If Syd hadn't gone mad....
#81
Now that you mentioned it, I'll give it a listen. I haven't listened to it for months.
...our minds shot together.
Reply
#82
well, if syd have not gone mad then where wouldnt be gilmour in the band in the first place(but assume he some how was.). because he was called in only because of syds mental instability. piper at the gates of dawn and saucerful of secrets would sound like albums made by the beatles. roger leaves the band because syd becomes very bossy before the band is famous.the find a new bassist(its possibly could be gilmour and lets assume it is.). syd and wright form a songwriting team(Barrett/Wright will be on credits alot). they would probably be worldwide famous between 1970-1972(earlier than usual). but i would probably not be as much of a fan of their work. wright will leave the band in the 70s and return for a short time in the 90s and maybe 00s, mason will retire from the band at the 90s. syd and gilmour continue touring until 2006 then syd dies. thats probably what will happen.
[Image: russian_flag.gif]

The Worlds Biggest Country


Click Here To Visit My Youtube Channel
Reply
#83
(05-26-2011, 10:39 AM)russian Wrote: well, if syd have not gone mad then where wouldnt be gilmour in the band in the first place(but assume he some how was.). because he was called in only because of syds mental instability. piper at the gates of dawn and saucerful of secrets would sound like albums made by the beatles. roger leaves the band because syd becomes very bossy before the band is famous.the find a new bassist(its possibly could be gilmour and lets assume it is.). syd and wright form a songwriting team(Barrett/Wright will be on credits alot). they would probably be worldwide famous between 1970-1972(earlier than usual). but i would probably not be as much of a fan of their work. wright will leave the band in the 70s and return for a short time in the 90s and maybe 00s, mason will retire from the band at the 90s. syd and gilmour continue touring until 2006 then syd dies. thats probably what will happen.

I haven't read this thread all the way through.....but correct me if I'm wrong. Is drug addiction a form of going mad.

Syd wasn't mad, he became a drug addict.

And it's of no use, asking 'what if......', and it's pointless.

When Roger left/resigned/booted out...whatever, Pink Floyd carried on, and is more than the sum of it's parts, up to point. Pink Floyd is a wonderful 'monster' that's been created for us all to enjoy and rave about.
But now it's becoming a marketing machine by rehashing/revamping all that has gone before, mainly. But I'm a eager sucker, and will continue to buy into it, and enjoy whatever gets put my way.
The depth and varied fan base is testament to that.

So I thank Syd for his input and his craft, but Pink Floyd live on without the band members.

I love each and everyone of the band equally. And without any of those individuals Pink Floyd would not be the band we know and love now.


Steve.rocker
Reply
#84
There's more than enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Syd had some form of mental illness that exacerbated by overconsumption of hallucinogenics. It's all anecdotal of course, but taken in conjunction with everything we know about him before, during, and after his stint in Pink Floyd, it's more likely than unlikely.

Drug addiction is NOT a form of mental illness, though 100 years ago, it was thought of as one. Same with alcoholism, depression, mental disabilities, anorexia, epilepsy, homosexuality, and autism......all things the DSM has since removed.
[Image: davidgilmoursignbyloudl.jpg]
(signature image courtesy of loud-love @ deviantART)
Reply
#85
I don't like that term "gone mad", at least when its used improperly. Going mad to me, implies a sudden change of disposition or feeling. Syd had probably battled different types of mental illness, to different degrees, his whole life; it just went un-noticed or diagnosed.
[Image: GVwAGsx.jpg]
Reply
#86
I don't like that term "gone mad", at least when its used improperly. Going mad to me, implies a sudden change of disposition or feeling. Syd had probably battled different types of mental illness, to different degrees, his whole life; it just went un-noticed or diagnosed.
[Image: GVwAGsx.jpg]
Reply
#87
(10-04-2011, 04:37 PM)Lady Floydian Wrote: Drug addiction is NOT a form of mental illness, though 100 years ago, it was thought of as one. Same with alcoholism,

I think there are millions of AA and NA members around the world that would disagree with you there.
[Image: vRJ86GT.jpg]
Reply
#88
I wonder whether anybody on here even knows how to tell what's a mental disorder and what isn't. I for sure don't.
[Image: ighs84.png]
Whenever I make a post, add the modulus of e to the power of the product of i and pi to my counter.
Reply
#89
*bump*

To get this old and derailed topic back on track and to the forefront, I'm gonna stir things up. I don't think that Syd-led Pink Floyd would have gotten nearly as famous as the Roger- and Gilmour-led Pink Floyds. His brand of music was very much what the mid- to late-sixties was about, and if he failed to adapt with the times, then Pink Floyd would have burned out as the 70s crept up on them. Sure, there will always be speculation as to what COULD and/or WOULD happen, but some of the post-Barrett singles indicate how things could have played out. "It Would Be So Nice", "Julia Dream", and "Point Me at the Sky" were "lightweight" attempts to recreate Syd's style, and if anybody was capable of doing that, it would be his own band Pink Floyd. I personally like all three of these songs, and that's a sentiment probably shared by very few people. They all do sound very much like something Syd would have done in both a lyrical and a musical aspect, and the singles didn't fare well on the charts. I think a Syd Floyd would have burned out in the early 70s, and that bringing in David to back him up (and later replace) was easily the best decision they could have made given the circumstances they found themselves in.
For some daily Pink Floyd discussions, head on over to floydians.org. We'd love to have you.
Reply
#90
(10-14-2013, 03:16 PM)sunshaderain7 Wrote: *bump*

To get this old and derailed topic back on track and to the forefront, I'm gonna stir things up. I don't think that Syd-led Pink Floyd would have gotten nearly as famous as the Roger- and Gilmour-led Pink Floyds. His brand of music was very much what the mid- to late-sixties was about, and if he failed to adapt with the times, then Pink Floyd would have burned out as the 70s crept up on them. Sure, there will always be speculation as to what COULD and/or WOULD happen, but some of the post-Barrett singles indicate how things could have played out. "It Would Be So Nice", "Julia Dream", and "Point Me at the Sky" were "lightweight" attempts to recreate Syd's style, and if anybody was capable of doing that, it would be his own band Pink Floyd. I personally like all three of these songs, and that's a sentiment probably shared by very few people. They all do sound very much like something Syd would have done in both a lyrical and a musical aspect, and the singles didn't fare well on the charts. I think a Syd Floyd would have burned out in the early 70s, and that bringing in David to back him up (and later replace) was easily the best decision they could have made given the circumstances they found themselves in.

I don't believe they would've achieved much success at all had he stayed in the band. Even though "Piper" was very much a product of the '66-'67 London scene, that too was changing rapidly. The move to a more progressive style of music was on the horizon, and Syd was in no shape to go that direction. David brought a musicianship that the band had not seen before. Not only an established guitar player in his own right, but he could sing.

Syd leaving allowed David to find his way and solidify things, which in turn allowed Roger to develop his song writing and lyrical skills. One could argue that Syd had more of an impact on the band after he left.
[Image: GVwAGsx.jpg]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)