In 1995 Syd,s sister Rosemary said he is ...
David Wills
his royalties just to get away frome the music buisness and could not
afford to buy a cd player, and BURNED all his paintings from the 60,s
and 70,s.
Elaterium
It's:1) an invalidity pension (he's an invalid)
2) signed not singed
3)business not buisness
4)sad
elat...@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks)
SYYD
In an interview with David Gilmour, Dave said that the only contact he
has with Syd anymore was checking to see if his money was getting to him
correctly. Syd's mom died a few years ago, maybe he had an inheritance,
or something, so he doesn't need the royalties....
"http://www.angelfire.com/ab/syyd"
David Wills
that paper-the legal document that waved his royalties) and has not held
a job, in 94 she said he had not recived royalties for years so he must
have signed (a paper) as she calles it, in the 80s.This is how the 95
interview ends.What will Roger be without you today?A-He would be
dead.He would probably be dead.Or he would be in some street corner
without a shelter,or money and surely with a bottle of alcohol in his
hands or some drug in his pockets.
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
wrote:
>he hates the music business, his sis said he has never regretted signing
>that paper-the legal document that waved his royalties)
Syd didn't sign away his rights to his royalties, he signed away
ownership of his solo recordings, which is something completely
different. It's because he did that that EMI have had pretty much a
free hand in choosing what they want to release (or not as the case
may be).
>and has not held
>a job, in 94 she said he had not recived royalties for years so he must
>have signed (a paper) as she calles it, in the 80s.This is how the 95
>interview ends.
I contacted Charles Spencer of the Daily Telegraph after he published
a short piece about Syd (to tie in with the Relics remaster). CS
wrote us an article for 'Chapter 24' (which we'll get around to
printing on day:-) and, fired with enthusiasm after our chat (well
possibly anyway:-) he followed up his own article by getting in touch
with Paul Breen (Rosemary's husband). One of the comments from Paul
Breen that CS didn't use in his follow-up piece (but which he
mentioned to me afterwards) concerned Syds annual earnings, and I can
assure you that our hero is not hard up. EMI had been 'forgetting' to
pay Syd his royalties during the 70's, and at one point he was
technically bankrupt. However Syd's brother Alan Barrett took charge
of the situation, got in touch with David Gilmour and between the two
of them they managed to get Syd's back royalties paid and ensure that
since then he has had his due income paid properly. AB looks after
all of Syd/Roger Barrett's business nowadays and as a consequence our
hero has a comfortable income, more than enough to keep him in the
lifestyle he wishes. The various reissues of 'Piper...' etc have
helped to maintain his income, and one of the principle reasons Pink
Floyd agreed to the mono 'Piper' and singles ep was to ensure that
their old pal got a bit more in the way of royalties. The live
version of 'Astronomy Domine' on 'Pulse' should keep him in sock money
for a while as well.
>SYYD wrote:
>> correctly. Syd's mom died a few years ago, maybe he had an inheritance,
>> or something, so he doesn't need the royalties....
Syd lives in his mother's old house in Cambridge.
Best Wishes
David Parker
I'm sick of the spam I get from posting. Replace 'invalid' with 'com'.
Ian Keiser
>In an interview with David Gilmour, Dave said that the only contact he
>has with Syd anymore was checking to see if his money was getting to him
>correctly.
Dave also claims to have taught Syd everything he knows about guitar. Go
figure.
-Ian Keiser (The Mad Biped)
petitioning 7-11 for freon Slurpies since 1996
(cut the "crap" to email)
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
>>In an interview with David Gilmour, Dave said that the only contact he
>>has with Syd anymore was checking to see if his money was getting to him
>>correctly.
>
>Dave also claims to have taught Syd everything he knows about guitar. Go
>figure.
I think that's a little unfair:-) I don't recall ever reading a DG
interview where he claimed to have taught Syd everything he knew about
guitar. I seem to remember DG getting a bit cheesed off in the 1970's
when people were saying he copped his 'slide guitar and echo box'
style from Syd. If I remember correctly DG simply pointed out that he
had been using such gizmo's himself at the time when he and Syd were
sharing guitar playing tips and that Syd picked up as much from him as
he did from Syd. Going from memory DG's actual comment was along the
lines of "I can still hear bits of my style in Syd's playing."
Reading the various Syd/Floyd books I don't think there's any
disputing that DG was generally regarded as the hottest guitarist on
the Cambridge scene at the time. IMO Syd's strength was his
free-thinking experimental approach to playing, he wasn't a
particularly technically gifted player (I seem to recall a quote along
the lines of "Syd was a bit of a 'rookie' guitar player," from one of
his 60's friends). DG is famous enough as a guitarist in his own
right, I can't see any reason why he would need to try and claim all
the credit for Syd's guitar playing as well. After all they were
friends from childhood and DG has consistantly gone out of his way to
help his old friend either musically (producing his records) or
financially (helping to sort out his royalties etc). Even his IMO
mis-guided attempts to stop the 'Opel' LP stemmed from his concern for
his friend's reputation.
Elaterium
figure. >>
No he doesn't. He "patently denies that". But he does say he taught him a few
things in high school.
elat...@aol.com (Mark Steven Brooks)
David Wills
him.It is a big problem.Some days ago,we were on the beach and he had a
small drum to play and was very enthusiast.He still has the rhythm
inside him.Anyway he has seen in a shop some bongos and wanted to buy
them but he hadnt got the money! If what you are saying happend aft 95
then mabe its true, but remember Gilmour/Waters and any close family
members looks embarrassingly BAD if the truth is out that he is POOR!
She is NOT making up this info she just has the guts to tell the truth.I
will trust her word any day over Gilmour.She is a nurse so she cant be
making that much money anyway and England is not rich like the USA.
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
wrote:
>So why did his sis say in 95 that:Roger spends more than I can give
>him.It is a big problem. (snip) .Anyway he has seen in a shop some bongos and wanted to buy
>them but he hadnt got the money!
Is it my imagination or are these quotes being taken from that Italian
bootleg book and CD set called something like 'A Fish Out of Water'?
I only ask because other quotes I have seen from that book fail to tie
up with more easily authenticated statements from Roger Barrett's
family and friends. As I said before Alan Barrett is the family
member responsible for all of Roger Barrett's financial and business
affairs. If Roger wanted some bongos then Rosemary could get Alan to
pay for them. Check with the PRS in London if you don't believe me
(they'll have him down as Dr A. Barrett).
> If what you are saying happend aft 95
>then mabe its true,
I forget exactly when I had the conversation with Charles Spencer, but
it may well have been 1995. It was the year the 'Relics' remaster
came out.
>but remember Gilmour/Waters and any close family
>members looks embarrassingly BAD if the truth is out that he is POOR!
That might be the case if it were true that Roger Barrett was poor
because he was being deprived of his rightful earnings by a sinister
conspiracy between the various members of Pink Floyd past and present,
EMI Records and the members of his own family. David Gilmour and
Roger Waters earn plenty of money in their own right without having to
do down their old friend out of some 'Piper...' royalties. The amount
they earn is such that they have no earthly reason at all for leaving
him poor. EMI Records have a vested interest in ensuring that they do
not upset any members of Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd's word is law at EMI
and Tony Harlow (then Marketing Director at EMI, now Managing Director
of EMI Australia) told me (as I've said before) that the main reason
Pink Floyd agreed to the release of the mono 1967 recordings was to
ensure that Roger B got some more royalties. His family also have a
vested interest in ensuring that he earns the maximum amount possible
as he has no other real source of income. He's not an invalid, but
like a lot of people with mental problems he needs regular checking to
ensure he takes his diabetes medication etc, a responsibility that
tends to fall on his sister. Thus any cash that comes in helps to
take the pressure off them (the family). When I spoke to Tim
Chacksfield (then head of Harvest Records) about the 'Crazy Diamond'
box set (1993?) he said that the Barrett family were always happy to
see things being released because it helped with his royalty income.
>She is NOT making up this info she just has the guts to tell the truth.I
>will trust her word any day over Gilmour.She is a nurse so she cant be
>making that much money anyway and England is not rich like the USA.
Paul and Rosemary Breen earn their keep by owning and running a hotel
in Cambridge. Charles Spencer told me that it is 'quite a prestigious
place'. Rosemary Breen may be a nurse as well, although I was not
aware of that fact. Personally speaking I will take the word of
people like David Gilmour, Clive Welham, Richard Wright and Paul Breen
as reported many times in magazines like 'Mojo' and 'Q' and books like
'Crazy Diamond' over attributed comments of dubious authenticity in a
single Italian book which came packaged with an illegally distributed
copy of an old Syd/Floyd recording from which our hero will not have
derived any royalty income whatsoever. Roger Barrett lives the way he
does because that's the way he's happy living. Don't forget that he
turned down a Ł75,000 offer from Atlantic Records to record 'anything
at all'. If he was desperate for cash, or the family needed the money
or something, then he would have grabbed the money, recorded himself
reading the front page of the Times and run.
David, please take all of this with a :-) I am as concerned about our
hero's well being as anyone else who is reading this. I just feel
that there is a tendancy on the part of some people (particularly the
Italian fans for some reason) to want to make a bit of a martyr out of
our hero. His is a sad story, but his present situation is one (as
Paul Breen has gone on UK radio to say) in which he is the happiest he
has been for many years.
David Wills
will continue to send quotes of Rosemary cuz the truth must be known
even when it hurts.I have loved syd,s work since 1976 after i got my
copy of A Nice Pair(WR PHANG)copy-water damaged now-and i have many syd
boots so im not green behind the ears on this subject(yea i know my
spelling sucks).I dont condone bootleging but lets not forget that syd,s
music was bootled so much that it forced EMI to put out OPEL!Since we
all agree that syd/roger REJECTS the music buisness/industry TOTALY and
anything that goes with it including MONEY,etc,etc.Thats a FACT!To say
syd/roger would cash a check from EMI cuz that money came frome Piper or
any other PF sales is pure FANTASY and a myth that must end.As you
pointed out he signed away his royalties from his own work.Why? so he
could excape the all bullshit,lawyers,etc that come with it.Its bad PR
for EMI,and Pink Floyd so the POWERS that be_inc you Mr Parker, must put
some POSITIVE spin for the fans to consume.Even(will i ever stop?)if
David Gilmour came to syd,s door with a truck load of MONEY he would
have nothing to do with it cuz of the source of that money not the money
itself.Dont blame the Italian fans dave, its how syd/roger wants to live
his life, Rosemary thinks he is happy, we all hope she is
right.
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
wrote:
>Yes i have two copys of a fish out of water, got them last month and i
>will continue to send quotes of Rosemary cuz the truth must be known
>even when it hurts.
I've got no problem with the truth, even if it hurts. What I do have
a problem with is the use of quotations of extremely dubious
authenticity to support an argument that goes against the 'truth' as
stated in all other sources. If I thought the quotes in that book
were anything like authentic I'd be there with you protesting outside
EMI UK or whatever.
>I have loved syd,s work since 1976 after i got my
>copy of A Nice Pair(WR PHANG)copy-water damaged now-and i have many syd
>boots so im not green behind the ears on this subject
I gathered that from your earlier posts.
>I dont condone bootleging but lets not forget that syd,s
>music was bootled so much that it forced EMI to put out OPEL!
I disagree. It was pressure from fans who kept writing to EMI asking
them to release stuff, and pressure from Malcolm Jones who had been
pushing for the release of 'a new Syd album' since the early 1980's
that led to the release of 'Opel'. I just find it difficult to get to
grips with an argument about how badly Syd/Roger Barrett has been
treated by the music business supported by information obtained solely
from a source directly responsible for depriving him of part of his
rightful earnings.
>Since we
>all agree that syd/roger REJECTS the music buisness/industry TOTALY and
>anything that goes with it including MONEY,etc,etc.Thats a FACT!
I'd say it's more like he doesn't care about the music
business/industry and anything that goes with it.
>To say
>syd/roger would cash a check from EMI cuz that money came frome Piper or
>any other PF sales is pure FANTASY and a myth that must end.
The cheques go to the Performing Rights Society in London. If you
check with them they should confirm that 'Syd Barretts' earnings are
sent to Dr A. Barrett. They won't tell you anything else though.
>As you
>pointed out he signed away his royalties from his own work.
That's not what I said at all. He signed away ownership of the sound
recordings, which is something completely different.
>Why? so he
>could excape the all bullshit,lawyers,etc that come with it.
No I disagree. I'd say it's simply that his mental condition is such
that he doesn't care about such things. He just isn't bothered or
interested. IMO he just doesn't have any feelings about them at all.
>Its bad PR
>for EMI,and Pink Floyd so the POWERS that be_inc you Mr Parker, must put
>some POSITIVE spin for the fans to consume.
Hey that's cool. I've never been a power before:-) I'm not
interested in putting a spin on anything and I hardly think my writing
here is going to change the world. But using your argument I could
say that it's bad PR for people who want 'Syd Barrett' as a big
anti-music business hero to know that he still gets his earnings, so
they'll put a negative spin on his story, play up the not writing
anymore side of it etc.
>Even(will i ever stop?)if
>David Gilmour came to syd,s door with a truck load of MONEY he would
>have nothing to do with it cuz of the source of that money not the money
>itself.
I think you'll find that as long as Syd/Roger has enough money to keep
himself in paintbrushes and food he'll be happy. IMO he simply isn't
bothered about such things. One could put a 'spin' on this such that
it appeared to be a heroic stance against the evils of money etc, but
I believe that goes against the reality. The people who *are*
concerned about his earnings are his family, who have to look after
him. A natural desire for justice means that they do not want to see
him deprived of his rightful earnings, and they (through Alan Barrett)
have seen to it that Syd/Roger has enough to keep him in the lifestyle
in which he's happy.
>Dont blame the Italian fans dave, its how syd/roger wants to live
>his life, Rosemary thinks he is happy, we all hope she is
>right.
I don't blame the Italian fans for Syd/Roger's lifestyle, and I agree
with you that Syd/Roger is living the life that he wants to live. I
just think that there is a tendancy on the part of some fans to want
our hero to be some kind of martyr to, or heroic fighter against, the
'evils' of the music business. I may be totally wrong, but everything
I've ever read or heard about Syd/Roger goes against that. He's
someone that has come through a bad period of mental illness to a
point where he can get by happily on his own.
I respect your opinions David, but I simply feel that you're using
information from a single source (and one of extremely dubious
authenticity at that) to support your arguments. Show me some
credible supporting evidence from two or three more verifiable sources
and I'll accept what you're saying.
David Wills
search artists box and in the middle of the page you will find (the
little green book that could-a fish out of water for $17.97.Now after
the rest of the good people in this NG have their copy in hand we can
really have some fun in this NG.I would have named the book "The Day
Rosemary droped the Bomb" but thats just me.I dont think its is a
bootleg and the sound on the CD is EX! David Parker dont say i dident
warn you cuz your jaw will drop to the floor while reading the
interviews.On a high note mabe someone can give Rosemary sometype of
camera and she could have syd/roger take pictures of the paintings he
wants to sell, she could then take the camera to a net-savy type and
sell the paintings online- EBAY? That would be a cool way for syd/roger
to get the KIND of money he wants when ever he is hard up.Its a strech
but stranger things have happend.This thread will end?NOT
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:53:09 GMT, David Wills <daw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes i have two copys of a fish out of water, got them last month and i
> >will continue to send quotes of Rosemary cuz the truth must be known
> >even when it hurts.
>
> I've got no problem with the truth, even if it hurts. What I do have
> a problem with is the use of quotations of extremely dubious
> authenticity to support an argument that goes against the 'truth' as
> stated in all other sources. If I thought the quotes in that book
> were anything like authentic I'd be there with you protesting outside
> EMI UK or whatever.
>
> >I have loved syd,s work since 1976 after i got my
> >copy of A Nice Pair(WR PHANG)copy-water damaged now-and i have many syd
> >boots so im not green behind the ears on this subject
>
> I gathered that from your earlier posts.
>
> >I dont condone bootleging but lets not forget that syd,s
> >music was bootled so much that it forced EMI to put out OPEL!
>
> I disagree. It was pressure from fans who kept writing to EMI asking
> them to release stuff, and pressure from Malcolm Jones who had been
> pushing for the release of 'a new Syd album' since the early 1980's
> that led to the release of 'Opel'. I just find it difficult to get to
> grips with an argument about how badly Syd/Roger Barrett has been
> treated by the music business supported by information obtained solely
> from a source directly responsible for depriving him of part of his
> rightful earnings.
>
> >Since we
> >all agree that syd/roger REJECTS the music buisness/industry TOTALY and
> >anything that goes with it including MONEY,etc,etc.Thats a FACT!
>
> I'd say it's more like he doesn't care about the music
> business/industry and anything that goes with it.
>
> >To say
> >syd/roger would cash a check from EMI cuz that money came frome Piper or
> >any other PF sales is pure FANTASY and a myth that must end.
>
> The cheques go to the Performing Rights Society in London. If you
> check with them they should confirm that 'Syd Barretts' earnings are
> sent to Dr A. Barrett. They won't tell you anything else though.
>
> >As you
> >pointed out he signed away his royalties from his own work.
>
> That's not what I said at all. He signed away ownership of the sound
> recordings, which is something completely different.
>
> >Why? so he
> >could excape the all bullshit,lawyers,etc that come with it.
>
> No I disagree. I'd say it's simply that his mental condition is such
> that he doesn't care about such things. He just isn't bothered or
> interested. IMO he just doesn't have any feelings about them at all.
>
> >Its bad PR
> >for EMI,and Pink Floyd so the POWERS that be_inc you Mr Parker, must put
> >some POSITIVE spin for the fans to consume.
>
> Hey that's cool. I've never been a power before:-) I'm not
> interested in putting a spin on anything and I hardly think my writing
> here is going to change the world. But using your argument I could
> say that it's bad PR for people who want 'Syd Barrett' as a big
> anti-music business hero to know that he still gets his earnings, so
> they'll put a negative spin on his story, play up the not writing
> anymore side of it etc.
>
> >Even(will i ever stop?)if
> >David Gilmour came to syd,s door with a truck load of MONEY he would
> >have nothing to do with it cuz of the source of that money not the money
> >itself.
>
> I think you'll find that as long as Syd/Roger has enough money to keep
> himself in paintbrushes and food he'll be happy. IMO he simply isn't
> bothered about such things. One could put a 'spin' on this such that
> it appeared to be a heroic stance against the evils of money etc, but
> I believe that goes against the reality. The people who *are*
> concerned about his earnings are his family, who have to look after
> him. A natural desire for justice means that they do not want to see
> him deprived of his rightful earnings, and they (through Alan Barrett)
> have seen to it that Syd/Roger has enough to keep him in the lifestyle
> in which he's happy.
>
> >Dont blame the Italian fans dave, its how syd/roger wants to live
> >his life, Rosemary thinks he is happy, we all hope she is
> >right.
>
> I don't blame the Italian fans for Syd/Roger's lifestyle, and I agree
> with you that Syd/Roger is living the life that he wants to live. I
> just think that there is a tendancy on the part of some fans to want
> our hero to be some kind of martyr to, or heroic fighter against, the
> 'evils' of the music business. I may be totally wrong, but everything
> I've ever read or heard about Syd/Roger goes against that. He's
> someone that has come through a bad period of mental illness to a
> point where he can get by happily on his own.
>
> I respect your opinions David, but I simply feel that you're using
> information from a single source (and one of extremely dubious
> authenticity at that) to support your arguments. Show me some
> credible supporting evidence from two or three more verifiable sources
> and I'll accept what you're saying.
>
David Wills
has not received the royalties anymore for many years.Nobody sends them
and so he doesnt get a penny.But I think he is not angry because this is
a way to break with the past.He still gets many letters and parcels but
he throws those addressed to Syd Barrett in the dustbin without opening
them.They may contain the money got from royalties,but in any case he
will not get them.
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
wrote:
>Now after
>the rest of the good people in this NG have their copy in hand we can
>really have some fun in this NG.I would have named the book "The Day
>Rosemary droped the Bomb" but thats just me.I dont think its is a
>bootleg and the sound on the CD is EX!
It's a CD single featuring de-clicked versions of the 'Lucy Leave' and
'King Bee' recordings copied from 'Magnisium Proverbs'. It is a
bootleg. If you don't believe me have a chat with the PRS or MCPS
(Mechanical Copyright Protection Society).
> David Parker dont say i dident
>warn you cuz your jaw will drop to the floor while reading the
>interviews.
I have read the interviews and I have grave doubts as to their
authenticity. I have not seen anything anywhere to substantiate the
claim that these 'quotes' (as given in the book David, I know you're
quoting them in good faith) are genuinely from Rosemary Breen. I
would be very interested in seeing any such evidence.
>On a high note mabe someone can give Rosemary sometype of
>camera and she could have syd/roger take pictures of the paintings he
>wants to sell, she could then take the camera to a net-savy type and
>sell the paintings online- EBAY? That would be a cool way for syd/roger
>to get the KIND of money he wants when ever he is hard up.Its a strech
>but stranger things have happend.
Sorry David, but I really think this is unwise. Syd/Rogers family
have stated time and time again that all he wants is to be left alone.
However well meaning I personally feel attempting anything like this
will do more harm than good.
>This thread will end?NOT
Yes, let's keep this going. I'd be interested to know what some of
the other more lurk minded folk think of all this.
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
wrote:
>and yet another quote-Q:But who pays now thw royalties to roger?A:Roger
>has not received the royalties anymore for many years.Nobody sends them
>and so he doesnt get a penny.
This is untrue. Paul Breen (who is most definitely, incontrovertibly
and totally verifiably married to Rosemary) stated to Charles Spencer
(who at the time I spoke to him was a regular columnist in the Daily
Telegraph over here in the UK) in unequivocal terms that Syd/Roger had
more than enough money coming in *from his royalties* to provide for
all his needs and a lot more besides. This is information from a
reputable journalist working for a reputable national newspaper (well,
to some people anyway:-) given directly in a face to face interview by
the person married to the person supposedly quoted in the 'Fish Out of
Water' book. Given the choice I'll believe Paul Breen as quoted by
Charles Spencer over the 'quotes' in the 'Fish Out of Water' book.
>He still gets many letters and parcels but
>he throws those addressed to Syd Barrett in the dustbin without opening
>them.
That's true enough. He doesn't acknowledge 'Syd' Barrett any more,
and signs himself "R. Barrett" (I've seen a genuine signature from
1993).
>They may contain the money got from royalties,but in any case he
>will not get them.
As I've said before, and as can be verified from the PRS (Performing
Rights Society) in London, who are the major royalty collection
service for virtually every songwriter in the entire universe. All
'Syd Barrett' royalties are sent to or dealt with by his brother. So
yes, Syd/Roger will not directly receive any cheques, but the money is
most definitely paid out to his 'account'.
Jmv999
writes:
>>This thread will end?NOT
>
>Yes, let's keep this going. I'd be interested to know what some of
>the other more lurk minded folk think of all this.
>
I think that you should both knock it off and get a life.
David Wills
cents worth and your going to put us down for our opinion about what I
believe is a HUGE STORY in the world of PF/SB fans world wide?If your so
COOL what the HELL are doing reading posts in this NG in the first
place?Now,if David Parker has "grave doubts about their authenticty" the
interviews that is, thats fine with me.Lets find out how bogus or real
the interview is, how that can be done is a good Q.Forget the CD thats
another CAN OF WORMS.I think its the real deal, if is "ALL BOLLOCKS then
show me the PROOF that it is and I will shut up about it.BTW, if it is
BOGUS, then I hear the sound of a team of $500.00 an hour LAWYERS going
after SONIC BOOK, and all the people involved with the book.Now jmv999
thats a part of life!OK?
da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
>In article <37fcbc9c...@news.u-net.com>, da...@pickup.u-net.invalid
>writes:
>
>>>This thread will end?NOT
>>
>>Yes, let's keep this going. I'd be interested to know what some of
>>the other more lurk minded folk think of all this.
>>
>
> I think that you should both knock it off and get a life.
That's OK with me. Back to silence.
David Wills
sale on Ebay.Does Andrew King really swear that She was a millionaire
was erased?Does Joe Boyd still complain about having lost the Boom Tune
tape somewhere?Does David Gilmour still have Living Alone or was it
lost?Does (and why would he? Victor Bernstein(son of the famous
Leonard)really have copys of the STARS gigs? that sounds phoney even to
me.....
Dandy the robot
You argued about this before till you were blue in the face, and made a bit
of a fool of your self that time as well. Less of the condescending
sarcasm,
and more spell checks please.
I'm with David Parker on this.
David Wills <daw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38150B79...@home.com...
> Ok boys and girls lets go to www.ab-cd.com and type syd barrett in the
> search artists box and in the middle of the page you will find (the
> little green book that could-a fish out of water for $17.97.Now after
> the rest of the good people in this NG have their copy in hand we can
> really have some fun in this NG.I would have named the book "The Day
> Rosemary droped the Bomb" but thats just me.I dont think its is a
> bootleg and the sound on the CD is EX! David Parker dont say i dident
> warn you cuz your jaw will drop to the floor while reading the
> interviews.
>
> da...@pickup.u-net.invalid wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:53:09 GMT, David Wills <daw...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yes i have two copys of a fish out of water, got them last month and i
> > >will continue to send quotes of Rosemary cuz the truth must be known
> > >even when it hurts.
> >
> > I've got no problem with the truth, even if it hurts. What I do have
> > a problem with is the use of quotations of extremely dubious
> > authenticity to support an argument that goes against the 'truth' as
> > stated in all other sources. If I thought the quotes in that book
> > were anything like authentic I'd be there with you protesting outside
> > EMI UK or whatever.
> >
> > >I have loved syd,s work since 1976 after i got my
> > >copy of A Nice Pair(WR PHANG)copy-water damaged now-and i have many syd
> > >boots so im not green behind the ears on this subject
> >
> > I gathered that from your earlier posts.
> >
> > >I dont condone bootleging but lets not forget that syd,s
> > >music was bootled so much that it forced EMI to put out OPEL!
> >
> > I disagree. It was pressure from fans who kept writing to EMI asking
> > them to release stuff, and pressure from Malcolm Jones who had been
> > pushing for the release of 'a new Syd album' since the early 1980's
> > that led to the release of 'Opel'. I just find it difficult to get to
> > grips with an argument about how badly Syd/Roger Barrett has been
> > treated by the music business supported by information obtained solely
> > from a source directly responsible for depriving him of part of his
> > rightful earnings.
> >
> > >Since we
> > >all agree that syd/roger REJECTS the music buisness/industry TOTALY and
> > >anything that goes with it including MONEY,etc,etc.Thats a FACT!
> >
> > I'd say it's more like he doesn't care about the music
> > business/industry and anything that goes with it.
> >
> > >To say
> > >syd/roger would cash a check from EMI cuz that money came frome Piper
or
> > >any other PF sales is pure FANTASY and a myth that must end.
> >
> > The cheques go to the Performing Rights Society in London. If you
> > check with them they should confirm that 'Syd Barretts' earnings are
> > sent to Dr A. Barrett. They won't tell you anything else though.
> >
> > >As you
> > >pointed out he signed away his royalties from his own work.
> >
> > That's not what I said at all. He signed away ownership of the sound
> > recordings, which is something completely different.
> >
> > >Why? so he
> > >could excape the all bullshit,lawyers,etc that come with it.
> >
> > No I disagree. I'd say it's simply that his mental condition is such
> > that he doesn't care about such things. He just isn't bothered or
> > interested. IMO he just doesn't have any feelings about them at all.
> >
> > >Its bad PR
> > >for EMI,and Pink Floyd so the POWERS that be_inc you Mr Parker, must
put
> > >some POSITIVE spin for the fans to consume.
> >
> > Hey that's cool. I've never been a power before:-) I'm not
> > interested in putting a spin on anything and I hardly think my writing
> > here is going to change the world. But using your argument I could
> > say that it's bad PR for people who want 'Syd Barrett' as a big
> > anti-music business hero to know that he still gets his earnings, so
> > they'll put a negative spin on his story, play up the not writing
> > anymore side of it etc.
> >
> > >Even(will i ever stop?)if
> > >David Gilmour came to syd,s door with a truck load of MONEY he would
> > >have nothing to do with it cuz of the source of that money not the
money
> > >itself.
> >
> > I think you'll find that as long as Syd/Roger has enough money to keep
> > himself in paintbrushes and food he'll be happy. IMO he simply isn't
> > bothered about such things. One could put a 'spin' on this such that
> > it appeared to be a heroic stance against the evils of money etc, but
> > I believe that goes against the reality. The people who *are*
> > concerned about his earnings are his family, who have to look after
> > him. A natural desire for justice means that they do not want to see
> > him deprived of his rightful earnings, and they (through Alan Barrett)
> > have seen to it that Syd/Roger has enough to keep him in the lifestyle
> > in which he's happy.
> >
> > >Dont blame the Italian fans dave, its how syd/roger wants to live
> > >his life, Rosemary thinks he is happy, we all hope she is
> > >right.
> >
> > I don't blame the Italian fans for Syd/Roger's lifestyle, and I agree
> > with you that Syd/Roger is living the life that he wants to live. I
> > just think that there is a tendancy on the part of some fans to want
> > our hero to be some kind of martyr to, or heroic fighter against, the
> > 'evils' of the music business. I may be totally wrong, but everything
> > I've ever read or heard about Syd/Roger goes against that. He's
> > someone that has come through a bad period of mental illness to a
> > point where he can get by happily on his own.
> >
> > I respect your opinions David, but I simply feel that you're using
> > information from a single source (and one of extremely dubious
> > authenticity at that) to support your arguments. Show me some
> > credible supporting evidence from two or three more verifiable sources
> > and I'll accept what you're saying.
> >
David Wills
send a new post.The two authors and editor, publisher,etc will stand
behind their own book.BTW, the Ian Barrett interview is a mirror of the
Rosemary interviews.As for the countless flames about my FOSTERS spell
check,etc.LOL.
David Wills
David Wills
Dandy the robot
David Wills
read, and I dont belive David Parker when he said he read the
interviews, can he PROVE he read them? About the AUTHORS:
Luca Ferrari,33 years old, is author and editor of books on rock
stars(Pink Floyd,Syd Barrett,Nick Drake,Captin Beefheart).He has been
the first,in Italy,to work on the mistery of Syd Barrett when the rock
journalism thought he was dead or painting green the fridge of his
mothers kitchen.
Annie Marie Roulin,38 years old,qualified university teacher of
psychiatry at the Department of Sciences of the Human Behaviour at the
University of Aix-en-Provence(France),has written many essays on the
relation between art and mental desease published by the most important
French scientific journals.She has came across Syd Barrett the day her
daughter Dominique let her listen to Dominoes.
Now dan dont you look stupid?
Dandy the robot
Your quite lame, David Parker at least gives good reasons why,
All you do is moan in a 'I want it to be true' kinda way
Its you that acts and looks stupid wills, at least I can master my spell
check.
And why couldn't you send all that in the one post?
You spelt believe, captain, mystery and disease wrong,
In a paragraph where you called me an idiot.
You idiot.
David Wills <daw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38175672...@home.com...
David Wills
editor about "Syd Barrett,s case" has given us the opportunity to read
his work again together with the reasons of his "inner surrender",with
fist rate new documents and ,this is what we want eagerly,to give some
of our fees as editors directly to Roger Barrett through his sister ,as
a gesture of reparation to all the troubles he has suffered also by our
contributions even if our intentions were in good faith.
We hope and wish it will be the last book on him.
And then let him live quietly his every day
life! Luca Ferrari,April 1996
>
> No you stop!
> Your quite lame, David Parker at least gives good reasons why,
> All you do is moan in a 'I want it to be true' kinda way
>
> Its you that acts and looks stupid wills, at least I can master my spell
> check.
> And why couldn't you send all that in the one post?
>
> You spelt believe, captain, mystery and disease wrong,
> In a paragraph where you called me an idiot.
> You idiot.
>
Pierce Inverarity
wrote:
>What the author has to say in his foward: But the lastest request of the
>editor about "Syd Barrett,s case" has given us the opportunity to read
>his work again together with the reasons of his "inner surrender",with
>fist rate new documents and ,this is what we want eagerly,to give some
>of our fees as editors directly to Roger Barrett through his sister ,as
>a gesture of reparation to all the troubles he has suffered also by our
>contributions even if our intentions were in good faith.
>We hope and wish it will be the last book on him.
>And then let him live quietly his every day
>life! Luca Ferrari,April 1996
Well, if your transcriptions of the book were properly punctuated and
spaced, you might be more respectable looking.
Also, that book was translated badly from Italian to English. Why do
you think that everything written in that book is absolutely correct?
--
Pierce Inverarity
clea...@nonespecified.cjb.net
v1.2a s+r>d TW 1/0/r tinG 2? 0 WYWH/Meddle 12 39 6.4% <20oct99>
You are often "covering" yourself.
And you are efficient.
But brutal. Sometimes you're brutal.
David Wills
give is percisely the way it is in the book, to show the obvious
syntax,grammatical errors,etc. Assuming you have read the book Pierce,
you will note that Annie Marie Roulin>lets call her AMR for short, is
FRENCH thus adding to the frustration factor. My guess is that most if
not all notes,drafts,etc by her are in French and were then translated,
a messy job for any editor Italian or American. Bolth Syd books by Luca
Ferrari are printed in Italian only, and according to the breif info
about AMR, she is only published in French scientific journals, so
contacting them via email seems impossible. <sigh>
Pierce Inverarity wrote: