**If this content is appealing to you , do support me with a subscription (free). **PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER hitting the SUPERTHANKS $ button under the video to send me a small donation! Every $/£ donated will be invested in my work - retrieving, editing & uploading unique and original content. **
@JOHNEDINGTONDOCUMENTARIES i've watched all your Syd Barrett videos and I just have to say WOW! you are BY FAR one of the best documentary makers EVER! I thank you for for taking the time to make this collection and recollection for all of us to see! KEEP ON KEEPING ON! subscribed!
I enjoyed this interview. I remembered him from back in the day and was interested in what his updated views might be on these subjects. Life would be boring if we all felt the same way.
I don't think Roger could ever build a wall as big as English Rock critics build between what they consider to be Punk, versus everything else that came before it. Even now, nearly 50 years later, Johnny Rotten ranting about the shitty state of the world in 1976 is seen as something totally legit, but Roger doing it in 1975 is just some boring old fart from the Pre-Punk era who we have to write off because they actually took some time and effort to make their records sound good.
mmm interesting, and those first three singles to me were 3 minute works of art (like the first two of Floyd's); but the real mystery was how John Lydon morphed into a butter selling tweed wearing national treasure, in a world that's just as, if not more so.
But, I suspect, nobody listens to Johnny anymore, doesn't endure because it really is a hard listen. Like Kent, he ranted artlessly. Yes, Roger also became and endless stream of predictable rant and The Wall confirmed it despite a few decent tracks.
He gets a little confused I think when he talks about the mystery of why Floyd is successful. I don't think it's that confusing. They have unique and beautiful singing voices, good players/musicians who play their instruments beautifully, and they write good music and lyrics. Not all their songs are great, but they have strong numbers on every album to carry the not so strong songs. They have a unique, beautiful sound, like Echoes, A Pillow of Winds, Atom Heart Mother, Shine On. In a way, they kept some of the dreaminess that Syd brought with his songs and music. They just make good and high quality music, so it's not such a mystery to me that they made it big and became so successful.
Well put. I’d go a step further, perhaps a large step, and say this guy is so COMPLETELY out of touch with the world that, using his own words, I find it “Jaw-Dropping.” Was he alive in the early 1970’s? (I know he was) but did he ever open a newspaper or turn on the news, either by way of television or radio!? Has he done that in the last 20 years!? From Vietnam to Grenada to Panama, to Afghanistan and Iran, Israel and Palestine-there’s a LOT going on to be “gloomy” about for crying out loud! This guy obviously lives in his own bubble where platters of fish and chips and sniffing his own gases are his main concerns! What a maroon! (As Bugs Bunny says) 🤔😐🥴🤷🏻
What are you two Bobo's saying ? Nick Kent was a pioneer in British music journalism when music was actually played and sung by the band's in question . To not recognise Kent's contribution to British music journalism is to recognise that you actually don't know dick about the time's and music of which Kent had a front row seat for . The only people " confused" here is you
Thank you again John for posting these interviews. Very much appreciate how you give your subject the time and space to formulate his thoughts and ideas.
Nick was completely accurate with his assessment of Roger, and you can see direct proof of that when Roger tries to re-record his own version of Dark Side of the Moon.
Such an interesting article (NME April 13th 1974), I kept it. It's now stored with Nick's other article (NME May 18th 1974), "The Band Who Ate Asteroids For Breakfast" presented with Dr Carr; a review of all the singles and albums up to and including "Dark Side" and the compilations and bootlegs up to that date. Unfortunately I didn't see the second article.
I respect Nick. Like his work or not, he had it right about Syd and the Floyd. He knew each generation would discover Syd, which is correct. Madcap never went out of pressing. It still sells. I have an alternative way of looking at Syd’s Floyd work from mid-67 to 68, but ultimately, Syd managed two amazing and rare things post Floyd. 1. He never embarrassed himself. 2. He became a myth.
Yes. My original pressings of Madcap and Barrett are prized. I really like your idea about Syd... never embarrassed himself and became a myth. So true.
Nick had what right?…exactly? The Floyd(Waters, Gilmore Mason & Wright, & Storm) had everything to gain by exploiting the ‘Myth’ of Syd,…which in my estimation is an ugly & potentially very untrue created dogma around what actually happened…jugband blues has him VERY cogent! very AWARE of whats going down.. I never met Syd so Ive little reference piint outside whats in print & in music..I believe the music-Syds Music-Piper•Saucerful•Madcap•Opal
"Syd Barrett had left the building; he wasn't gonna come back and 'shine'." Lol he came back into the "building" multiple times while they were recording the album and literally shined with his bald head and a rumored offer to lay down some guitar tracks, which was supposedly denied him. Balding fat guys weren't allowed in Pink Floyd until the 80s, so again, Syd was ahead of his time.
Started out disliking him, and thinking he was just full of vitriol, but worth persisting with the interview. He really does ' get' the band, especially regarding the contribution of Rick Wright and David Gilmour .
I disagree with Nick Kent. I think most people would say that Roger Water's lyrics, and that period of Pink Floyd have held up for generations is because the lyrics and the music are timeless. It seems that every generation can relate to Pink Floyd with Roger Waters in a visceral and intellectual way. There is no mystery in that.
Yes, I'm not a fan of Waters' public persona and think Gilmour comes across as "a better human being", but the band really lost its sharp-and-sweet quality after The Big Falling Out. As for the Barrett stuff, the instrumentals and his songs on Saucerful are great, but the faux nursey rhymes on Piper are utterly cringeworthy.
@@10538overture While I don't entirely agree with your last point as I do really like Piper, some of it is definitely silly and childish. Syd's story is heartbreaking, but I do find him and his contributions to Floyd massively overstated by many.
I already recall the clipped highlights from this interview you used in your superb “Wish You Were Here” doc but it’s really great to see/hear the interview in its entirety. Nick Kent always comes off as a peculiar and highly entertaining interview subject. Many thanks for this, sir!
I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything Nick Kent said here. He talks about his inability to understand fans persisting in following Floyd's music even after the repertoire became more intensely about depression, anger, misery... I bought Animals the day it was released, and one week later took it back to the shop. I couldn't handle the gloom. I went onto collect Steve Hillage and Can albums, finding them either loads more uplifting or much more creative, imaginative. And I went back in time and dived into the Beatles albums again! The last great album Pink Floyd made was, in my opinion, Wish You Were Here. As Nick Kent says, it comprised of Roger Waters ideas developed into spacey, superbly imaginative sounds with all the inventive skills of Rick Wright and David Gilmour. I love all the early Floyd albums, especially Piper.
"Piper...." is a stone-cold classic. Try to track down the mono version, if you can. "Interstellar Overdrive" is even more otherworldly in that edition. A friend of mine saw Pink Floyd in early 1967. She said that they were the loudest group of that period, and that includes The Who. She said they were fantastic onstage. She also added Syd Barrett was a raging beauty, and all the women at the concert simply stared at him in awe.
@@robjones2408 The mono version is a worthwhile alternative, isn't it? I knew a woman at the college where I worked, who told me she used to go to the UFO club, and claimed she'd meet him now and then in the Kings Road.
Nick Kent answered his own question on why they were/are popular. Not only were they "deep", but sonically it was wonderful, certainly to a teenager in the 70's, as I was. Their music continues to resonate still, and probably will always. I was ready to slate this guy, ( I've previously read stuff about him), but at least he admits his bias in the article he wrote in 1974. He's accurate on his assessment of Gilmour and Wright's contributions to Waters' songs.
Wish you were here is my favourite pink floyd album. I grew up listening to it in my dads car. I never knew it was about syd barrett until i was an adult. Its a moving piece of music to me
I laughed when I read that whilst Syd was still in PF his suggestion that the band needed female backing singers and a saxophonist was scoffed at. Five years later on DSOTM that's exactly what they had! 😂
You can say what you like about N.K. 'overblown , pretentious too serious etc'....but for my money he was always a bloody good read from a time when,unlike the sixties,rock journalism was,if anything,ahead of the music.You gotta remember in late '74 we didnt know punk was around the corner.We just knew something had been lost and Kent and co were an eloquent exploration of the ongoing musical malaise of that time.✌️
Great interview John.Really enjoyed it and Iiked N.K. a little bit by the end. He vwasnt just someone who wished he was in the Stones but didn't have the talent to pull it off. He understood what he was talking about, which was a departure from previous "Rock journalists" like Penny Valentine et al.
I’ve never been more endeared to an artist like Syd, his writing takes me back to the innocence and wonder of childhood, before I knew the world was a fucked up place. Rogers writing reinforces my adult view, that the world is a fucked up place
I see some rather harsh comments here against Nick Kent as a person. If one disagrees so vigorously with him why not offer a point by point refutation instead of an ad hominem? Yet if one agrees or disagrees with what he is saying, he certainly is one of the old school journalists who did not let promixty to stardom intimidate him. Frankly we need more like him who will speak truth to power. There have been, and still very much are, reporters who are more sycophants rather than journalists. Frankly I liked a lot of what he was saying here...especially the point of millionaire musicians moaning about rambunctious crowds and the venality of the music industry. He also admits that he went too far in his 1974 review as well as giving credit to PF having significant depth.
Thanks for posting John. I read nick in the NME for many years when I was a kid, and agree or not, he always made you think, I can still remember his review for the smiths’ Queen is dead album wetting my appetite for hearing it, the golden era of rock journalism. I love PF’s 70’s work but the points he makes in this interview are sound, and he’s charismatic and always worth listening to. Did you interview storm for your Barrett documentary?
Thanks for uploading, John. Kent hits on some interesting points, particular the latter Floyd's appeal, despite its dark outlook and why the Floyd decided to write about Syd after years of avoiding the topic.
Thanks for all these interviews I have to say that I'm slowly succeeding in wtching them all. Syd Barrett is such as captivating person and there's a reason behind the genuine interest of a lot of people for him, me included. I also think, although I may be wrong, that his lyrical output needs to be studied more in-depth. There are after all a few solo albums and a lot of poems, and when you're listening with a right kind of ears you hear more than someone who "completely lost it"
Absolutely brilliant, I think it's an important point of view to muse upon. He is a music writer and critic after all. He's honest and open. Glad of this John. Hope there's more to come. I've been going back through the interviews, especially Pete Jenner and Joe Boyd and they certainly seem to tell it like it was, for them.
I could listen to Nick Kent for hours. I have read his books several times and enjoy his style. I believe he is a genuine article. He was there after all.
An excellent interview with an excellent music journalist of the old school - when music journalism actually meant something. Nick Kent’s work for the NME in the ‘70s was exemplary, and he faced stiff competition from the likes of Charles Shaar Murray, Paul Morley, Julie Burchill, Tony Parsons and Ian MacDonald. What was special in music journalism at that time was its brutal honesty. (Sometimes that could go too far, as Nick readily admits.) You have to imagine a time when musicians were hyped to the limit by their record companies and the record-buying public was fed a never-ending stream of BS. Somebody had to prick that balloon. Nick knows the industry inside out. He has no axe to grind. His approach was based on the likes of Hunter S. Thompson and Lester Bangs. Gonzo journalism that pulled no punches. His view of the Floyd, though it may offend some fans, is totally honest, objective and remarkably in line with what we know today. Basically put, the Syd era was uplifting and the Roger era was not.
Yes, i understand the music journalism of that time much more now than i did then. His was a name that went around and i had a lot of contempt for him and that circle of journos. There were some bad ones and some egos out of control, there was immense influence to be had with those music papers. Listening to that interview was a bit of a revelation. It was extremely insightful and registered quite strongly, his appraisal of what rock music was then and where it was going i can recognise. He definitely has qualities of communication and expression.
@@carraw3501 There were definitely some egos out of control, and they probably did untold harm. I don’t think Nick ever meant to do that. As a journalist you have to come up with a story and sometimes you’re under enormous pressure to produce, as indeed the musicians were. Having said that, there were certain journalists who clearly thought themselves more important than the musicians they were writing about. The tail wagging the dog. I was a music journalist in Paris in the early eighties, working for an Anglo-French magazine. I remember once interviewing a brilliant musician who was about to launch her comeback, having been virtually ignored for many years. Unfortunately, she had a serious problem with alcohol abuse, to the extent that her manager was about to dump her. My editor insisted that I wrote about that, but I refused. I was not going to kick someone who was down and trying to resurrect their career. Not that the magazine I wrote for was particularly influential itself but the article would have inevitably been syndicated. A few months later, she produced an international hit single that is still regarded as a classic. And she is now regarded as one of the greats. I’m telling you this story because I think it illustrates two things: you do not necessarily have to retell everything you hear; and you will never know what journalists do not write about - because they do not write about it.
@@davidfrazerwray7525 That was interesting, however, you are kind of admitting that you were NOT objective of telling the whole story. People often criticize critics for 'bending the truth'. That kind of confirms that, I'd argue its HOW you word that is actually kicking somebody when they are down, you can actually write that as if its a PLUS, an obstacle that this person is attempting to rise above. But more to the point TODAY that journalism is needed more than ever, because you have ONLY the over the top hype or the social media condemnation.
Nick Kent is a throwback, in the sense that he belongs to an era when the appraisal of popular music was held to be important. I recall a friend telling me how brilliant Dark Side of the Moon was, but I didn't get it and still don't. We went to a lot of prog gigs, and I formed the opinion it mainly consisted of ex-public school boys trying to bring a modern jazz sensibility to pop. It felt like a lecture by the toffs to aspiring toffs, and in that sense foreshadowed the contemporary political mindset. Kent's Jeremiad on the Floyd was at least permitted in the 1970s, today it probably wouldn't see print.
@maxinemckenzie2354 Kent rightly sees DSOTM as a soundscape with elegant production but empty of any of the positivity of early Floyd. He correctly portrays the pretension of its fans, and their tech, and understands that popularity has nothing to do with discernment. I'm also working class, but prog was an aspirational movement and most of its protagonists were firmly middle class. Times have changed and commercial forces would ensure a voice like Kent's would never be permitted open season on an industry cash cow like Pink Floyd in 2023.
If you want to lose your girlfriend, just sit her down with a copy of "Tales Of Topographic Oceans". As for DSOTM. it is hardly "Bitches Brew" by Miles.
@@robjones2408 but that’s just personal opinion. I know people with broad enough musical appreciation who have Miles Davies and Pink Floyd in their record collections
I think that is a failing of your own mentality in regard to music. Notice that a lot of replies like a big repertoire of music, so it is not just one thing.
I adore Pink Floyd and Syd B, but this interview demonstrates how well Nick Kent understood Floyd, perhaps more than they did themselves at the time. I do wonder what year this was,..
Pink Floyd is such an interesting story. Not untypical to find human drama in successful bands but everything about pink floyd has this odd atmosphere. I dont mean that pejoratively. I love them
Amazing interviews John. It's great how you managed to extract so much valuable information out of all of the key players and more in the Syd story. I could watch your interviews all day (sometimes I do!!). A couple of questions for you: 1) Did you have to get clearance from everyone to air the lengthy unedited interviews, or were you free to do so as I assume you own the footage? 2) Has there been any pushback from any of the interviewees about the unedited footage being made available. 3) Have you considered making a "Director's Cut" of your original film? 4) Have you seen "Have you got it yet?" and, if so, how do you think it compares to your own definitive documentary? Keep up the good work ✌️
Hi Georgie. I'm very flattered by your compliments ! Wonderful to know you do actually watch the interviews all day ! To answer your questions 1. No clearances were requested by me..I just crossed fingers and took the plunge ! 2. No pushback so far (: 3. I'd love to but the problem would be the cost of music rights clearances. 4. I haven't seen it yet. I've heard a lot about it from Jenny Spires who assisted Storm and Roddy. Looking forward to catching it soon.
Superb again, many thanks John. Nick is extraordinarily perceptive and insightful. I feel similarly - for me, Pink Floyd's music after about 1970 feels irredeemably turgid!
I dont think the timing was that weird in retrospect. They seemed to struggle with finding their groove after Syd and distanced themselves because they were insecure and unsure they could pull it off after Syd. Then they made Darkside and felt they found their way without Syd and were seperated enoguh to revisit the Syd situation.
Whats really ironic is that MOST of the life of any rock band, including the performers, is pretty seedy. Which echoes his point about everybody knowing about the 'music business'. But yeah, its like Roger said "this isn't quite depressing enough, some people may cling to some hope at the end of it.....this will be perfect for hospices".
I was at that concert and Nick is correct. It was very poor. Roger Walters stood with his back to the audience he whole gig. Not their best moment. Gotta Be Crazy (Dogs) and Raving and Drooling (Sheep) were as ineffective as Shine On You Crazy Diamond on the night. Something was wrong with the band that night. They’d figured it out by the time they recorded them though.
He makes some very good points. To me, though, "Shine on" is a high water mark of the Floyd oeuvre whereas "Wish You Were Here" is merely a great song. I agree that the rest of the album is somewhat underwhelming. But "Shine on", wow! I find it interesting that Kent considers the concepts and lyrics to be the "deep side" of Pink Floyd as if the music doesn't have depth. Many music critics, including Robert Christgau, seem more interested in the words than the music, which I suppose makes sense in market terms as they are writing for mostly a musically illiterate readership. Christgau tends to be indifferent to the type of music that highly skilled musicians tend to like. That said, the lyrics and concepts are a very important part of the full Floyd experience.
See Emily play remember it well lovely times sing it going to work in 1967 of to the cotton miil in Nelson lancs pendle Tony's hicks home town. Of the hollies group. Just love that song thanks. Sid. ❤️💯🇬🇧👌👍
In most ways, Pink Floyd are not a 'band' like many other bands. They never played pub gigs. They didn't go on "Juke Box Jury" or equivalents. They didn't make films. They don't strut about the stage, talking to the audience and doing a 'performance'. They are much more like a scripted stage show or musical. Quad sound. Large props. Light show. Filmed inserts. Pyrotechnics. It's an art installation.
@@svetozarkuzman2924 They played clubs, yes. Not pubs. They were a rave band and played extended jams for stoned people to dance to. We also note you ignored all the other details and picked on a sngle word which triggered you. That's what you mentally ill trolls do.
They aren’t but they did film concert footage for it it just wasn’t good quality. But I take your meaning about how they are a unique group among other ‘rock bands’.
If Pink Floyd weren’t flawed then their achievements would be less meaningful to me. Flawed human beings and flawed steps on one’s artistic path are a great reason why their achievements were so heroic. Roger Waters basically had a gun to his head as Syd began his struggles. Write and write well or you’re all done in the music world. He turned that terrifying challenge into some of the greatest songs we’ve ever heard. A little credit wouldn’t hurt.
Even if Nick didn't rate Roger Water's doomy worldview and political leanings - combined with David Gilmour and Richard Wright's detail and colour - it gave 70s Floyd the edge that made them special. Pink Floyd post Roger were pretty in parts but mostly tepid.
At the 30 mins point Roy Harper is mentioned. There is a more prosaic, accidental, truth about why Harper is vocalist on 'Welcome to The Machine'. The complicated backing track was completed first. By the time they finished the backing track Pink Floyd realised that none of them could sing the song at the pitch of the backing track and it could not be altered. Harper was in the recording studio when they were talking about how none of them could sing at that pitch. Harper said he could sing it, and proceeded to prove he could do so on the spot. As for Harper hoping for mainstream acceptance? Forget that....
maybe they made sure that syd got those royalties because they were syds friends. they cared about him and they thought that at least They could make sure that he had money for the everyday things that all of us need
Thanks for this fascinating upload with an NME writer I always enjoyed reading. I have a correction to make. At 10.34 you state PF played "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" for the first time when Nick Kent saw them play 14 Nov 1974. PF opened their DSOTM UK tour with two nights at Usher Hall, Edinburgh on 04 & 05 Nov 1974. They opened with three new songs before playing DSOTM in it's entirety, then encored with "Echoes". The first song played was Shine On - I was there 05 Nov - £4.00 ticket for Front Central Stall directly behind their massive sound & visual desk. So Shine On was first played in UK in Edinburgh. Cheers!
My wife and I went to see Pink Floyd on the same tour. Nick Kent's comments of "shambolic and turgid" completely echo what we saw all those years ago. We came away from the gig (Trentham Gardens, S-O-T) thinking were we the only ones there that thought that. It was considered "uncool" to criticize The Floyd back then. Still my favorite band of all time though, and I saw so many great ones way back when.
THanks for that, its good to know it wasnt just 'personal' on his part. The part where he says Rick Wright came up to him at a party and said they took it to heart really goes to what we NOW hear about Floyd concerts. You can go "best concert ever' and see the Ivor Wynne concert where they blew out the windows of nearby stores at the end to see just how much they'd switched. They LOST money on the The Wall tour, nowadays the idea of LOSING money on a tour just seems insane for a group the size of Pink Floyd. But yet they went out and lost money just to put on a 'show'.
I remember reading the article, and I do agree with you 100%. Richard Wright should have taken over as leader of the band after suds departure. Together with David Gilmour they produced beautiful music and their voice blended perfectly. I think that after Echoes, the success of the Wright and Gilmour partnership - which formed to perfection on Obscured By Clouds was the reason that Roger Waters wanted to become the lyricist of the band. He could see them slipping away. It was a joy to read as you could see there was no intended malice, just a kick in the pants!
Completely agree with what he says about Gilmour and Wright. Their musical sensibilities are what make Pink Floyd special. Roger's lyrics I can take or leave, but the music is it.
There are lots of musicians that play good music. There are VERY few lyricists of that level of Roger Waters. Now of course we figure "well you only need one", but you look at the social criticism of Amused to Death and you can MAYBE count on two hands the number of people who put out albums like that, and thats regardless of the music. But I've said before, Amused to Death is SO raw that I really can't listen to it 'for pleasure' and maybe Wright and Gilmour could have chnaged that, but I doubt it.
Great stuff-I was brought up on Nick Kent & CSM writing for the NME in the first half of the 1970's-wonderful journalism and mandatory for any self confessed music freak.I read both the Dark Stuff and Apathy for the devil and can unconditionally recommend them .Not sure when this was recorded but good to see man looking well and as articulate and interesting as ever-always an interesting take whatever you think.Thanks.
I NEVER had any knowledge of these articles. When it comes to the paying tribute to Syd Barret it's both deserved and ironic. Syd deserves to be remembered, but the irony is, the 'fallen genius' image made Syd into the ulitmate of what, I suspect, was one of the main reasons Syd retreated mentally and emotionally: being turned into a brand that glorifies his personal downfall in a way which makes it APPEALING? He may have hated how he was having his creative freedom controlled and being packaged? Yet, look at how he and so many other icons of music who either died young or were troubled so they died INSIDE? But, I have to say, I never knew or considered, the possibility Gilmour and co may have felt Syd's (another irony) own life both made him the thing he hated AND basically, was working against his recovery? Because he could've been gripped by it like all fans of his have been. Both Brian Wilson (one of my heroes).and Peter Green (I know of him but not well) managed to get better, and by varying degrees, performed and wrote again. So, supporting him, money or legend wise, was the very thing he may have not benefited from. The only problem with this is that Syd had every right to royalties from music he wrote and helped create. And finally, you could argue Syd not only helped creatd Pink Floyd but, he was in part, responsible for their later super stardom. Because, him as a person, and his music, must've impacted them. "Darkside of the moon", "Wish you were here" and "The Wall" all exist because of Syd. Even, his feelings towards the music industry were feeling their later experienced. Brothers of the steel rail. So, finally, he never truly left them. But, their worries of supporting him, is curious, considering all the wealth and success they had which CAME FROM his downfall being part of the aforementioned albums? Yes, they were also responsible and were INCREDIBLE as artists. However, everything they did was the reflection of light coming from the crazy diamond called Syd Barret. Fascinating. David
**If this content is appealing to you , do support me with a subscription (free).
**PLEASE ALSO CONSIDER hitting the SUPERTHANKS $ button under the video to send me a small donation!
Every $/£ donated will be invested in my work - retrieving, editing & uploading unique and original content. **
Syd as Romantic Poet, absolutely! Kent is a smart and deeply insightful interview. Thank you for this document.
These are just great interviews..personal…genuine. Many thanks for doing them & sharing,
Cheers
Thanks for your appreciation !
Hello John, just want to again say thank you for uploading all of these uncut interviews for us.
Hi ! That’s so kind of you! I’m just happy that they are getting such appreciation! Cheers!
@JOHNEDINGTONDOCUMENTARIES i've watched all your Syd Barrett videos and I just have to say WOW! you are BY FAR one of the best documentary makers EVER! I thank you for for taking the time to make this collection and recollection for all of us to see! KEEP ON KEEPING ON! subscribed!
Wow, thank you!
John, you bring out the best in people, lovely interviews.
You’re very kind.
Very helpful. Kent has insight.
Enjoyable interview!
Fantastic stuff, I met Nick in Camden when he was promoting the release of Dark stuff, really cool guy.
I enjoyed this interview. I remembered him from back in the day and was interested in what his updated views might be on these subjects. Life would be boring if we all felt the same way.
fascinating interview, thanks for posting
My pleasure
I don't think Roger could ever build a wall as big as English Rock critics build between what they consider to be Punk, versus everything else that came before it.
Even now, nearly 50 years later, Johnny Rotten ranting about the shitty state of the world in 1976 is seen as something totally legit, but Roger doing it in 1975 is just some boring old fart from the Pre-Punk era who we have to write off because they actually took some time and effort to make their records sound good.
mmm interesting, and those first three singles to me were 3 minute works of art (like the first two of Floyd's); but the real mystery was how John Lydon morphed into a butter selling tweed wearing national treasure, in a world that's just as, if not more so.
But, I suspect, nobody listens to Johnny anymore, doesn't endure because it really is a hard listen. Like Kent, he ranted artlessly. Yes, Roger also became and endless stream of predictable rant and The Wall confirmed it despite a few decent tracks.
@@visionproductionsnz7828 The Wall? Only a few decent tracks? What is your problem?
In his reflection, he seems honest about his review then and now.
He gets a little confused I think when he talks about the mystery of why Floyd is successful. I don't think it's that confusing. They have unique and beautiful singing voices, good players/musicians who play their instruments beautifully, and they write good music and lyrics. Not all their songs are great, but they have strong numbers on every album to carry the not so strong songs. They have a unique, beautiful sound, like Echoes, A Pillow of Winds, Atom Heart Mother, Shine On. In a way, they kept some of the dreaminess that Syd brought with his songs and music. They just make good and high quality music, so it's not such a mystery to me that they made it big and became so successful.
Well put. I’d go a step further, perhaps a large step, and say this guy is so COMPLETELY out of touch with the world that, using his own words, I find it “Jaw-Dropping.” Was he alive in the early 1970’s? (I know he was) but did he ever open a newspaper or turn on the news, either by way of television or radio!? Has he done that in the last 20 years!? From Vietnam to Grenada to Panama, to Afghanistan and Iran, Israel and Palestine-there’s a LOT going on to be “gloomy” about for crying out loud! This guy obviously lives in his own bubble where platters of fish and chips and sniffing his own gases are his main concerns! What a maroon! (As Bugs Bunny says) 🤔😐🥴🤷🏻
What are you two Bobo's saying ? Nick Kent was a pioneer in British music journalism when music was actually played and sung by the band's in question . To not recognise Kent's contribution to British music journalism is to recognise that you actually don't know dick about the time's and music of which Kent had a front row seat for . The only people " confused" here is you
@@sitluxetluxfuit4481 the smelling his own gases bit was inspired tho i thought
Thank you again John for posting these interviews. Very much appreciate how you give your subject the time and space to formulate his thoughts and ideas.
Thanks again Neal
Nick was completely accurate with his assessment of Roger, and you can see direct proof of that when Roger tries to re-record his own version of Dark Side of the Moon.
Such an interesting article (NME April 13th 1974), I kept it. It's now stored with Nick's other article (NME May 18th 1974), "The Band Who Ate Asteroids For Breakfast" presented with Dr Carr; a review of all the singles and albums up to and including "Dark Side" and the compilations and bootlegs up to that date. Unfortunately I didn't see the second article.
I respect Nick. Like his work or not, he had it right about Syd and the Floyd. He knew each generation would discover Syd, which is correct. Madcap never went out of pressing. It still sells. I have an alternative way of looking at Syd’s Floyd work from mid-67 to 68, but ultimately, Syd managed two amazing and rare things post Floyd. 1. He never embarrassed himself. 2. He became a myth.
Yes. My original pressings of Madcap and Barrett are prized. I really like your idea about Syd... never embarrassed himself and became a myth. So true.
Each new generation discovers post Dark Side Floyd as well. He was wrong on that one.
1. He never Embarrassed himself ❤❤ 😊
2. He became a Myth ❤❤😊
Nick had what right?…exactly? The Floyd(Waters, Gilmore Mason & Wright, & Storm) had everything to gain by exploiting the ‘Myth’ of Syd,…which in my estimation is an ugly & potentially very untrue created dogma around what actually happened…jugband blues has him VERY cogent! very AWARE of whats going down..
I never met Syd so Ive little reference piint outside whats in print & in music..I believe the music-Syds Music-Piper•Saucerful•Madcap•Opal
"Syd Barrett had left the building; he wasn't gonna come back and 'shine'."
Lol he came back into the "building" multiple times while they were recording the album and literally shined with his bald head and a rumored offer to lay down some guitar tracks, which was supposedly denied him.
Balding fat guys weren't allowed in Pink Floyd until the 80s, so again, Syd was ahead of his time.
Wonderful interview. :)
Thank you very much.
Fantastic and important interview. Thank you, John
Cheers!
Another one! Thank you
Thanks for posting this interview. Always loved Nick Kent in the NME.
Me too!
Started out disliking him, and thinking he was just full of vitriol, but worth persisting with the interview. He really does ' get' the band, especially regarding the contribution of Rick Wright and David Gilmour .
“One man’s melancholy is another man’s abject depression”
Very informative interview. Thanks!!
My pleasure
I disagree with Nick Kent. I think most people would say that Roger Water's lyrics, and that period of Pink Floyd have held up for generations is because the lyrics and the music are timeless. It seems that every generation can relate to Pink Floyd with Roger Waters in a visceral and intellectual way. There is no mystery in that.
Yes, I'm not a fan of Waters' public persona and think Gilmour comes across as "a better human being", but the band really lost its sharp-and-sweet quality after The Big Falling Out. As for the Barrett stuff, the instrumentals and his songs on Saucerful are great, but the faux nursey rhymes on Piper are utterly cringeworthy.
@@10538overture While I don't entirely agree with your last point as I do really like Piper, some of it is definitely silly and childish. Syd's story is heartbreaking, but I do find him and his contributions to Floyd massively overstated by many.
Keep uploading these. Keep em comin.
I already recall the clipped highlights from this interview you used in your superb “Wish You Were Here” doc but it’s really great to see/hear the interview in its entirety.
Nick Kent always comes off as a peculiar and highly entertaining interview subject. Many thanks for this, sir!
Thanks for your very kind words
19:10 - 🤷♂️I still consider ANIMALS to be a Pink Floyd album 🐖
I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything Nick Kent said here. He talks about his inability to understand fans persisting in following Floyd's music even after the repertoire became more intensely about depression, anger, misery... I bought Animals the day it was released, and one week later took it back to the shop. I couldn't handle the gloom. I went onto collect Steve Hillage and Can albums, finding them either loads more uplifting or much more creative, imaginative. And I went back in time and dived into the Beatles albums again! The last great album Pink Floyd made was, in my opinion, Wish You Were Here. As Nick Kent says, it comprised of Roger Waters ideas developed into spacey, superbly imaginative sounds with all the inventive skills of Rick Wright and David Gilmour. I love all the early Floyd albums, especially Piper.
"Piper...." is a stone-cold classic. Try to track down the mono version, if you can. "Interstellar Overdrive" is even more otherworldly in that edition.
A friend of mine saw Pink Floyd in early 1967. She said that they were the loudest group of that period, and that includes The Who. She said they were fantastic onstage.
She also added Syd Barrett was a raging beauty, and all the women at the concert simply stared at him in awe.
@@robjones2408 The mono version is a worthwhile alternative, isn't it? I knew a woman at the college where I worked, who told me she used to go to the UFO club, and claimed she'd meet him now and then in the Kings Road.
Took it back to the shop😂😂😂😂
Nick Kent answered his own question on why they were/are popular. Not only were they "deep", but sonically it was wonderful, certainly to a teenager in the 70's, as I was. Their music continues to resonate still, and probably will always.
I was ready to slate this guy, ( I've previously read stuff about him), but at least he admits his bias in the article he wrote in 1974.
He's accurate on his assessment of Gilmour and Wright's contributions to Waters' songs.
Wish you were here is my favourite pink floyd album. I grew up listening to it in my dads car. I never knew it was about syd barrett until i was an adult. Its a moving piece of music to me
I laughed when I read that whilst Syd was still in PF his suggestion that the band needed female backing singers and a saxophonist was scoffed at. Five years later on DSOTM that's exactly what they had! 😂
well it’s not what they needed in 1967. which song on Piper would you add saxaphone and gospel backup vocals? the Scarecrow? 🤣
You can say what you like about N.K. 'overblown , pretentious too serious etc'....but for my money he was always a bloody good read from a time when,unlike the sixties,rock journalism was,if anything,ahead of the music.You gotta remember in late '74 we didnt know punk was around the corner.We just knew something had been lost and Kent and co were an eloquent exploration of the ongoing musical malaise of that time.✌️
Excellent content. What a great ,gripping, thought provoking interview .Thanks !
Glad you enjoyed it!
His (Nick’s) autobiography is superb.
Did he mention anybody else who wasn’t Roger Walters? The worst Music journalist, period!
Been a Floyd fan since 1971..but Nick Kent is spot on.
Funny as well!
Great interview John.Really enjoyed it and Iiked N.K. a little bit by the end. He vwasnt just someone who wished he was in the Stones but didn't have the talent to pull it off. He understood what he was talking about, which was a departure from previous "Rock journalists" like Penny Valentine et al.
I’ve never been more endeared to an artist like Syd, his writing takes me back to the innocence and wonder of childhood, before I knew the world was a fucked up place. Rogers writing reinforces my adult view, that the world is a fucked up place
it's easy to hate music critics
I see some rather harsh comments here against Nick Kent as a person. If one disagrees so vigorously with him why not offer a point by point refutation instead of an ad hominem?
Yet if one agrees or disagrees with what he is saying, he certainly is one of the old school journalists who did not let promixty to stardom intimidate him. Frankly we need more like him who will speak truth to power. There have been, and still very much are, reporters who are more sycophants rather than journalists.
Frankly I liked a lot of what he was saying here...especially the point of millionaire musicians moaning about rambunctious crowds and the venality of the music industry. He also admits that he went too far in his 1974 review as well as giving credit to PF having significant depth.
Agreed !
Much easier to go for the man and not the ball...
Thanks for posting John. I read nick in the NME for many years when I was a kid, and agree or not, he always made you think, I can still remember his review for the smiths’ Queen is dead album wetting my appetite for hearing it, the golden era of rock journalism. I love PF’s 70’s work but the points he makes in this interview are sound, and he’s charismatic and always worth listening to. Did you interview storm for your Barrett documentary?
Why are people here saying he can't make better music than the Floyd? He is a writer, not a musician. He seems very reasonable to me.
Thanks for uploading, John. Kent hits on some interesting points, particular the latter Floyd's appeal, despite its dark outlook and why the Floyd decided to write about Syd after years of avoiding the topic.
Thanks for all these interviews I have to say that I'm slowly succeeding in wtching them all. Syd Barrett is such as captivating person and there's a reason behind the genuine interest of a lot of people for him, me included. I also think, although I may be wrong, that his lyrical output needs to be studied more in-depth. There are after all a few solo albums and a lot of poems, and when you're listening with a right kind of ears you hear more than someone who "completely lost it"
he was a schizophrenic
@@papalaz4444244 I also had eggs and bacon for breakfast.
Absolutely brilliant, I think it's an important point of view to muse upon. He is a music writer and critic after all. He's honest and open. Glad of this John. Hope there's more to come. I've been going back through the interviews, especially Pete Jenner and Joe Boyd and they certainly seem to tell it like it was, for them.
Thanks. So good to know you’re diving deep !
Man, so well understood, he's has a really good insight and it's how I've experienced the pink Floyd
This gent sounds about 1000% more self-important and self-indulgent than WYYH ever did
D Skinner - *WYWH.....
@@warmswarm yes, sorry. Thanks!
Stunningly poignant and deep
As a Barrett lover, this is very telling n revealing to me
So thank you so much for uploading,
Just grateful you value it
Thank You Sir!
I could listen to Nick Kent for hours. I have read his books several times and enjoy his style. I believe he is a genuine article. He was there after all.
I agree. He’s an authentic insightful witness
yep me too. I dont quite get why he seems to be such a devisive character.
An excellent interview with an excellent music journalist of the old school - when music journalism actually meant something. Nick Kent’s work for the NME in the ‘70s was exemplary, and he faced stiff competition from the likes of Charles Shaar Murray, Paul Morley, Julie Burchill, Tony Parsons and Ian MacDonald.
What was special in music journalism at that time was its brutal honesty. (Sometimes that could go too far, as Nick readily admits.) You have to imagine a time when musicians were hyped to the limit by their record companies and the record-buying public was fed a never-ending stream of BS. Somebody had to prick that balloon.
Nick knows the industry inside out. He has no axe to grind. His approach was based on the likes of Hunter S. Thompson and Lester Bangs. Gonzo journalism that pulled no punches.
His view of the Floyd, though it may offend some fans, is totally honest, objective and remarkably in line with what we know today. Basically put, the Syd era was uplifting and the Roger era was not.
Thanks. Brilliant comment. I agree with every word.
Yes, i understand the music journalism of that time much more now than i did then. His was a name that went around and i had a lot of contempt for him and that circle of journos. There were some bad ones and some egos out of control, there was immense influence to be had with those music papers. Listening to that interview was a bit of a revelation. It was extremely insightful and registered quite strongly, his appraisal of what rock music was then and where it was going i can recognise. He definitely has qualities of communication and expression.
@@carraw3501 There were definitely some egos out of control, and they probably did untold harm. I don’t think Nick ever meant to do that. As a journalist you have to come up with a story and sometimes you’re under enormous pressure to produce, as indeed the musicians were. Having said that, there were certain journalists who clearly thought themselves more important than the musicians they were writing about. The tail wagging the dog.
I was a music journalist in Paris in the early eighties, working for an Anglo-French magazine. I remember once interviewing a brilliant musician who was about to launch her comeback, having been virtually ignored for many years. Unfortunately, she had a serious problem with alcohol abuse, to the extent that her manager was about to dump her. My editor insisted that I wrote about that, but I refused. I was not going to kick someone who was down and trying to resurrect their career. Not that the magazine I wrote for was particularly influential itself but the article would have inevitably been syndicated.
A few months later, she produced an international hit single that is still regarded as a classic. And she is now regarded as one of the greats.
I’m telling you this story because I think it illustrates two things: you do not necessarily have to retell everything you hear; and you will never know what journalists do not write about - because they do not write about it.
@@davidfrazerwray7525 That was interesting, however, you are kind of admitting that you were NOT objective of telling the whole story. People often criticize critics for 'bending the truth'. That kind of confirms that, I'd argue its HOW you word that is actually kicking somebody when they are down, you can actually write that as if its a PLUS, an obstacle that this person is attempting to rise above.
But more to the point TODAY that journalism is needed more than ever, because you have ONLY the over the top hype or the social media condemnation.
This guy gets it
Maybe he did more mandrax than Barrett, that is how great he is.
Great interview 👍
Cheers!
Nick Kent is a throwback, in the sense that he belongs to an era when the appraisal of popular music was held to be important. I recall a friend telling me how brilliant Dark Side of the Moon was, but I didn't get it and still don't. We went to a lot of prog gigs, and I formed the opinion it mainly consisted of ex-public school boys trying to bring a modern jazz sensibility to pop. It felt like a lecture by the toffs to aspiring toffs, and in that sense foreshadowed the contemporary political mindset. Kent's Jeremiad on the Floyd was at least permitted in the 1970s, today it probably wouldn't see print.
@maxinemckenzie2354 Kent rightly sees DSOTM as a soundscape with elegant production but empty of any of the positivity of early Floyd. He correctly portrays the pretension of its fans, and their tech, and understands that popularity has nothing to do with discernment. I'm also working class, but prog was an aspirational movement and most of its protagonists were firmly middle class. Times have changed and commercial forces would ensure a voice like Kent's would never be permitted open season on an industry cash cow like Pink Floyd in 2023.
If you want to lose your girlfriend, just sit her down with a copy of "Tales Of Topographic Oceans". As for DSOTM. it is hardly "Bitches Brew" by Miles.
@@robjones2408 but that’s just personal opinion. I know people with broad enough musical appreciation who have Miles Davies and Pink Floyd in their record collections
@@mckeich Here, here!
My collection includes Miles Davis, The Floyd, George Straight, and Bone Thugs!
I think that is a failing of your own mentality in regard to music. Notice that a lot of replies like a big repertoire of music, so it is not just one thing.
I adore Pink Floyd and Syd B, but this interview demonstrates how well Nick Kent understood Floyd, perhaps more than they did themselves at the time. I do wonder what year this was,..
2011
Pink Floyd is such an interesting story. Not untypical to find human drama in successful bands but everything about pink floyd has this odd atmosphere. I dont mean that pejoratively. I love them
Amazing interviews John.
It's great how you managed to extract so much valuable information out of all of the key players and more in the Syd story.
I could watch your interviews all day (sometimes I do!!).
A couple of questions for you:
1) Did you have to get clearance from everyone to air the lengthy unedited interviews, or were you free to do so as I assume you own the footage?
2) Has there been any pushback from any of the interviewees about the unedited footage being made available.
3) Have you considered making a "Director's Cut" of your original film?
4) Have you seen "Have you got it yet?" and, if so, how do you think it compares to your own definitive documentary?
Keep up the good work ✌️
Hi Georgie. I'm very flattered by your compliments ! Wonderful to know you do actually watch the interviews all day ! To answer your questions 1. No clearances were requested by me..I just crossed fingers and took the plunge ! 2. No pushback so far (: 3. I'd love to but the problem would be the cost of music rights clearances. 4. I haven't seen it yet. I've heard a lot about it from Jenny Spires who assisted Storm and Roddy. Looking forward to catching it soon.
Who was this young man with this tshirt?
John Lydon
This is great, thanks.
Superb again, many thanks John. Nick is extraordinarily perceptive and insightful. I feel similarly - for me, Pink Floyd's music after about 1970 feels irredeemably turgid!
Yes! I read every word that Nick wrote in NME in the 1970s and took his opinion very seriously. He influenced me to listen to a lot of good music!
Ditto. Nick was/is a class act.
great, as usual. he's harsh but almost always right on.
Funny that Joe Boyd produced both Pink Floyd and Nick Drake
He makes good points.
Very insightful interview on the whole Syd story, I’m not sure Roger Waters would agree with all his points of view, but very insightful nonetheless.
"It takes you down: hanging on in quiet desperation music"
well it is the english way. Wonder if it has something to do with no longer being the worlds dominant empire.
@@mikearchibald-u6gno
Honestly I didn't know him but is always worth and interesting to hear the people that "were there"
This is a great interview, Waters down to a tee haha.
I dont think the timing was that weird in retrospect. They seemed to struggle with finding their groove after Syd and distanced themselves because they were insecure and unsure they could pull it off after Syd. Then they made Darkside and felt they found their way without Syd and were seperated enoguh to revisit the Syd situation.
Kent may come across as a seedy tabloid rock journalist, but Dark Side Redux shows how accurate his estimation of Waters is.
Whats really ironic is that MOST of the life of any rock band, including the performers, is pretty seedy. Which echoes his point about everybody knowing about the 'music business'. But yeah, its like Roger said "this isn't quite depressing enough, some people may cling to some hope at the end of it.....this will be perfect for hospices".
I was at that concert and Nick is correct. It was very poor. Roger Walters stood with his back to the audience he whole gig. Not their best moment. Gotta Be Crazy (Dogs) and Raving and Drooling (Sheep) were as ineffective as Shine On You Crazy Diamond on the night. Something was wrong with the band that night. They’d figured it out by the time they recorded them though.
My all time favourite band
He makes some very good points. To me, though, "Shine on" is a high water mark of the Floyd oeuvre whereas "Wish You Were Here" is merely a great song. I agree that the rest of the album is somewhat underwhelming. But "Shine on", wow! I find it interesting that Kent considers the concepts and lyrics to be the "deep side" of Pink Floyd as if the music doesn't have depth. Many music critics, including Robert Christgau, seem more interested in the words than the music, which I suppose makes sense in market terms as they are writing for mostly a musically illiterate readership. Christgau tends to be indifferent to the type of music that highly skilled musicians tend to like. That said, the lyrics and concepts are a very important part of the full Floyd experience.
What's that line... writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
It is no more fair to blame Kurt Cobain for the existence of David Grohl than it is to blame Syd Barrett for the existence of Roger Waters.
See Emily play remember it well lovely times sing it going to work in 1967 of to the cotton miil in Nelson lancs pendle Tony's hicks home town. Of the hollies group. Just love that song thanks. Sid. ❤️💯🇬🇧👌👍
In most ways, Pink Floyd are not a 'band' like many other bands. They never played pub gigs. They didn't go on "Juke Box Jury" or equivalents. They didn't make films. They don't strut about the stage, talking to the audience and doing a 'performance'.
They are much more like a scripted stage show or musical. Quad sound. Large props. Light show. Filmed inserts. Pyrotechnics. It's an art installation.
They did play small clubs, and mind you, their initial tours across UK were far from glamurous. They didn't make films? What about the Wall?
@@svetozarkuzman2924 They are not in the film.
@@svetozarkuzman2924 They played clubs, yes. Not pubs. They were a rave band and played extended jams for stoned people to dance to. We also note you ignored all the other details and picked on a sngle word which triggered you. That's what you mentally ill trolls do.
They aren’t but they did film concert footage for it it just wasn’t good quality. But I take your meaning about how they are a unique group among other ‘rock bands’.
They also played gigs for money where they played popular stuff.
If Pink Floyd weren’t flawed then their achievements would be less meaningful to me.
Flawed human beings and flawed steps on one’s artistic path are a great reason why their achievements were so heroic.
Roger Waters basically had a gun to his head as Syd began his struggles.
Write and write well or you’re all done in the music world.
He turned that terrifying challenge into some of the greatest songs we’ve ever heard.
A little credit wouldn’t hurt.
It’s good they they asked Pete Docherty’s dad, his thoughts on Syd.
‘Autumnal’ - what a lovely adjective to describe the Floyd’s music. Top journalist!
Even if Nick didn't rate Roger Water's doomy worldview and political leanings - combined with David Gilmour and Richard Wright's detail and colour - it gave 70s Floyd the edge that made them special. Pink Floyd post Roger were pretty in parts but mostly tepid.
At the 30 mins point Roy Harper is mentioned. There is a more prosaic, accidental, truth about why Harper is vocalist on 'Welcome to The Machine'. The complicated backing track was completed first. By the time they finished the backing track Pink Floyd realised that none of them could sing the song at the pitch of the backing track and it could not be altered. Harper was in the recording studio when they were talking about how none of them could sing at that pitch. Harper said he could sing it, and proceeded to prove he could do so on the spot. As for Harper hoping for mainstream acceptance? Forget that....
you watched my Roy Harper interview about this ?
"Welcome to the machine" --> "Have a cigar"
@@JOHNEDGINTONDOCUMENTARIES Great interview!
@@jdmresearch thanks!
Rip Syd
maybe they made sure that syd got those royalties because they were syds friends. they cared about him and they thought that at least They could make sure that he had money for the everyday things that all of us need
Very interesting,he comes across quite pretentious st times, but a different perspective on Pink Floyd.
Thanks for this fascinating upload with an NME writer I always enjoyed reading. I have a correction to make. At 10.34 you state PF played "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" for the first time when Nick Kent saw them play 14 Nov 1974. PF opened their DSOTM UK tour with two nights at Usher Hall, Edinburgh on 04 & 05 Nov 1974. They opened with three new songs before playing DSOTM in it's entirety, then encored with "Echoes". The first song played was Shine On - I was there 05 Nov - £4.00 ticket for Front Central Stall directly behind their massive sound & visual desk. So Shine On was first played in UK in Edinburgh. Cheers!
Thanks for the correction!!
great interview- i would like to know, if the summer the piper came out was a good summer for Nick and the summers after that perhaps wherent?
Oh wow. Looks like Waitrose will have to wait for another hour then.
😊👏
My wife and I went to see Pink Floyd on the same tour. Nick Kent's comments of "shambolic and turgid" completely echo what we saw all those years ago.
We came away from the gig (Trentham Gardens, S-O-T) thinking were we the only ones there that thought that. It was considered "uncool" to criticize The Floyd back then.
Still my favorite band of all time though, and I saw so many great ones way back when.
THanks for that, its good to know it wasnt just 'personal' on his part. The part where he says Rick Wright came up to him at a party and said they took it to heart really goes to what we NOW hear about Floyd concerts. You can go "best concert ever' and see the Ivor Wynne concert where they blew out the windows of nearby stores at the end to see just how much they'd switched.
They LOST money on the The Wall tour, nowadays the idea of LOSING money on a tour just seems insane for a group the size of Pink Floyd. But yet they went out and lost money just to put on a 'show'.
I remember reading the article, and I do agree with you 100%. Richard Wright should have taken over as leader of the band after suds departure. Together with David Gilmour they produced beautiful music and their voice blended perfectly. I think that after Echoes, the success of the Wright and Gilmour partnership - which formed to perfection on Obscured By Clouds was the reason that Roger Waters wanted to become the lyricist of the band. He could see them slipping away. It was a joy to read as you could see there was no intended malice, just a kick in the pants!
take a shot every time he says seething
Completely agree with what he says about Gilmour and Wright. Their musical sensibilities are what make Pink Floyd special. Roger's lyrics I can take or leave, but the music is it.
There are lots of musicians that play good music. There are VERY few lyricists of that level of Roger Waters. Now of course we figure "well you only need one", but you look at the social criticism of Amused to Death and you can MAYBE count on two hands the number of people who put out albums like that, and thats regardless of the music. But I've said before, Amused to Death is SO raw that I really can't listen to it 'for pleasure' and maybe Wright and Gilmour could have chnaged that, but I doubt it.
Roger is not only lirics!!!...see the albuns...he made 90% foi lirics and 70% music...or participate, pos Syd
Looks like a Rembrandt self portrait
of his ball bag
Great stuff-I was brought up on Nick Kent & CSM writing for the NME in the first half of the 1970's-wonderful journalism and mandatory for any self confessed music freak.I read both the Dark Stuff and Apathy for the devil and can unconditionally recommend them .Not sure when this was recorded but good to see man looking well and as articulate and interesting as ever-always an interesting take whatever you think.Thanks.
It’s present on animals and even aspects of the wall. Roger was really important too
I NEVER had any knowledge of these articles. When it comes to the paying tribute to Syd Barret it's both deserved and ironic. Syd deserves to be remembered, but the irony is, the 'fallen genius' image made Syd into the ulitmate of what, I suspect, was one of the main reasons Syd retreated mentally and emotionally: being turned into a brand that glorifies his personal downfall in a way which makes it APPEALING?
He may have hated how he was having his creative freedom controlled and being packaged? Yet, look at how he and so many other icons of music who either died young or were troubled so they died INSIDE?
But, I have to say, I never knew or considered, the possibility Gilmour and co may have felt Syd's (another irony) own life both made him the thing he hated AND basically, was working against his recovery? Because he could've been gripped by it like all fans of his have been.
Both Brian Wilson (one of my heroes).and Peter Green (I know of him but not well) managed to get better, and by varying degrees, performed and wrote again. So, supporting him, money or legend wise, was the very thing he may have not benefited from.
The only problem with this is that Syd had every right to royalties from music he wrote and helped create.
And finally, you could argue Syd not only helped creatd Pink Floyd but, he was in part, responsible for their later super stardom. Because, him as a person, and his music, must've impacted them. "Darkside of the moon", "Wish you were here" and "The Wall" all exist because of Syd. Even, his feelings towards the music industry were feeling their later experienced. Brothers of the steel rail.
So, finally, he never truly left them. But, their worries of supporting him, is curious, considering all the wealth and success they had which CAME FROM his downfall being part of the aforementioned albums?
Yes, they were also responsible and were INCREDIBLE as artists. However, everything they did was the reflection of light coming from the crazy diamond called Syd Barret.
Fascinating.
David
😮
Nick kent gets it
Thank you Nick Kent. Your insights are as keen as they ever were.
Some people just don't get Floyd, mostly those who listen with their eyes open.