about "Pink Floyd are ..." instead of "Pink Floyd is ..." on that page.) Fortunately, Syd didn't have much to do with pavements or petrol. -- Beardo 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well, thats fair enough but i still think that since this is about a man who fronted a band that was famous world wide (and i would say particularly in america) it is still fair to write this in "american" english. -Joe

[edit] Tributes

If someone wants to work this sort of stuff in, Tangerine Dream's new album Madcap's Flaming Duty is a tribute to Barrett.[4] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article Review of GA status

This article is being reviewed at Good Article Review for possible delisting of its Good article status. Teemu08 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what? What has made it decline in quality? TheQuandry 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English/British

Since the nation called 'England' has not existed since 1707, Syd Barrett was British, since he was born and brought up in the United Kingdom. England no longer exists as a political entity. Why is this so hard for Americans to understand? This unsigned statement was written by User:Joelhowells (Talk) at 2007-03-06T18:04:51

Are u a britsh citzen?!? Be carefull!!! Yugoslavia was history.UK & Spain are the next.Don't be so arrogant!!!

[edit] Drugs

This article doesn't say when Barrett first started taking drugs, and it's very relevant (it kinda jumps into mentioning that he was taking drugs, but not when he started). Does anyone know? What kind of drugs was he taking before LSD? When did he first trip out?

[edit] The Lost Years

As far as I know there is not a 'The Lost Years' compilation album by Syd. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. I am not aware of a roio with that name but then it should not be mentioned amongst the official releases. One could consider adding the semi-legal book/cd 'A Fish Out Of Water' that contains two Pink Floyd demos: 'I'm a King Bee' and 'Lucy Lea (in Blue Tight)' (although that one is really called 'Lucy Leave'). This release was legal in Italy (but not in the rest of the world, I fear), to avoid copyright hassle the tracks have been attributed to a band called 'Architectural Abdabs' and not to Pink Floyd. Felix Atagong 13:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)