David Gilmour's First Year with Pink Floyd 1968

Great footage ... (but I think it should be dated Oct. 30, 1968 ?)

 

Ah, the Melody channel. It's on cable and it's an oldies-only music channel from France. Very useful as it enables fans to get "fresh" upgraded versions of old footage of their favourite bands.

 

There's an interesting thought. My belief is that the band would have been most successful with both Syd and David on board -- as they were, very briefly in early 1968.

One of the keys to this success would be a Barrett/Gilmour writing team, which I believe could have been realized, if the conditions had been right. Projecting Syd's musical concepts through Gilmour's hands/guitar might have been a substantial creative force to reckon with, and would have provided a counterbalance to Waters' anti-war, anti-government songwriting themes. The other key to the success of this pairing would have been keeping Syd's mind engaged -- probably not an easy task at that time, given his attitude toward the whole process.

And that brings up the burning question: what really happened to Syd Barrett? Did the chemicals he ingested really burn out his psyche to the point that he couldn't function, or did he become so disenchanted with the infighting and business/management side of the group that he simply stopped trying and actively attempted to sabotage everything? Did he simply hand over the reins and say "Take it -- I don't want this anymore"? Is this part of the reason he ceded "creative control" to the ambitious Roger Waters without offering more resistance?

I realize this is opening a huge can of worms, so I'll just state my personal opinion: I believe Syd simply switched off and walked away, not as a result of his drug use primarily (although it certainly could have been a contributing factor), but overall because he didn't want to play the game anymore. I doubt that being a musical icon or a celebrity of any kind was ever on his personal agenda, and when the whole thing started to grow beyond his desire to participate, he simply dug in his heels and refused to perform on command -- even to the point of being uncooperative on stage to emphasize his contempt. Yes, he was a talented individual -- musically, artistically, conceptually, yes, absolutely. Could he have gone on to be a successful entertainer with or without the group? Yes, I believe he could have -- if he had wanted to. And this indeed might be close to the root of the entire matter: what did Syd want to do/be? How did he want to express himself? Did he even want to be noticed while doing it?

Rather than automatically labeling Syd an acid casualty, maybe all he really did was make a choice. He did manage to function for many years thereafter, albeit with a degree of eccentricity -- but still he functioned. He kept to himself, living life on his own terms, leaving behind an impressive body of work, including drawings, paintings and writings (some of which hopefully will be published one day). He wasn't a derelict, wasn't in jail, didn't OD on anything, didn't become infamous through misadventures. What he was during this time, was conspicuous by his absence.

"...and what exactly is a dream?...and what exactly is a joke?" Given everything, Syd may well have had the last laugh after all.