Rhoda 2008-09-22

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

I always liked Syd's songs. The Pink Floyd After Syd, turned into a very progressive rock band, which were great at what they did, but there was one Roger (such a nice name-why didn't he keep it for the whole Floyd trip?) less than I came to expect. I've read two books, when the now late Rick spoke of Syd, I believe he did so with a soft spoken yet sensible head.

A mental breakdown burned away "Syd's" chance for any semblance for a normal life afterward, and according to the "experts" there was a personality break. So this many years later, what's the story??????- there almost appears to be a family that is Syd's that didn't say much, but have you ever been in your own head, so messed up on garbage you can't think properly---so who really has--only as many as will be admitted to Psych wards. Many, Many many highly creative, no I'll rephrase for clarity's sake Many highly creative highly intelligent people are not necessarily completely perfect- oh well he (Syd) was locked in a closet, and we could hear the clanging and banging, would you, as a friend, and bandmate check him. I feel he was let down by his band mates, and his entourage-nothing more pathetic than the life of hangers on, wanna be's, and overall envious types. Who's to say a few of those didn't exist and destroy Syd. Rumour has it Mozart had the dreadful experience of dying with this.

How many less eloquent, however more belligerent rock and rollers that have brains wired to better them due to a less intense personality........ well let's pull one out of a hat..... resist putting hallucinagens, etc into their system, however, seem to fair very differently.

I just don't hear these questions : has this been confirmed as true about Syd, that he had a mental disorder, prior to a drug problem , hmm, why did nobody keep this in mind when he was their top songwriter--oh, well a mental sensitivity that allows one to be so creative and talented would be a person who thinks, a lot if we threw some high intelligence into that package. So, if "Syd", as "Roky" or the once beautiful "Sky" S. of the Seeds was noted to be frail, I will never understand why.

Well, someday the truth will come out, as the existence Syd carried out is mixed with everything -lucky he could do what he did

mianfei 2008-09-21

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

I have never been a fan of Pink Floyd's later work (indeed I would rate "Another Brick in the Wall" as one of my most hated songs), but as I expand my musical knowledge I have became naturally curious about "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn", Pink Floyd's only full album with original frontman Syd Barrett and often accalined as one of the best albums of all time.

People have always called this "the Pink Floyd album for people who hate Pink Floyd" with reference to comments by Sex Pistol John Lydon during the "punk revolution".

"The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is certainly different from later Floyd works. There are none of the big-sounding synthesisers that gained them superstar status beginning with "Dark Side of the Moon". Instead, even on the more epic pieces, the sound is stripped down with Rick Wright playing quite simple organ lines. On the whole, the instrumentation on "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is delicate and quiet in a manner that was no doubt unusual and innovative at a time when already there was a move towards harder, louder rock and roll.

Generally I do appreciate this kind of touching softness, but far too often, most especially on the finale "Bike" and "Matilda Mother", "Piper" is far too slight to be possessed of emotional depth and Barrett's soundscapes com off as tuneless compared to, say, Marquee Moon. Even less lightweight songs like "Pow R Toc H" do not really fire. However, "Lucifer Sam", the second track, stands out as a surprising exception to my reservations about this record and is the only real "masterpiece" any incarnation of Pink Floyd ever made. Aided by a fine bassline from Waters and short organ solos from Wright, the band on "Lucifer Sam" sounds much tighter than anywhere else and even if Barrett's lyrics are silly, they don't lessen the quality of the song.

The worst problem with "Piper", though, is Barrett's voice, which simply is ill-suited to the material he penned and comes of at best as mediocre, at worst as completely limp and lacking in energy and depth. Often Syd seems not to know whether he should be sining or speaking, and comes off without the touching quality good psychedelic rock should have.

All in all, except "Lucifer Sam", there is little justification for "Piper"'s lofty reputation. Think twice.

Parkansky 2008-08-27

11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

I might get flamed for this, but here goes:

This album is gruesomely overrated. When it comes to 1967 psychedelia, there were much much better albums then this as great examples of the genre. Well, they had to start somewhere, didn't they? To begin with, I never thought Syd Barrett was a great songwriter or a great singer. Sorry folks. He liked to make some atonal noise when it came to doing solos, and there are only two kinds of songs on this album. One is the very messed-up astral jam, the other is the very messed-up nursery rhyme ballad. Syd was taking a LOT of acid at the time, and it definetly shows. First things first though, the good points on this album. Astronomy Domine is a great song. It's got a great mood of mystery, with a VERY echoey sound, which I don't know how they managed to get in 1967. And I do dig the main riff to Interstellar Overdrive, although the sound collage thing gets on my nerves. (You can see where this sound would be a blueprint to later glories though. Check out Echoes.) Also, some of the ballads are mellow and trippy. I dig Matilda Mother and Chapter 24, nice weird ballads that they are. However, the bad points really overshadow the good. There's too much "art sounds" on this album. Take Up Thy Stephescope and Walk is just godawful. It's just terrible noisemaking for 3 minutes. Also, Pow R. Toc H. is pretty bad too. Jazz piano followed by intolerable screaming. Bleh. Lucifer Sam has a good riff, but is followed by a forgettable melody. The album generally is pretty forgettable, and a little too messed up for my liking. Still though, you won't hear a Pink Floyd album quite like this. They had a long way to go before making good records.

Untitled 2008-07-25

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

Syd Barrett is either declared a genius or an utter moron. He's, to me, neither, merely a drug taking songwriter, and that's it. This is, indeed, very different from later Pink Floyd works. The only document of Syd in Pink Floyd is this one. Play this for all those people who only know the band for Dark Side of The Moon.

This album has many problems. What takes away 30 points are the boring keyboard textures, lack of atmosphere at times, and monotonous, just BLEH vocals, that plague some of the albums. It just lacks mostly thanks to that, and it kind of drives me nuts sometimes and makes me bored out of my mind. Some of the songs are destroyed by the things above, such Chapter 24. It's kind of dated too, and Syd, to me, isn't a genius, maybe I just don't get him. I tried, and some people just don't get other artists, so deal with it.

There still is good music on here, but that's about it. There's plenty of material worth giving a listen. The two big instrumentals are good, and the more jazz influenced Pow R. Toc H. is one of the best. Bike, hands down, is awesome. The ending is just too good. Matilda Mother and Flaming have atmosphere that would put you in the fairy tale, think the good book The Wind In The Willows. The Gnome and the Scarecrow are good stories, to say the least, more of that fairy tale feel. An early example of space rock, Astronomy Domine, is something that requires listen.

Overrated. Yes. Syd Barrett, maybe I just don't get him, but I don't have to. For a Pink Floyd fan, it's a must hear.

6/10

B. E Jackson 2008-04-06

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

I can explain what this album is like by comparing the sound and style to three different Beatles songs-

"Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"
"Blue Jay Way"
"Love You To"

The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is mostly an extremely heavy pyschedelic album that focuses on vocal melody for 80% of it, and the majority of songs almost seem like they were aimed towards children because of the nursery rhyme style they're written in. Of course back in the day this was a revolutionary new style of rock music. As a result though, for me at least, I can only listen to this album every once in a while.

"Astronomy Domine" is the highlight of the album, and really, most of the songs sound the same. Whether you like that style or not is up to the listener to decide. "Pow R. Toc H." stands out from the rest because of the piano jam, and "Interstellar Overdrive" is a VERY trippy and lengthy piece of psychedelic rock at its most hardcore. Is it a masterpiece though? No, not really. It gets too messy and noisy after the fourth minute or so. I like the chicken-sounding effects on the guitar though, and when around the third minute when the guitars sound like a bunch of hens in a hen house cackling at once.

The song I don't care for is the closer "Bike". Just a very bad chorus to me. I like the rest of the songs, even more so when I'm totally in the mood for this style of rock.