Talk:Syd Barrett/Archive 1

message: Was that last edit nessisary? I mean, it only removes information. I much preffer the older version. If no one objects to it I'm reverting it. -- Underwater 00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: See Category_talk:Art#Syd_Barrett and User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Syd_Barrett. My very very brief google search seems to suggest that he is not notable as a painter. If there are facts to show that he was a painter of some kind, which my search showed that he began with but soon dropped, then please add it in. MDCore 11:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the :Category:British painters again. The additional information on Barrett's interest in painting is helpful, but he is not well known for being a painter. The comment on barrett spent ~5 years making music and ~35 painting implies that he hasn't played an instrument since leaving Pink Floyd, which is probably inaccurate. If he gave a solo concert today he would likely get a much larger audience than he would for an exhibition of his paintings. -- Solipsist 16:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that if Barrett showed up anywhere to do anything, there would be a huge crowd.  Stargoat 18:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly doubt Roger Barrett would ever play music again, as from what I know and read, he doesn't even want to discuss those years. --DylanL 05:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting 

message: I'm pretty pissed off that a large number of insightful and relevant quotes have been removed and NOT placed at Wikiquote.  What was the reasoning behind that? --bodnotbod 04:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I have no idea why they were removed. I went back through the page history and found two from Gilmour and Waters and put them on Wikiquote. RedWolf 04:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to this -- how was my paragraph saying that Roger Waters dedicated their Live 8 set to Syd Barrett a misquote? It seemed very relevant, seeing as it brings the Syd Barrett story up-to-date.
I'm kind of confused at the quotes, seeing as the only one witha credit to who says it is from the Rolling Stones.  The others have no relevance whatsoever to Syd.  What's up with that?  Griomp 22:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: The caption underneath the picture of the band (the second picture in this article) is wrong. Syd Barrett is standing second on right, not left.
:Fixed. Gbeeker 20:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Caption 

message: having read the Band Years section, I am not impressed by the article. Although it is informative it lacks encyclopedic distance. Referring to Barrett as Syd incessantly, and exhausting superlatives when describing what made him special. Examples:
Syd was one of the most original lyricists of his day
And so were some twenty other people at the time.
and was also an innovative guitarist, being one of the first to fully explore the sonic possibilities of distortion and especially the recently-developed echo machine.
This bit could also be improved on by just saying he was an early explorer of sonic possib... blabla.
As it is now, the article is about as good as any fan bio.
I agree.  I have only read the same words over and over again about the innovation of Syd's use of the echo machine, nothing more.  Also, what about how he got the nick name of "Syd"?  For some reason, that doesn't seem to be explained too often. Griomp 22:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to Barrett as Syd incessantly - tidied that up. --duncan 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic tone 

message: he reportedly paid no attention whatsoever to a Pink Floyd compilation that was given to him, although his sister reported that he had a "spring in his step", after watching a Floyd documentary. He reportedly told her that he enjoyed seeing his "teacher", architect and landlord, Mike Leonard, but found the film "a little noisy."
I was just reading through the article, and in my opinion these last few lines seem awfully vague, silly and irrelevant. I think they should definitely be either cleaned up or removed. 
*Agreed. That whole paragraph is out of context now that I've re-written/re-arranged the article, and I never really liked the part you quoted, either. I say it goes. Darkhorse82
In interview with John Edginton  is mentioned that he (Syd Barret) was watching the Crazy Diamond documentary alone at his home and that he said to his syster: "It was pretty good actually, I enjoyed it."
134.171.27.77 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Later years, end lines 

message: I would appreciate more descriptiveness and specificity on Barrett's musical contributions, especially with respect to Piper At The Gates Of Dawn.
Also, why doe the article only mention the creation of ten tracks when there are 11?  Who did the eleventh tack on Piper?Griomp 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger Waters wrote the song "Take Up Thy Stethoscope and Walk", which is track six. Underwater 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Music 

message: last edit added:
"In an article published in 2006, Gilmour was quoted as saying: "In my opinion, [his breakdown] would have happened anyway. It was a deep- rooted thing. But I'll say the psychedelic experience might well have acted as a catalyst. Still, I just don't think he could deal with the vision of success and all the things that went with it"."
any reference for this? --Wishmechaos 09:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Independent newspaper, Jan 7, 2006 pages 22-23 Robma 11:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mental illness 

message: 1.Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
*Napster does not contain factually innacurate material
2.In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
*Napster does provide a unique resource, the music itself, free and frequently in its entirety. 
3.Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
*If the content is of unique value such as IMDB, All Music Guide, All Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, this rule is generally overlooked, I think Napster provides similar unique and useful content 
4.Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
*See answer to 3. 
5.Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
*See answer to 3 and note that Napster only has ads that appear in the player and are very unobtrusive 
6.Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
*Napster does not require payment to view the content 
7.Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
*Napster uses Flash, but the site could be easily cited as a reference as a link to an artists complete output could well be considered a good reference. 
8.Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
*DNA 
9.A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
*DNA 
10.Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.
*DNA
OK back to you Xinit!
Now I think we are getting nowhere....I mean somewhere!
P.S. They also have ALL of Pink Floyd for free including Pipers at The Gates of Dawn, so Syd is pretty well covered.
I didnt want to leave Syd out of the discussion!
Waldzazi 22:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  '4.Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.' - Napster exists primary to sell music, regardless of if they're letting you listen to some/all of it for free in your browser.  IMDB/RottenTomatoes/AMG etc do not primarily sell products or services; they make their money mainly from advertising revenue. --duncan 08:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Napster, Syd Barret and the WP:EL

message: My understanding this incident garnered from DVD on Barrett was that Waters was the recipient of the musical send up, not the whole band as unit. Water's description makes no mention of all the band singing back "no we haven't".
In general, putting my two cents in, the descriptions in article of Mr Barrett's psychotic behaviours on stage etc, are a little tabloid, likely coloured by urban myth and multiple repetition, certainly more colourful than those I heard of the same events twenty years ago. It ought to be remembered that, yes, he is "only a person", and still very much alive.
Referenece to his problems needs to be put across sensitively, some of the article to me reads as being almost immaturely gleeful on this score.
Richard 11:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have you got it yet 

message: I've just gone through a section of this article and removed some suspect material. 
However the hairgel and mandrax incident (highly UNLIKELY) may have been Jelly (jello - intended for human consumption) and crushed mandrax. People who put this stuff in have an obligation to be sure of the facts. I'll leave it to you to research it further; I recall 'jelly bath' incidents  being part of the '67 - 68 UFO scene, but memory isn't good enough for such articles.
Detuned guitars do not snap strings (take it from me I've made my living from playing them for 30 years) Besides, I've followed Barrett's story for as long and the wiki article  is the first ref I've come across that mentions broken strings. Richard 11:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please don't accept urban myth as fact. 

message: I don't believe this reference is accurate.
Could the person who reverted the claim please supply a reliable source.
Richard 11:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hairgel and mandrax 

message: Floyd are unusual for a band of their longstanding that none of the band members had passed on, until now. In deep mourning. Sorry, I know Wiki discussion pages are not meant as books of condolence, but.....his illness was kept quiet, wasn't it, I had no idea he was ill. It'll be interesting to see what Nick Mason has to say about it on the Mark Radcliffe programme tomorrow. Syd Barrett, founder of the finest rock group that ever walked this earth, R.I.P., and shine on.....Martyn Smith 18:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First member of the Floyd to die

message: Hello, I was wondering...did Syd die on July 7? A spokeswoman said that he died 'several days ago'. 
Source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13814051/, so that made me sort of wondering, you know... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.145.128 (talk • contribs)  
:Yes, all sources I've seen that give an actual date give the 7th. See here and here. Kafziel 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.DavidGilmour.com states that he passed last Thursday of Diabetic complications -NickSentowski 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? The only mention I see is on the front page, which actually quotes Music Week, and gives the date as Friday. - dharmabum 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: Why do some user post without signing?? Why some comments are posted with no respect for chronological order ?? It`s getting me crazy... --Doktor Who 00:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the talk header and a note for new topics to be added towards the bottom. But yeah, the comments on this page are out of order. Douglasr007 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please sign

message: I didn't revert anything on the talk page. I don't know what anyone is talking about by claiming I made a revert. I added a couple comments, realized I forgot to sign them and went in and added my signature. That's all. User:Sebbeng 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Douglasr007 and I were referring to this edit --> x, please watch it carefully and realize that you removed some paragraphs, likely unwillingly; it is not a big trouble do not worry. cheers. --Doktor Who 05:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really weird, I don't know how it happened... sorry. User:Sebbeng 05:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, some paragraphs were deleted when you did the revert.  I added them back.  It's no problem.  Douglasr007 07:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts?