David Gilmour's First Year with Pink Floyd 1968

The live record is very nice, but so is most of Atom Heart Mother. The suite is engaging for at least half the length, and the individual songs on the other side are all good -yes, even Alan's Breakfast. It' s a flawed album, but not the wreck that Gilmour sometimes portrays it in interviews.

It's possible, had Syd recovered his confidence and mental stability, that they would have made some excellent albums. Syd's solo work, uneven as it is, still has flashes of brilliance. As you rightly say, "we'll never know".

 

i am absolutely sure that it boils down to personal preferences, and my personal preference is gilmour.

i rarely, if ever listen to those first 2 pink floyd albums, and put on, maybe 1 or 2 songs, if i do a comp CDR.

i guess i am just not a syd barrett fan.

 

Ah, thanks. I'm not up to date on a lot of releases at the moment!

 

And the film music recorded in 1969 for Michelangelo Antonioni's masterpiece Zabriskie Point (1970) is very good too.

 

Okay, right. got it.
On Nov. 12, 1967 they hit NYC and squeezed in that one quick Cheetah gig and then returned to London.....

 

50 years ago in July 1968..... Pink Floyd have made it to the promised land : California .... playing two dates at the Shrine Exposition Hall in Los Angeles .... a "Pinnacle Dance Concert".

 

I think they actually went to Rotterdam for a show on the 13th that survives as a bootleg and then to the Albert Hall London on the 14th for the start of the Jimi Hendrix package tour; Quite a brutal schedule.

 

Even Syd's rhythm guitar playing was f*cking nuts. Like, um...avantgardemeetsbodiddley'sbeachpartyattheufoclubsoundcheck.

 

When he was into it he was pure passion and improvisation like you rarely see. He didnt go crazy. The rest of band were just not THERE. They were college brats and he was frail. They poked him around and he got pissed off

 

It's pretty crazy to suggest that Floyd would have just fizzled out or put out terrible albums when Syds first shot of an album was an album that is pretty much considered a classic regardless if some people aren't fans of Piper. Had Syd not had his issues I could easily see him evolving quickly with the times as other artists of that era , as in improving his guitar playing, singing,etc...

 

The fact is that he did have an "issue". According to Rick Wright they did a scan of his brain and part of it died because he took too much LSD. No coming back from that.

 

Yep, huge step up. Syd wrote a couple catchy weird almost novelty certainly period piece singles and then was a disappointment. Never a world class guitarist or singer like DG.

 

Does anyone think Floyd would have still gone the prog route had Barrett stayed in the group (assuming he had no mental breakdown), or would they have morphed into something closer to "art rock" or glam rock had he remained?

Would Waters have still tried to take artistic control of the group?

 

Yes I get that I think I misunderstood your original point.

 

Right. Thanks, you inspired me to revisit the Rotterdam recording for the first time in a very long time.

 

I understand this all boils down to preference but let me say this:

David is an incredible guitarist and an “emotional” one at that. He has perfect note selection coupled with the right amount of notes. His voice is quite easy on the ears, with a timbre that’s quite distinct. He was by far, the most tuneful of anyone in the group. He's also an amiable fellow always wanting to do the right thing as it concerns a group of fellows with “huge egos” playing together in a room.

As a songwriter, when taking a closer look, it seems like he was always coupled with Waters, one of the others, or as a group. Nothing wrong with that and perfectly acceptable.

Let’s look at Syd -
He was certainly more than some guy that wrote a couple “catchy, weird tunes” I would say??
Arnold – Emily – Astronomy –Matilda – Lucifer – Interstellar - Bike – Octopus – Baby Lemonade – Gigolo Aunt – Terrapin – Dominoes – BD Blues – Elephant (That’s a few of the better ones off the top of my head that if you asked DG what he thought he’d probably say, I wrote some good songs, but never anything as good as that)

Yes, I agree that as a vocalist/guitarist DG has it over Syd. Then again, IMO, technique can also be construed as nothing more than some sort of failed style. Magic tricks; if you will. Houdini had plenty of those, too.

Just my .02. Carry on.

 

What's the source for this? It seems highly unlikely LSD use would result in tissue brain damage.

 

I can't say I am that blown away by Syd's songs. I liked the 2 hits and Interstellar and Astonomy had cool jams. I'm not saying Gilmour is a great writer either, but honestly the things I enjoy most about Floys are the sound of his guitar and Rick's keys, especially on extended instrumental passages, and I also like Nick's tasteful drum fills and the way David sings - though he often sang lyrics penned by others.

 

I agree, except for Jim Morrison, who I love....
However, Cobain shot himself at 27 to be in a club. I didn't like him or Nirvana, although his interviews weren't bad.

 

It’s called progression. Who knows what path they would have taken had Barrett had all his marbles and progressed with them. No one will ever know. Everything has its destiny. Floyd with Barrett could have been great in its own right. Who knows...

 

And I might add that one of the best aspects of David's guitar-playing, is his use of space -- not unlike Miles Davis (or Joe Henderson). Dave's music 'breathes' (specifically, his guitar-soloing) -- and has a very 'vocal'-like feeling to it. Maybe more than just about any other guitar player I can think of. The term 'lyrical' springs to mind, but it's more than just that. His bends, and his use of feedback which almost feels like vibrato added fairly late in the sounding of a note, but sparingly (not unlike someone like k.d. lang, who also uses vibrato sparingly, be masterfully).

I'm not sure Dave is really a "fantastic" improviser, per se, so much as he is an absolutely brilliant "singer" of the guitar. He's great vocal singer too (perhaps hair less so, in recent years). But the "singing" quality of his guitar-work is nearly unparalleled, far as I'm concerned.

To be clear: I don't think Dave is the very best there is at every aspect of guitar-playing (I'm not suggesting he's beyond measure on every scale) -- but in the areas where he has strengths, he just excels sometimes beyond measure.

 

Syd’s Pink Floyd was all about Syd.
A different band, different approach, and despite some genius songs, very much “of the time” and seriously- that kind of whimsy psychedelia exemplified by the out of control “Apples And Oranges” was dying. Now don’t get me wrong- I LOVE Barrett’s songs! But he was going deeper into a rabbit hole and was disrupting the band’s progress. Bringing in Gilmour was indeed the best thing that happened to Pink Floyd. Syd was DONE. They tried to keep the same vibe and sound, but it couldn’t work. 1968 was indeed a strange year but when they decided to be a different band, that’s when it came together. It DID take a while though! And it’s too bad Waters was the only member with enough vision to make the changes properly. But that’s how it worked. And they became great and iconic because of Waters’ strong character.

I like BOTH Floyds, but I mostly reach for the ‘71-‘79 era. There’s great stuff throughout, to be sure though.

 

Yeah, if there is any substance to this claim I'd like to hear more about it.
What kind of "brain scans" were they doing back in that day ?

 

Congrats to one of the most stupid assumptions I've ever read here.

 

I apologize. I misremembered exactly what he said. You can find exactly what he said at the 13:46 mark.



I also found this which starts at 33:37.

Pink Floyd - The Story of "Wish You Were Here" (2011)