Re: Favorite Pink Floyd Song
I wouldn't equivalent them at all.
Neil Young is not a part of Crazy Horse. Crazy Horse just happens to be there with Neil. It's like saying that The Dreamland Express, The Blackhearts, The Heartbreakers, and the E. Street Band are all legitimate groups without their famous frontmen/woman. After Alice Cooper started his solo career the rest of the band attempted to continue on as Billion Dollar Babies and you know how that went for them? Nowhere.
Well, if you ask Neil, he'll tell you he
is a part of Crazy Horse. Those guys were in a band together before Neil met them and Crazy Horse was an autonomous group pretty much as soon as they started playing with Neil, they had (their own) record in the works in 1970 if not earlier.
Kurt Cobain is the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Nirvana. The others contribute, but he calls the shots and it's his vision. Neil Young is the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Neil Young & Crazy Horse. The others contribute, but he calls the shots and it's his vision. Syd Barret was the guitarist, singer and songwriter of Pink Floyd. The others contributed, but he called the shots and it was his vision.
Syd also can't be compared to Kurt because he was kicked out of Floyd. Kurt was not kicked out of Nirvana. That to me says that the rest of Floyd believe that they could soldier on without him (which they did, far more successfully), whereas if Nirvana had replaced Kurt it would have only infuriated people. Kurt was an icon, Syd was not. Syd became an impossible obstacle while in the band, Kurt did not.
Which goes back to what I said about the quality of the output. If Nirvana ditched Kurt and promptly put out a record that is both their commercial and critical height, "Nirvana" would become this other guy's band in many people's minds. What I'm saying is I think the circumstantial occurrences should be overlooked. In my eyes, it only depends on who is making the music and calling the shots. In theoretical terms I don't see a difference between if a member dies, quits, or gets kicked out, as the effect on the music is identical either way.
I realize that thinking Syd Barret era Floyd is better is an opinion and there is no changing that but it's really quite evident that from a songwriting, revolutionary, influential, musical, and damn near every other aspect the Pink Floyd albums released after Syd are greater. He was influential much more in idea than in musical direction or anything else.
I don't think Syd's stuff is better. Piper is one of Floyd's worst records by far if you ask me. But when Syd was in the band it was
his band. He invented the whole thing. If he hadn't buckled under the pressure, and he had decided to make Pink Floyd a bluegrass band or a 30 piece symphony orchestra, that's exactly what Pink Floyd would have become. When Floyd ditched Syd, the label dropped Floyd and picked up Syd; that's how important he was at the time.
All I'm saying is that the level of time Syd spent at the band's helm is the only difference between post-Syd Floyd and post-Jim Morrison Doors, post-Shannon Hoon Blind Melon, post-tragedy Skynyrd, etc. etc. etc. I agree that Floyd went on to much greater heights and that the band
became their own. It's just that I can
completely understand if anyone considers Syd's Floyd to be the only true Floyd because it was Syd's band and Syd's vision. In the annals of history, Floyd's other members far overshadow Syd and all his work. But for a little while there, Floyd was basically just cashing in on Syd's work.
