Pink Floyd '1965' double 7"

I live in hope that the long-promised Early Years box set will materialize next year, where this material would fit right in. After all it was Nick Mason who promised such a set. The six songs now released come from his personal archive, and Mason hinted at a possible inclusion years ago.
On a positive note: this has to be the first time that Rado Klose sees any Pink Floyd royalties... not as much as Pete Best for Anthology, but still.

 

I'd only be annoyed not to being able to get if that thing at least sounded like Pink Floyd,but thank God is does not!

I would rate it as a third rate Pretty Things imitation(their softer side),and some of the vocals DO sound like Phil May....

So why bother..............?

 

Cos they're historically important artifacts from the genesis of one of rock music's most fabled and legendary bands?

Cos they include never before heard originals to add to the slim recorded canon of Syd Barrett, a totemic and iconic cult figure whose body of work is as hugely influential as it was small and short lived?

Because, despite the fact they don't sound much like anything Pink Floyd were famous for, they're still stronger (and better sounding) than the recorded work of The Beatles at the same stage in their career?

Interesting you point out a debt to the Pretty Things, when arguably by 1967 the tables had turned 180 degrees in that respect:

 

Creating more potential demand when they do eventually come out as part of some anthology of the early Pink Floyd (I speculate optimistically).

 

Though I've gotten the impression that Gilmour has put the breaks on archival projects from the late 60s and early 70s, I'm not sure if he's the one holding up this Syd era set. Hasn't he said previously that he wouldn't get in the way of releases from prior to his tenure with the band? I do share your frustration--seriously, what good reason could they have for nixing the release of their excellent BBC sessions?--but I'm cautiously optimistic that this new release is just a teaser for the long promised Syd set that Nick Mason has hinted at.

 

If that set ever does come to fruition, then these tracks are covered. (But would "Lucy Leave" and "King Bee" be affected by their prior bootleg status?)

Maybe these recordings aren't going to burn up the charts, but they are new Syd Barrett era tracks (mostly) previously unavailable. That alone will create demand.

I'm glad these are surfacing in some form.

 

Please accept my sincere apologies, I didn't realize that analogy was considered so offensive. thanks for scolding me dad..

 

Still, that is a weird way to go about marketing something. Even if they said, "we are releasing this super rare vinyl item as a preview for an upcoming more-general-market release in 2016" would be more acceptable and kinder to any fans who cannot find and/or afford this item (on say Ebay).

And anyone who buys this rare vinyl release now will most likely also buy any future release as well, so it sort of defeats the purpose (in my mind at least). The demand is already there; they don't need to artificially try to increase that demand.

 

I haven't heard it, but that sounds a lot more tempting than the elevator muzak of The Endless River.

 

Not necessarily.

As I stated earlier, this is insurance that they can KEEP the copyright. That doesn't mean they have any intention of putting the material on general release. Same thing as having had the copyright all these years already yet never releasing it.

I'm surprised people are ignoring this possibility. I mean, I understand being excited at the prospect of the vaults opening up but let's face it: there's no reason for a record company to all of a sudden choose to release something that's been under wraps for decades just because the copyright is about to expire. It makes MORE sense to me that they'd use whatever legal loophole exists, no matter how sneaky it is, to make sure those copyrights DON'T expire, so that they can CONTINUE preventing such material from being issued legally.

I'm sorry to be Doctor Doom here. And in the end I might not even be right. It's just that what I'm saying here seems to fit and is therefore what I suspect is really happening. I'd be happy to be wrong about this.

 

no.nine, why release it/open the vaults at all then? Now someone can bootleg it in much better quality and judging from the amount of cash these things are selling for, people will buy it..

 

Agree with you regarding point #1; Point #2 is much weaker considering the poor quality of these songs and the fact that most fan's of Syd's previously released songs will likely have little love for these ones. Point #3 is an odd one and I guess brought into the discussion based on the digital release of the 62-63 Beatles out-takes that some have mentioned in this thread? Regardless of the reason, I can't agree with the quality of the material or the performance surpassing the best the Beatles produced in 61-early 62. The recording quality is pretty good, but I'll take the Beatle's cover of "Ain't She Sweet" or the original "Like Dreamer's Do" over any of these songs.

 

When members of the band spoke about Syd (whether on a TV documentary or a PF DVD) that I have, at least Nick Mason sounded contrite about how they treated Syd at that time, and I have the recollection that Dave Gilmour came across the same way. I somehow imagine that in some way they are releasing this stuff to make amends and with respect for Syd Barrett's memory. I thought hearsay had it that it was Waters who was dragging his heals.

 

What you are saying is very true and might indeed be the case.

But as I argued earlier, these few songs are basically low on the value scale. They will only appeal to the diehards, and the monetary rewards of any release with these songs (whether it is released now or in 20 years) is limited by the number of diehards who really would be interested in this type of a product. If there are 10,000 diehards, these diehards will buy this product legally if it was made available and affordable. They won't be searching out some grey-market release that somehow snuck into the vault and got a hold of the rare recordings. But by handling this as a super rare vinyl release, it creates an opportunity for bootleggers to illegally market the songs or it creates a reselling frenzy where the diehards are ripped off in spending hundreds of dollars to find a copy.

So I just don't get the "plan" behind doing this.

 

While I'd love a copy of this set as the Syd Barrett era of Floyd is the only Floyd i'm interested in, I'd be way more jazzed if they pressed a mono Piper and another set collecting everything else.

 

Absolutely. This is exactly what I can't figure out. Why release it at all if you really don't want to? And especially since the value of these recordings is fairly low anyhow. I really doubt there will be massive amounts of people in the year 2050 clambering to buy grey-market versions of these songs.

 

What I have read in the past (mostly from informed members here) is Waters has no problem releasing some of these old Syd-era recordings and that he actually believed Scream and Vegetable Man had already been officially released. Dave supposedly will not veto releasing any recordings that were made prior to his joining the band in January, '68.

 

Because I generally like The Pretties more than Floyd? Syd-era excluded of course.

 

I think point #2 is valid: There is a huge obsession over Syd Barrett and any artifacts relating to him: the fact that there was an official release of his art school book a few years ago is testament to the act that anything he was artistically involved in is of great interest to his fans. Also, I don't think the songs are as poor quality as people are making out: 'Butterfly', while primitive, sounds like a very Syd-ish song, 'Remember Me' doesn't sound like Pink Floyd but seems like a fairly strong garage rocker on it's own terms, 'Walk with me Sydney' is a tuneful curiosity that you would think fans of Syds music-hall side would at least entertain (I know he didn't write it, but the point stands); 'Double O Bo' sounds like the most generic but still seems at least lyrically like it had some thought put into it that hints at Syds talents.

The Beatles point was probably my weakest as it's all down to personal taste (and I do like a lot of the Beatles Decca stuff) but I think this stuff (mostly a variety of originals) could be argued to display greater artistic ambition than The Beatles array of recorded covers and tuneful but not ground - breaking sprinkling of originals of the 61-2 era.. It certainly stands comparison with it anyway.

 

They're really interesting. Yes, they are dated, and they do have much in common with lots of British bands at that time. But they still have a sense of Syd in there – isn't that enough?

In some way they remind me of the early Bowie songs recorded for Pye – not Bowie as we would know him, but charming and still fascinating to hear.

I like Lucy, I like their version of King Bee and I like what I have heard of Butterfly.

Essential to early Floyd fans and we've been robbed!

 

Because of the part of the Copyright law which states that material unreleased after 5o years falls into Public Domain. However - as I understand it anyway - there's apparently a loophole by which such a release doesn't have to be in a number that actually makes it readily available. Hence, a limited RSD release.

I might have something wrong here because I'm no expert on Copyright Law (or ANY kind of law ), but like I posted earlier, there was a similar situation where Columbia released for the first time some Dylan material on CDR(s), but in an absurdly low number. From what I was able to gather at the time, it turned out that the realease was most likely for the sole purpose of renewing the copyright. To my knowledge, there was no commercial release of that material concurrently nor subsequently.

That's a good point. But I suspect that the Copyright holder would prefer that scenario to leaving the material unreleased completely and therefore losing their Copyright altogether.

 

The negative reaction totally baffles me. Okay, this doesn't sound like Dark Side of the Moon -- it oughtn't, it's a nascent version of the Syd band. But it's a fascinating historical document and really not bad at all in terms of how early it is in their development. See: the Dead at a similar stage. There are plenty of hints of Syd's later idiosyncrasies as a songwriter, and Roger's first song is quite damn amusing and recognizable as Roger.

 

I bet Bob Klose is beaming with pride First time he has ever been on an official Floyd release.

 

I don't think the material is terrible, Jon.. I think the limited release and the price people are paying is what's causing the negative reaction. I'd buy this in a heartbeat at $15

 

I agree, it's not likely that your average Pink Floyd fan, now or in the future, is likely to get too excited about these particular tracks. However, I'd bet this is part of a larger strategy. Maybe Floyd (they're the ones licensing this) simply want the RIGHT to decide at some point in the future, to include them as bonus tracks or as part of a large retrospective. Or not. <---- And that's really my big point. It's about control, not necessarily WHAT they want to do with these tracks or any unreleased ones which may follow. I really believe it's more about being able to release OR legally suppress them, which they can't do if the Copyright expires.

A small handful of diehard fans having the songs might be a small price they're willing to pay in order to retain their control.