Talk:Syd Barrett/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

synesthesia

some have claimed for syd to have sound-color synesthesia. does anybody have any information about this, with references. --Violarulez (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt at all that Syd/Roger Barrett experienced music-related synaesthesia, and there is evidence that he used it during his songwriting. Willis's biography is the best source of info about his synaesthesia, and Barrett's sister described his synaesthesia in this article: http://www.thecitywakes.org.uk/syd_barrett_memories.htm

The big question is whether or not it was just the result of LSD, or natural synaesthesia. If anyone can find evidence that he had synaesthesia as a child that would settle that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.201.103 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.sydbarrett.net/subpages/articles/ordiinary_brother.htm

I don't see how the article alluded to answers the question of whether Mr Barrett was a natural synaesthete or simply a regular person who experienced synaesthesia as an effect of LSD. I believe he was autistic, but that doesn't prove he also had synaesthesia. The two conditions can both be caused by one gene, but I believe there are other genes for autism and for synaesthesia. One can have AS or autism and still not have synaesthesia, and vice versa. Natural synaesthesia is a relatively common condition, so he could have had it.

I think Barrett's synaesthesia is noteworthy because it clearly was involved with the way he experienced music and synaesthesia was probably involved in the way he created music. In various books about Barrett and Pink Floyd there are mentions of Rado Klose's reports about Barrett's report of a yellow sound, and also mentions of the way Barrett visually represented his songs with colours. Someone should ask an expert on LSD whether the types of synaesthesia that Barrett could have been the result of LSD. Would there be any point in making a record of the colours of musical sounds if the synaesthesia is from LSD? Does LSD type synaesthesia produce RELIABLE effects like genuine synaesthesia? Would a particular sound be the same colour from trip to trip, or is there no reproducible pattern in coloured sounds produced by LSD? Reliability is a criterion used to discern genuine synaesthesthetes from imposters, but is LSD synesthesia also reliable?

Could I ask that if anyone writes in the article about Mr Barrett's synaesthesia, that it NOT be included in the "Mental State" section. Synaesthesia is NOT considered to be a mental disorder or mental illness or disability. And I can't believe there is no mention of Asperger syndrome in this article (which also is not mental illness).

Syd's smarts?

I've got a question, probably not answerable. Was Mr Barrett ever given any type of IQ test? Any record of such testing in his school records? Anything about this in any biography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.201.103 (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barbican Centre tribute

While I think the Barbican Centre concert is important to note in this entry, I'm not sure it belongs in Influences, tacked on after his death or linked to as its own entry. Comments? MartinSFSA 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving this to Death, although it leaves that section bulging. It fits there less badly than in Influences, unless anyone wants to start a dedicated tributes section? MartinSFSA 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


X Files Episode

"Lord of the Flies" - Syd is pretty central to this episode, not sure if it's entirely relevant to the page, but I can't think of any other references to SB in popular culture other than this. Might be worth mentioning? I'd do it myself, but i'm not entireley sure what counts as ettiqutte on wiki so didn't want to spoil the page.


Stars

I have not seen the Jack Monck interview mentioned in this section, but I did sound for the band at those last couple of shows at the Corn Exchange. The first one, on the Thursday, opening for the MC5, was indeed a disaster - not through any fault of the band particularly, but because they had been set up too far apart on the stage and their were no monitors on the MC5's PA system - which, in fact, consisted of one big amp with a volume knob. I had to run back and forth between front and back stage continuously adjusting to try to get it as loud as possible. The band had only played small intimate venues beforehand and was not prepared for this. The mood of the band was ok after the show - you can't win them all kind of thing. Two days later they opened for Nektar and it was a whole different deal. Nektar had two WEM Audiomasters - 10 channels with monitors, and we'd learnt our lesson and put the band closer together. It was a great show, well received. Everyone happy. Which made it all the more a bit of a shock when the Roy Hollingworth review of the Thursday show appeared. The review, as I recall it, did not talk particularly much about Stars, but went on about how Roy, a professional scenester, felt totally alienated from the young crowd at the show. He was in a weird mood and predisposed to write unfavorably. I later was able to listen to a cassette of the Nektar show and confirm in my mind that it was good. Unfortunately neither that tape, nor any others, appear to have survived. For those of you that wonder what Stars was about I can tell you that it was a basically a free jazz trio, with Monck & Alder kicking along lightfooted rhythms that gave Syd plenty of room to improvise freely. Psychedelic skiffle. The material was from his solo and Pink Floyd. All three were definitely enjoying playing so much that they were perhaps oblivious to the public interest and Syd's fragile state. Which came back to bite them. Wwwhatsup 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The Last Minute Put-Together Boogie Band were recorded at the Cambridge Corn Exchange on 27/1/1972. They featured Bruce Payne (vocals & guitar), Jack Monck (bass), Twink (drums), Fred Frith (guitar) and Syd Barrett (guitar). See FraKcman's blog. Drwhawkfan 12:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The first time Syd played with the LMPTBB was at a small Kings College show when they played with Eddie Guitar Burns. Syd jammed on one song. I believe these two shows were just about it for the LMPTBB. I wasn't present at either show altho I was sharing a house with Twink and Payne at the time. I was away for some reason. I've never heard those audio samples before.Payne was a somewhat vain and very career oriented american who went on to join Steamhammer. He wasn't very compatible with Syd, and when Twink showed more interest in Syd, Bruce got pissed off and moved out and that was the end of the LMPTBB. Syd, Jack and Twink would jam in the back room of Steve Brink's What's In A Name boutique next door, which was actually underneath my room and I used to hear them while reading or crashed or whatever. Having missed the earlier shows I had no idea who Syd was and had already got quite well acquainted over cups of tea before I found out. There never was, to my knowledge, a band called the Syd Barrett All Stars. Brink was the promoter of the Corn Exchange shows. I trust this will help someone make a more accurate summary of this phase of Syd's life.Wwwhatsup 05:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

For the record I agree with the anonymous editor who repeatedly removes the United Kingdom's added by Parsnip. Parsnip keeps reverting the edit, in the latest instance giving the reason: not superflous. England has not been a country in hundreds of years. However the England article commences by saying England (pronounced IPA: /ˈɪŋglənd/) (Old English: Englaland, Middle English: Engelond) is the largest and most populous constituent country[1][2] of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.. I believe the UK qualification to be superfluous and unnecessary clutter. Wwwhatsup 04:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not superflous or unnecessary clutter. Leaving it off creates the incorrect implication that England is an independent country. It would be like saying Vladimir Putin was born in Leningrad, Russian SFSR, and leaving off Soviet Union. It's incomplete and it's incorrect. Nobody of consequence 14:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, in your example I would say that just Leningrad would be sufficient, since there is no ambiguity, and anyone needing further info can follow the link. In the case of Cambridge, there are many Cambridges, but only one Cambridge, England. There are no other Englands that I know of outside of the UK. Wwwhatsup 20:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge, England is absolutely acceptable in Wikipedia, I haven't seen any other instances where England needs to be qualified as being part of the UK (or EU, for that matter) - there's no point, England is a country that can't be confused with any other. Drwhawkfan 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

England is a constituent country, which is effectively only a part of a sovreign nation. I think it is best to rotate between using England/England and United Kingdom/British throughout the article. This is both comprimise and balance. I really wouldn't like to see this article destroyed by edit wars with have affected other articles. I am from the UK (England) and realise that the seperate terms stir up much emotion in people, but let's be mature as we can as the Syd article is one of the most well-written and interesting musician articles on Wikipedia, I feel. TomGreen 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomGreen (talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter what our POV is, if the standard being used is "The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the administrative centre of the county of Cambridgeshire.", then we must accept this and adopt it, however begrudging we may feel. There are two very good reasons for this: 1. It ensures consistency thoughout Wikipedia, and 2. Removes any reason for a petty edit war. Drwhawkfan 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Solo live recordings

The "Solo live recordings" were actually recordings made for the BBC. They were pre-recorded in the studio, allowing for multiple takes and overdubs (and there are lots of overdubs on these recordings) and can in no way be construed as being "live". Also, is the Pink Floyd years (1965–1968) section really necessary, surely it's mainly covered in the Pink Floyd article? And all of those scurrilous "Mental state" stories, do we really want to perpetuate such hearsay? Drwhawkfan 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Royalties from early works

I found this hard to follow on a first reading. Overall, I think this article does not need much word to regain GA status, and given the subject, it should deserve FA status. I've put it on my "todo" list, so if you feel like pitching in, that would be fine. Harry Chrimble. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ayers/Barrett axis?

I read an interview with Nick Mason in (Brain Damage?) where he was prompted about Kevin Ayers' identity as "Syd's friend." He responded that he knew who Ayers was but that he wasn't Syd's friend. Does anyone have any better information? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever read anywhere that Ayers and Barrett were close friends. It's certainly possible they were, but since there's no citable evidence to support it (other than their musical collaboration), I guess it's best to eliminate OR. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"obscure" v. "obtuse"

I watched this with some amusement. "Obtuse" is not being used here to mean "stupid", but "off the wall". It seems to me that "obscure" would be equally valid, since it's clear from that anecdote that Syd was playing a prank on the rest of the band, which is somewhat predicated by the title of the song. To avoid any further argument, I propose "idiosyncratic" as a more neutral alternative. Any comments? We really should be concentrating on getting this article back to GA status. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I've made the suggested change. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it is more likely the original editor meant obscure rather than idiosyncratic (because obtuse has recently been often confused with obscure by certain pop music fans who are possibly not as well read as they might be), idiosyncratic, or perhaps a stronger term such as eccentric, may be better. I'm fine with idiosyncratic though. Thanks for the suggestion.

For the record:

From the Heinemann English Dictionary, p.4: "Do not confuse abstruse with obtuse: abstruse means 'difficult to understand' (an abstruse academic debate), whereas obtuse means 'slow to understand' (an obtuse student).

From the Internet (http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2006/05/picking-nits.html): "I’m gobsmacked by how often the word 'obtuse' is misused, and misused with great flamboyance. 'Obtuse', people, means nothing more complicated or intense than 'a lack of intelligence or sensitivity'. So stop referring to the work of your favourite writers or poets (or your own work :for that matter) as obtuse. You’re probably thinking of something midway between 'obscure' and 'abstruse' (both of which are slightly more dashing words and indicate something that’s enigmatic or difficult to understand, which is the meaning you’re likely looking for). When you preen and tell me that you are stimulated by 'obtuse writing', I begin to suspect that maybe you really are."

Note, please, that Merriam-Webster purports to be purely "descriptive" (and seems to me to be getting more aggressively anti-"prescriptive" all the time). This means that it lists all the ways it discovers a word to be used and makes no judgement about whether the usage is proper. It follows that Merriam-Webster cannot be used as a source with which to cite proper usage. TheScotch (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

BBC ban for Arnold Layne?

Did the BBC actually ban "Arnold Layne" from airplay, or is this an urban myth of sorts? The Arnold Layne article states only that the off-shore commercial station Radio London banned it, and at least one website quotes Roger Waters as saying "In fact, it's only Radio London that have banned the record. The BBC and everybody else plays it." Is this just a case of people confusing the now-defunct Radio London with the BBC London station (what is now BBC London 94.9) and the various national BBC stations that are broadcast from London? 217.155.20.163 (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It was Radio London NOT the BBC. I've changed it. The Roger Waters interview which you mention appears in "Pink Floyd - A Visual Documentary by Miles" (1980) NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Longer lead needed

I've twice tagged this article and asked several times for an expanded lead section which is in accordance with WP:Lead. This article is 44k long and I have suggested aiming for a lead of 4 paragraphs.

I know some other leads are much shorter, but they cover much shorter articles. For example, Mick Jagger has one paragraph as a lead, but the article only 16k long. Longer articles need longer leads, as WP:Lead explains.

I only persist in making this request because I can't see how the article could possibly become a GA without a much expanded lead section. Johnfos (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining in discussion, Johnfos. I agree with your arguments. To bring the article to GA status, the lead should be expanded to look more like other Good Articles about musicians, such as Paul McCartney and Kurt Cobain.
(Also, I was the one who renominated the article for GA status. I hadn't read or edited the article before, but I was uncharacteristically impressed with it. It answered all my questions, and all the claims made appeared to be well sourced and well organized. I looked at the history and I was further impressed by how the article has been steadily improved since it lost GA status). I'll try and expand the lead myself, but as I've yet to write a proper fullsized lead section, it may take me awhile (on the order of days). I'd be overjoyed if someone beat me to it. -Verdatum (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Links

Look at this: to see the dead or broken links in this article.--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

Needs a lot more referencing. Here's some stuff to look at specifically...

  • The lead needs expansion per above. You should mention every section in the article, at least.
  • "thirty years.His" - need space after full stop
  • "including a future Prime Minister of Japan." - no harm in saying his name
  • ", now known as Hills Road Sixth Form College" - not really relevent
  • First para of Pink Floyd years (1964–1968) section unsourced
    • Same with 3rd para
  • "(despite a ban by the BBC)" - why? Also would probably work better out of brackets...
  • "At that same time at Abbey Road the Beatles were recording Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in Studio 1 and the Pretty Things were recording S.F. Sorrow." - ref?
  • "or not playing at all[8]." - ref should go after the full stop
  • "to cover for Barrett as Barrett's" - Barrett's --> his to avoid repetition
  • "the band elected not to pick Barrett up" - sourcing is a major problem in this article...
  • Last para of the 1964-1968 section unsourced
  • The Solo years (1968–1972) section has 1 ref in total
  • "(Monck describes just how disastrous it was in a TV interview in 2001 for the BBC Omnibus series documentary 'Crazy Diamond')" - is this relevant?
  • "NME produced a tribute" - NME goes in italics

I didn't end up reading the whole article, but it could do with copyediting after everything etc sourced. etc. Hope this helps, and leave me a note if you have questions/comments. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbican tribute Floyd split

Though Pink Floyd did appear at Syd's memorial concert, there was a notable absence in the finale, which everyone else returned to the stage for. Can anyone argue why this'd not be relevant to the entry?MartinSFSA (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I'd like to request that folks be more careful about uploading images. The image that was in the infobox until a couple minutes ago was a copyvio. the person who has it on their Flickr acount was only 3 years old when that photo was taken, and I very much doubt Barrett had random 3 year olds in his flat in 1968. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Age

I want to know if there is any sources out there that say that Syd Barrett was born after November 27 1952.I am looking for people that were listed on wikipedia being born from 1941 to November 27 1952 that were really born after November 27 1952 (like wikipedia says Joe Schmo was born in 1948 but Joe Schmo was really born in 1954) is Syd Barrett at least 7 years younger than the age you listed him at??? And can i have some examples of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason69535554 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such source known.MartinSFSA (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If Barrett had been born 11/27/52, he would've been only fourteen when Piper at the Gates of Dawn was released, which strikes me as extremely unlikely. You'll find two different James Brown birth dates being bandied about at the James Brown discussion page, however. TheScotch (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mysterious people

Was the inclusion of Syd in Category:Mysterious people a joke? He seriously doesn't conform to the criteria. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"just because a person is reclusive or hides his activities is not a reason to include him in this category" - so I'd say he doesn't belong. --Rodhullandemu 16:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd assume the inclusion was ill judged, on the flimsy criteria of his stage name--or just plain old trolling. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Official web site

This does appear to be authorized by his estate, as it's copyright to One Fifteen, Dave Gilmour's company. Does anyone have more on this? MartinSFSA (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I took it out because I couldn't get into the site earlier today, just got a time-out, and the link was added by an anon IP who has never edited here before. I have seen edits of sites that say "official website" and when you go to the site, there is no such claim on the site itself, so I was dubious. I'm trying again, and now I'm getting a page saying I can't get into the site because my computer doesn't have Flash enabled (which is true). I can get to Gilmour's site, and I see it doesn't have the usual "about us" / legal blurb link. The only copyright notice on Gilmour's site is for David Gilmour Music Ltd., no mention of One Fifteen. The "links" page on Gilmour's site has no mention of the Barrett site, and you would think it would, if they were maintained by the same person. I don't see a "contact us" page on Gilmour's site for questions. So, I don't know where to go from here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone has better info than a copyright notice on the site, it'll be fine without. MartinSFSA (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The person who inserted it has added it again (in 2 places this time), but under a different IP. I'll take it out and leave a message on the IP's talk page, but if it's a changing IP it might not get read. If the editor is reading this, please respond here and tell us about the site. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same IP all the time..Have no I idea why it has changed. Anyway, if you look at the first page of the website (sydbarrett.com), you'll find out, it is the official one - they say, it is. It's about his life, his work with Floyd and his art. There are some rare photos as well. And it has got it's official store attached to it. That's all I can say. PF's official site still hasn't got the link to it, but I hope, they'll do. Oh and some domain registration info here --62.168.170.155 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 62.168.170.155, I've written to the site registrant for some context. Just because it says it's official isn't verification, although claiming it belongs to Dave Gilmour's management company is enough to get the people behind it in trouble if it's not. The reason your IP changes is because they vary over time.MartinSFSA (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
If it is a fansite link, it may not qualify for inclusion unless there is specific information that is being referenced to enhance the article. (Hint: Surely you can find something already in the article that can use this website as a reference.) I also have a concern about the description: "celebrating Barrett's life and work" which reads like an advertisement, as well as WP:POV. See also WP:LINKSPAM and also WP:FANCRUFT. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
PS, if you have any connection with the people who set up that site, could you please let them know that not everyone has Flash enabled (it's a pain for users with older computers, it's just too resource-sapping), and therefore a site that blocks non-Flash users is a site that is not available to all. Some sites have an alternate non-Flash version, but an acceptable compromise is to put the basic info and navigation in regular html, and use Flash only where necessary, keeping in mind that the Flash portions won't be viewable by all. (Gilmour's site is an example of this method.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
They've gotten back to me and I'm willing to call it on the site's behalf. Owned by Barrett's family, administered by Gilmour's management, proceeds to the Syd Barrett Trust. But I didn't pass on your complaints about Flash; that goes without saying! MartinSFSA (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. (And BTW, I've seen the site now, using a second computer.) I'm glad to see a less ad-like description, and has now been inserted just once. Do you think it might be better to avoid the word "official" (even though it's used on the website) since it's such a contentious word, over-used and quesitonable when it's about a person who is not living? "Syd Barrett webside created by his estate and David Gilmour's management" sounds better, and sums up what we've learned about it. Also, I don't think the Flash problem needs to be mentioned, and they might change that in future anyway. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The executors of an estate are officially empowered to act on behalf of that estate. Anything they do or produce, in that role, is by definition, official. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Later Years (1972–2006)

"In 1978, when the money ran out, he walked back to Cambridge to live in his mother's basement."

I've seen this sentence on several places on WWW and it does not ring true to me - reeks of writer's "license" and conjuring up some image of poor Syd/Roger as a (aspiring ?) reclusive hermit confined to a self-imposed hell after wearing his shoes out walking from London to Cambridge. Anybody know where the "story" came from or have better info? Is this the the origin of the story, which has propagated elsewhere, or is it the other way around?

First the idea of choosing to "walk" 60-odd miles, when there are other means of getting from London to Cambridge, seems like a nonsense; if he really didn't have a penny to his name for a train or bus, surely he would have "hitched". As for the "basement", I've seen pictures of his mother's house and in my experience such semi-detached English houses do not have a basement - in fact very few, if any, English houses have a basement. Unless someone has explicit evidence of the "walk" and the "basement", in the interest of accuracy and removal of over-dramatization, this should simply be changed to read that he went home to live with his mother in her house.Scunnerous (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Watkinson & Anderson (p. 125) have this: "The years of frivolous spending were coming to an end for Barrett. What had once seemed a bottomless pit of royalties ran dry and rising rents made it impossible for him to stay at Chelsea Cloisters. The following year, 1979, saw him back with his mother in Cambridge - a declared bankrupt"...
No "walking home" there, and no melodramatic "back to the basement" statement either - off the top of my head, I think he did live in a basement room (sorry, I don't have time to go through Watkinson to confirm it, but if he did, I'm sure it's in there). But this wasn't a basement containing a bag of cement and one light bulb - it was a normal bedroom (if I remember rightly per Watkinson, it was actually a rather well-appointed one)...
I agree this sentence as it reads currently evokes an unnecessary and misleading violin softly playing in the background... --DaveG12345 (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Instruments

I didnt know he could play piano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.49.40 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the infobox should be a summary of content also found in the article. The article says nothing about this. So feel free to challenge it or remove it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Syd and hendrix

Syd and hendrix where experimenting in similar manner in from mid 1966 to early 67. Wound this be worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.186.207 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but you may want to restate that. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Psychedelic rock"

So, he's mainly identified as a psychedelic rock artist. WTF? Everyone knows Pink Floyd were a prog rock band! I don't want to be a genre warrior here, but this is blatantly obviously wrong. Seriously. Sure, some of their stuff is kind-of psychedelic, but that goes with prog rock. Identifying them as "psychedelic rock" gives people the wrong idea about Syd Barrett and Pink Floyd. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Floyd may be famous in their prog incarnation, but it's a bit of a stretch to say the band Syd fronted was also prog. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I did the reverting. Early Pink Floyd, while Barrett was a member, were a psychedelic rock band. See The Piper at the Gates of Dawn for more information. The band didn't change into a progressive rock band until David Gilmour replaced Barrett and Roger Waters got more involved in songwriting. Personally, as someone who finds prog rock to be boring, the only Pink Floyd albums I own are Piper and Relics. Saying that Barrett-era Pink Floyd was progressive is incorrect. -- Foetusized (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Technically they were progressive, as progressive rock is rooted in psychedelic rock, and both share a lot of attributes. However, Psychedelic is by far the more specific genre, while progressive is more of a all-encompassing genre. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wall film

I have never heard the film attributed by Waters to being about Syd, merely the shaving incident. If there's any evidence to the contrary, please cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's partly about Syd (the drugs), but also (and even more) about Waters (the whole childhood and marriage scenes), plus Pink Floyd, Roy Harper (the groupie), Rick Wright (the grand piano) etc. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The scene where "Pink" destroys the hotel room, with the woman crouched in the corner, that is direct reference to Barrett and an incident with his girlfriend Lynsey. The overbearing mother, locking himself in hotel rooms, etc. were biographical to Barrett. Band interviews are very clear on this. CassiasMunch (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A casual observer might think that if Roger Waters had intended The Wall to be about Syd, he would have said so; however, he hasn't, so far as I'm aware. Although parallels might be drawn between incidents in Syd's life and events in the film, we cannot do that. If reliable sources have done so, we may cite them, but there is no particular reason to give them undue weight. All artistic works are open to interpretation, but WP is not a publisher of original thought; it is, if you like, a recycler of what already exists. If Roger Waters, or any other reliable source, has drawn parallels between Syd's life and The Wall, we may cite them. Until then, we may not. --Rodhullandemu 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This whole scene is, if we believe Schaffner, inspired by Roy Harper in 1975 (Knebworth concert). Schaffner also mentions the girlfriend episode but with no connection to The Wall if I remember right. Plus, Waters always has referred to his own mother (who had to compensate the missing father) and not Barrett's. Again, of course this album is heavily inspired by Barrett but not as directly as you might think.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand Shaffner was an idiot with bad teeth and Saucerfull is little more than a series of nasty claims about Syd. To be totally fair to all parties and quite objective in my evaluation. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
How is making personal attacks against a dead person being objective? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Syd Barrett in Full House

The "Full House"episode entitled "We Got the Beat" shows D.J. pretending to play a guitar in the opening few seconds, and the song, by my best reckoning, is a snippet of "Love Song." While my pitch is far from perfect, that Uncle Joey uses the word "Madcap" in the same scene seems to confirm a sort of easter egg, or if nothing else, a fan amidst the writers. Can anyone with perfect pitch confirm this? 76.124.108.251 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)ZWR

His whereabouts during the early 80s

In 1981 or 1982 (can't remember which) I had occasion to visit a friend at the time who was working at a psychiatric rehabilitation centre in Essex, England. On commenting on some artwork, I was told it had been done by Syd Barrett, who had checked out the previous week.

Worth chasing up on this, or is it either still too personal and off-limits, or irrelevant, for this page? --Matt Westwood 13:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - ignore this post - I've just seen a reference to it near the end of the article. --Matt Westwood 13:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Covers of Syd Barrett songs by artists other than Pink Floyd

Wondering if it's appropriate to include a section mentioning or listing cover versions of Syd's songs by other well known artists, e.g. Dark Globe by R.E.M./Robyn Hitchcock, or Love Song by Livid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Didn't Hitchcock did Vegetable Man as well? --Matt Westwood 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitchcock has done a number of Syd Barrett covers. There is a mention now in the article of him participating at the memorial concert but I think more could be made of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.149.100.10 (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

legacy

the story about his showing up for 'shine on...' doesn't belong here, but at the end of the pink section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.34.145.82 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

An introduction to Syd Barrett

An Introduction to Syd Barrett - this is listed in category 'Syd Barrett Albums'. The album is official (as you can see). Shouldn't it be included in Syd Barrett Compilations? --Floydgeo (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Section tag

I added a {{sections}} tag to the subsection "the Pink Floyd years", because I think it looks a lot longer than it should be as a subsection without subsubsections. (Whew!) If you disagree with me, it's okay to remove this tag. I will not revert it. --I dream of horses (T) @ 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Jenner Interview

There's a new interview with Pete Jenner here. Might be able to glean the odd ref. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Syd Image

Can't we have an image of Syd in better days? 67/8? Pre melt down...60s Syd, not like the current 70s.

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.247.193 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Art

The article mentions that he returned to making art in his later days. For what it's worth, the cover for the 1997 album 'Lunar Muzik' by Ant-Bee is by Syd. I wonder how Billy James come into contact with him, if Syd is as reclusive as most articles suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.151.90.247 (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC Radio 4 programme

The radio 4 programme The twilight world of Syd Barrett is available to listen to (from UK ip addresses) for the next few days. Richerman (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Toothbrush anecdote

If The Independent's source is the Wright interview in the BBC Omnibus Crazy Diamond (which seems highly likely), the quote is "kept jumping up to brush his teeth" (IIRC) and a more conventional interpretation is he kept standing and brushing, rather than a fanciful conflation of the two motions. MartinSFSA (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Cited a source for interpretation number two, this time an unambiguous Wright quote collated by recognised authority. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede regarding leaving the band

I've changed the wording of the lede regarding Barrett's departure and included a citation. There's really no need for the level of detail, the body of the article explains how and why Barrett left/was not picked up in detail. Saying he was "left out" is poor writing, makes it sound like he was left out of playing baseball at recess one day or something. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mental State

I think it should be pointed out that psychiatric diagnosis is a controversial activity. Many authors such as Peter Breggin continue to question the scientific validity of psychiatric diagnosis and its value to the individual so diagnosed. Members of the psychiatric user/survivor movement have personally testified to the damage that psychiatric diagnosis has caused in their lives. Have some respect! Roger (Syd) Barrett was not a specimen, he was a genius and his records will always testify to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzimum (talk • contribs) 07:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm with Mitzimum here. As reported here, Laing's "diagnosis" was made on the basis of a tape recording, FFS. --Matt Westwood 08:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
That may all be true, but it needs sources in the article; the sentence as it stood just read like personal editorial opinion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Mitzimum, this is an encyclopedic article and all it does is show reported facts. Your personal convictions regarding the efficacy of psychiatric diagnoses is not germane to this article. And inserting a personal analysis of this violates a host of guidelines, including WP:POV and WP:OR. If you'd like to post conflicting opinions regarding psychiatry, then find sources to back up your beliefs and then post them at the article on psychiatry, not on an article about a musucian. Furthermore, it's obvious from your statement that you're a Barrett fan here to pay homage and worship your hero, with statements about "respect" and his "genius". These are subjective opinions. Someone who dislikes his music could just as easily come here and say his music was atrocious, we wouldn't allow that any more than statements that he's a genius. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fan page. Night Ranger (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism

Maybe we should point out that he was an Atheist: http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Syd_Barrett (as well as other members of Floyd: Nick Mason, Roger Waters and David Gilmour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.13.162.60 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Syd Barrett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As a longtime Floyd fan but not a contributor to this article, I'll start this off.

  • Second lead paragraph : "Besides being a pioneer..." is too much of a fan's POV. If you can source the claim he is a pioneer in this music, then fine, but Nicholas Schaffner's book claims AMMusic were the pioneers of this style of music, who the Floyd then took as inspiration.

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Early years :
  • "... although research on Syd Barrett genealogy has not found any relation yet" probably doesn't need to be there - this might not be correct later and it doesn't really tell the reader anything

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Couldn't find a ref. Removed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • London underground : What's the relevance of Peter Jenner going on to manage Ian Dury in this article?

 Done Removed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Solo Years (1968-72) : "it is believed that he wrote few new songs after he left Pink Floyd." Says who? This needs a citation or clearing up.

 Done Coudn't find a ref. Removed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Final recordings" has a citation needed tagged on it

 Done Couldn't find a ref again. Removed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Withdrawal to Cambridge" also has a citation needed tagged on it

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Legacy" / "Complications" also has a citation needed tagged on it

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Musical and pop culture influence" - none of the named influences have any references tagged, possibly violating WP:BLP (it doesn't say when they expressed an influence from Barrett, and they might have changed their mind since, albeit unlikely).

 Done Finished. 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Commemoration and recent events" has a redlink

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Filmography" : "Syd's First Trip" is a redlink

 Done yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As this is the first GA review I've done, I'd prefer to defer a final decision to a mentor. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Finally finished. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 22:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Good work. There were a couple of other things I found, but I haven't had a chance to list them. They were all MOS things and a few missing references. I was hoping to list them before you'd finished the list, but unfortunately real life intervened. Sorry about that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


Okay, here are the next batch of comments. I've been through the article thoroughly and listed everything I can see. Some are very minor to do with punctuation, but it's important we get these to pass the GA.


  • The second paragraph of the lead contains only one sentence. This would be preferable to split into multiple sentences and combine with the third paragraph.
  • "BlackHill Enterprises and gigs" - 15min should read "15 minute"
  • "Tonite Let's All Make Love in London" - one sentence reads very badly, with many spelling mistakes. Would recommend changing to "Here, the band recorded a 16 minute version of "Interstellar Overdrive" and another composition, "Nick's Boogie".
  • "....and the footage was used in the film" does not need a comma after it - would recommend changing to ", which was used in the film"
  • "Record deal". ",however" on the first line should be the start of a new sentence. "Later in February" should just read "In February" (no preceding text mentions anything happening specifically in Februrary '67)
  • "at the lead of Waters" - confusing verb, change to "at the suggestion of Waters"?
  • "Mason on the choice of "Arnold Layne"" - doesn't have a finite verb, change to something like "Referring to the choice of "Arnold Layne", Nick Mason said"
  • "...recording an album,. Which meant" - the punctuation is wrong here, no full stop and capital 'w'
  • "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" - "By the time the album, Piper" - doesn't need "Piper" as the preceding paragraph establishes the context of what album this section is talking about

 Done Everything above. Working on the rest. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Barrett's departure from Pink Floyd" - can you get a second source for his behaviour being partly attributable to drugs. It's a well known opinion but can be considered negative in tone, so I think it needs to be very watertight to give proper weight and NPOV. The later "Mental state" paragraph seems to directly contract this, with Gilmour saying his mental breakdown would have happened anyway.
I can't find a second ref for this. Should I remove it? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Solo years (1968-72)" The punctuation in the first sentence needs looking at
  • "The Madcap Laughs" - "...was in a mess of a state, from taking heroin, apperently" - "apperently" should read "apparently" and I would probably just take out the reference to heroin completely
  • "Jokes Wild (Gilmour's old band)" should read "Joker's Wild"
  • ",however, the latter is on bass" reads confusingly. Change to "Gilmour himself played bass."
  • ", on the released versions a number of them..." - Make this a new sentence
  • "But perhaps wewere trying to punish him" should read "we were"
  • "Start and final recordings" - "Monck described how disastrous it was in a 2001 TV interview for the BBC Omnibus series documentary 'Crazy Diamond'." This doesn't really tell us anything. Either take a quote from the documentary, citing it as a source, or leave it out.

 Done Everything above. Working on the rest. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  • "Withdrawl to Cambridge" - "induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" needs a citation. Povey's book probably has one I can dig out.
Could you ref that? Sadly, I don't have Povey's book. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, when I clear the loft this evening I'll dig out my copy. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Aah thank you so much. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Compilations" - The paragraph about bootlegs has no sources
  • "Creative impact" - "His experimentation was partly inspired ... " this sentence doesn't seem to end properly. Can you check the punctuation on it?
  • "Musical and pop culture influence" - Jimmy Page, Brian Eno and The Damned have no sources against them.
  • "Townshend called Barrett "legendary" " - no source
  • "the title track [Wish You Were Here] being specifically about him" - no source. I'm reasonably sure the Floyd themselves have said Barrett is only one inspiration for the song, and other feelings of absence generally contributed to it - so I would doubt this sentence
  • The sentence about Barrett being portrayed in Rock 'n' Roll needs a source
  • "Barrett's use of psychedelic drugs, especially LSD, during the 1960s is well documented." I'd remove this sentence - "well documented" is subjective
  • "Commemoration and recent events" - "The sentence about Rock 'n' Roll" is already mentioned in an earlier section
  • The sentence about Paul Weller's single needs a source
  • Reference 110 don't follow GA standards. It should be an external link, then the name of the source and the date ie : ["Syd Barrett, Founder of Pink Floyd band, Sufferer of Schizophrenia, Passed Away this Week."]. Schizophrenia Daily News Blog. July 2006.

 Done Everything above. Working on the rest. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The book references (Schaffner, Watkinson) should go in a separate "Bibliography" section.
  • The article could do with some more photographs to break up the flow. There are a number of Creative Commons-licensed photographs of Barrett we can use (see here)

Based on this, I am going to call the GA nomination On hold until these actions are completed. Once this is done, I'll re-review the article again and see how it stands. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

([1] looks ideal, but has no date or location?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing to watch out for on Flickr is people have a tendency to slap any old CC licence without really having the correct authority to do so. Still, I think a photo of Barrett in his prime (ie: during the early Floyd years) would benefit the article and could be justified as "fair use". --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
um, so, has this image had any old CC licence slapped on it? how do we tell? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just tried it out with the image you linked to. What happens is that Wikimedia Commons has got a list of images that it already knows the licence is wrong, and blocks it immediately. I assume that the Flickr Upload Bot got hold of them, somebody noticed, and tagged it, otherwise the bot would upload it again and again and again.
Many thanks for trying that. That is useful information to know about that process. I am not surprised since the image looks like a professionally-posed studio photograph. I wonder who took it and when. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things have been tripped up by DPL - "Malcolm Jones" and "Willie Wilson" in the context of this article don't have Wikipedia articles (the latter probably could get one given his work with Gilmour's solo albums and the Floyd's Wall tours, but that's not a discussion for here). I would remove the wikilinks. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nudge. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

What is this, a Monty Python sketch? Seriously, I think the only thing we're missing is the Povey source and my comments re the remaining deadlinks. I'll then re-read the entire article and references all over again and we'll put the lid on this. Regarding Pyrotec's comments about the lead below, WP:LEAD is firstly only a guideline, and secondly it only gives guidance up to 30,000 characters, a third of this article's size. I think we have the size of the lead about it right - covering all the major facets of his life, with the bulk of it concentrated around his musical career. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I must say, I didn't know about that sketch. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Pyrotec (talk)

  • The lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, in the same proportion as the body of the article (see WP:Lead). The lead is rather "thin", for an article of this length I'd expect to see (say) twice as much, but still in four paragraphs. There is stuff in the article that does not appear in the lead.
  • Reference 13 appears to be a link to book (since it states pp. 22–23) but the link does not work. Schaffner 1991 and Schaffner 1992 are used a lot, but there are a quite a few undated Schaffner citations.
  • All Schaffner references are (or should be) 1991 - Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey (ISBN 0-517-57608-2) is the only reference work he did. Either make them 1991 or remove them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no knowledge myself, but that does not appear to be the case. There are quite a few references now to a 2005 (New edition) - that has a valid isbn and Amazon has one used copy for sale. If that is the edition that was used, it's not you job as a reviewer to insist that they are changed to 1991: but I do take the point that 1992 could be a typo and should be corrected (to 1991). Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There are four broken web links (use the tool box at the top of the page to check them - I did.
  • The link checker has consistently timed out when I've attempted to use it. (My broadband connection is flaky at the best of times). --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Mine works so I've just run it for you. Three dead links:
  • 103 The Madness and Majesty of Pink Floyd (info) [rollingstone.com] date=5 April 2007 work=Rolling Stone last=Gilmore first=Mikal Dead since 2010-07-02 (404 error)
I've found a new link to it. But you have to be a subscriber to view it [2]. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, would this work? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with ref 103. Ref 102 (the main ROIO database which is pretty much the authoritative list of Floyd boots for nearly 20 years) substantiates the claim made in the article.
  • 131 [dead link] Tribal: Maze: Daevid Allen (info) [planetgong.co.uk] accessdate=26 July 2010 publisher=Planet Gong 404 Dead since 2011-02-22
Fixed. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 175 Strange Fruit Records Radio One Sessions Info (info) [strange-fruit-music.co.uk] accessdate=8 June 2011 date= publisher=Strange-fruit-music.co.uk 404 Dead since 2009-12-06
I can't find a SF Records website. Should I remove the sentence? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Use the AllMusic source in the referenced article - [3]
 Done Added. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2012 (U1TC)


Okay, I have added the one outstanding reference to Povey, so according to the GA criteria :

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; - I have run the entire article through a spellchecker and found around five minor errors that have been fixed

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. - Notwithstanding Pyrotec's concerns about the lead, I think we have the balance about right for this

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; I think all our unreferenced concerns have now been addressed. Particularly good to see each of the artists claimed to be influenced by Barrett getting their own citation.

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; - As above

(c) it contains no original research. - Checked and none found

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; - Yes

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). - Yes, as expected I would expect the article to be weighted towards his commercially successful musical career, as it is

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. - Yes, my concerns about ensuring claims about mental illness and instability were addressed

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[8] - I've kept an eye on this and while there have been a few changes, they have been minor and undisputed

Illustrated, if possible, by images - We've done what we can in this area for now. It would be nice for someone to come forward with a free image of Barrett circa c. 1966-67, but we can't use what we don't have.

Based on that, I am going to pass the article for GA status. Well done. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Autism

Reference 176 This is a very weak reference. The only reference is from a story written by Terry Kirby for The Independent on July 12, 2006 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/syd-barrett-the-crazy-diamond-407618.html The quote from a general article about Barrett is "No-one now doubts that what was dismissed in the Sixties as just another case of LSD abuse was more likely to have been schizophrenia, Asperger's Syndrome or another type of autism, aggravated by the drugs." Far from an educated diagnosis. Jameywiki (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

One of the best articles I have seen on Wikipedia. Thanks to all the editors. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SFN/Harvnb vs. current citation style

I'm suggesting changing the article's citation style to SFN/Harvnb in order to make it consistent within other Pink Floyd articles (See Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall, Wish You Were Here, etc.)

SFN

  1. Plant's Strider (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Current style

  • Keep current. WP:CITEVAR specifically says that consistency between various articles is not a reason to change the citation style. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Current. You can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an excuse. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Current. 99.99% of people reading the article will not mind which way the references are formatted, so it's a lot of work for not much gain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Founder member

Wouldn't it be "founding member"? What is "founder member"? Is that British or something? {{subst:Unsigned|

Yes, "founder member" is British. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mental state - genius versus psychiatry

I have tried on several occasions to insert the point that the psychology of genius is distinctive and appropriate for understanding Syd Barrett, and I cited the case of Alfred Jarry as my source, as this is the only "source" that I could refer to. However this edit was undone on several occasions on the grounds that I did not cite any other source. I appreciate that I may not have written the point adequately, but the fact is that there is no source for the psychology of genius and there is plenty for psychiatry in Barrett's case.

I think that this point should be appropriate on Wikipedia under this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitespeck (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

third or fourth

the article says he was the third of five children , in'crazy diamond' by Mike Watkinson & Pete Anderson, it says he was 'the fourth of five children raised by Dr Barrett and his wife Winifred.' its not very important I realise, but still, - 'crazy diamond' has the order of children thus: Alan, in 1937, then Donald, Ruth, then Syd, then Rosemary. Also it says that it was his mother, not his father, who was related to Elizabeth Garrett Anderson - his mother was her great granddaughter. Sayerslle (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hyperbole language

This line in the opening: ”Barrett's innovative guitar work and exploration of experimental techniques such as using dissonance, distortion, and feedback had an enormous legacy, with a wide variety of musicians from David Bowie to Brian Eno to Jimmy Page and more drawing influence” badly needs to be toned down and tempered with some due consideration of people like Hendrix, Neil Young, Ritchie Blackmore, Robby Krieger, Carlos Santana, Mick Ronson (all of whom owed little or nothing to Barrett for their technique or style – and nor did Jimmy Page, I think). The guy became a legendary “lost genius” early on, and he was a highly original songwriter and musician, but so were many other guitarists who set out at the time, who explored/invented this kind of playing and who actually stayed on the scene, some for several decades.

The peacock phrase just quoted makes it sound as if Syd almost single-handedly ushered in the era of feedback loops, distorted jangling and phased, echoing guitar notes, when it was actually a language developed by a whole generation of guitar players (and sound engineers) on both sides of the Atlantic. While there’s no need to discuss all of that in detail in connection with Barrett in the lead section, making it sound as if he were the lone ranger inaugurating all by himself the new, more aggressive and lyrical style of guitar playing, with feedback, dissonant chords etc, is a stupid overstatement. Strausszek (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Best known as"

(The original IP removing this won't be joining this discussion right away due to a well-earned civility block.) I had restored this statement as consensus. This consensus is not demonstrated on this talk page, it is demonstrated throughout the project. In addition to being used in thousands of articles (in a variety of formulations), we now have info boxes including "known for". Currently, the first sentence says he was "musician, composer, singer, songwriter and painter". Yes, the second sentence gets to Pink Floyd, but this would be similar to "George Washington was a soldier and politician". Yes, we do not have reliable sources saying he was "best known" for Pink Floyd. Don't we need a source for this? (The original IP calls this "subjective unverifiable claims", asks, "How do you know what anyone knows him for? what exactly is the use of trying to guess that? What information is contained in such a claim?" and feels that even with a source it is [still just an opinion that should be removed.

Aside from the recent IP, was this material that was "challenged or likely to be challenged"? We can argue all day about whether George Clooney is "best known for" movies or E.R. But Syd Barrett? Check those sources -- all of them. Do any of them discuss this famous painter without mentioning that he was also somehow connected to Pink Floyd? No, of course not, that would be absurd. Coming here to remove the "best known" for Pink Floyd bit would be an excellent way to make a point. It would be disruptive, but it would make a point. Not that I'm saying the IP shows any history of being pointy, of course; there's no source for that claim either. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think removing this type of "best known for" or "best known as" statement is detrimental to the article. The primary arguments for removal seem to be that they are subjective, unsourced statements. That is untrue on both fronts; what we are really doing is summarizing the totality of sources about the subject and stating what the subject is best known for across reliable sources. I don't think anyone is really disputing the information (as SummerPhD pointed out, that would be absurd in this case) but just how it's presented. As a side note, I don't think this is at all an article-level discussion, since such phrasing is common across many articles. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I tend not to care too much but I do have a problem with the word "best", "known for" is obvious, "best" is far more subjective and unproveable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that the point of the statement though? To say that of all the things they were known for, they are "best" known as whatever it is? Look at the lead of John Frusciante for another example. That is a Featured Article, so it least went in front of some sort of review squad. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Best" qualifies the statement in such a way that it covers the ever so slim possibility that someone somewhere knows of him completely independent of Pink Floyd -- a someone digging through their uncle's LPs kind of scenario, I guess. Theoretically, he is also "known for" his solo work and as a painter. To say that he is "best known" for Pink Floyd covers this. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who was hospitalized?

Barrett was excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968 after David Gilmour took over as their new guitarist, and was briefly hospitalised amid speculation of mental illness.

That would mean it was Gilmour who was hospitalized. I suppose it should say that Barrett was hospitalized, since this is his article. --2A02:8109:A180:2B70:64F2:56F0:D2BA:7DD3 (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The comma after "guitarist" suggests to me that it was Barrett who was hospitalised not Gilmour, and I think most people would understand it that way. I guess Barrett could ne named a second time to remove all ambiguity. But the sentence seems less than ideal - if he was hospitalised because of his mental state (in contrast to his physical state) , why was there an "speculation"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Error?

I suspect that the 'Cambridge Technical College' mentioned as being attended by Barrett was in reality the Cambridgeshire College of Arts and Technology, formerly Cambridge School of Art and now Anglia Ruskin University. It is possible that the source for the statement was factually incorrect. Why do I believe this? I can find no references to the existence of a "Cambridge Technical College", Art is a highly unlikely subject to be taught by a purely technical place of higher education and Anglia Ruskin claim Barrett as an alumnus, Urselius (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Syd Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Extreme synthaesthesia

I'd disagree that we can't qualify synthaesthesia with the adjective extreme because "all synthaesthesia is extreme". Surely there's a continuum of subjective experience there? Whether or not it can be fairly use to described Barrett is another matter. What does Julian Palacios actually say in his book? But I Googled "Syd Barrett" + "extreme synthaesthesia" and I discovered this. I'm sure drug use can induce mental extremes of all kinds. Any (colourful) thoughts at all, SMcCandlish - as it was you who made this change? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, it seems Palacios gives us 8 examples of "extreme" and 9 examples of "synaesthesia", but none with those two words together. His detailed description of Barrett's particular experience, however, does suggest it was quite extreme. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Syd Barrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Barrett and Waters in Harrod's

The account made by Tim Willis in his book and reported in the "Legacy" section ("when Barrett saw Waters, he ran outside, dropping his bags full of sweets in the process") is inaccurate. According to Waters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGKXahND0U, minute 8:48 onwards), the two didn't actually meet. "I don't think he saw me", said Waters, adding that Barrett was buying sweets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzoid (talk • contribs) 15:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syd_Barrett/Archive_3&oldid=1137214525"