...
I'm so tired of this.
I hate it when people end up calling my favorite musicians strung out junkies, who didn't know how to quit. I mean, they say I'm so obsessed that I don't seem to have a life outside of that. Like Syd Barret. A lot of Pink Floyd fans I meet end up not counting the period with Syd in it Pink Floyd. That he was just some acid addicted weirdo with the band. They like to consider David or Roger the band, and completely leave Syd out of the picture.
Some like to say it was when David and Roger were in the band instead of Syd, that's when PF really came to be what it's known for today. Syd was just 'there'. They like to say his songs were 'too simple, strange, and made no sense at all.' From some I have read, they hate the fact that Syd is in it, saying he would have ruined them if he stayed, and that they got some sense in their heads to get rid of him.
NO YOU 'TARDS.
If it wasn't for Syd, artists like Roger Waters or David Gilmour wouldn't exist. Some of their songs wouldn't even exist. A lot of their songs were based on him. Sure, some of his songs were simple, but they have this sort of, attraction for it's simplicity. A song doesn't have to be so complex in order appeal. Syd wrote almost all their songs. He was the main creative outlet. They became these giants, thanks to the help of Syd. Sure, maybe he did acid, but who didn't do it?
What I end up hearing was actually Syd had mental problems and had a type of schizophrenia, but the drugs only seemed to bring out these problems. They actually went to a doctor in order to help, but was diagnosed as "incurable". But they never did anything much after that. They just stopped trying to help him. I just hate having to argue about why he was in PF. I do love Syd, and I think he's hot.
Like Keith Moon. Sure, he did some crazy stuff, some 'questionable stuff', but apparently he was disturbed. The pills, the booze had taken affect. He became paranoid. Pressure's from everywhere were taking it's toll. He was always expected to be this crazy person, or known as "Moon the Loon". He didn't want to disappoint. Apparently, to me, it seems as though he was a people pleaser. As long as he was doing what was expected, nobody cared how he had to do it. I do believe the stress had gotten to him. So in order to take away these pressures and do what is expected, he more drugs and alcohol
Some people I have met didn't believe that he was cut out for this type of career. They said, that even the most disciplined people crack under pressure in some point of there career. Paparazzi always hounding you, everything you do is reported, all these rumors are started, expectations from the public, and drugs are always trying to coo in your ear that it can take away all the pressure of there life with just one little hit. But the boy was hyperactive. I believe that he couldn't have done anything else. Drumming aloud him to vent of some of that energy, from what I have seen. Sure, I might not be the biggest Who fan to ever walk the Earth, but I know what type of pressure this could have caused.
But, the stories I have heard after he quit the booze and drugs, he was like a teddy bear. He was sweet, nice and friendly. But people won't be able to see past his acts, like John Bonham. I think Richard Cole said that it's a shame that people never got to see how sweet and happy he really was, but couldn't see past all of the things he did. And I do believe Richard. People usually only like to see the part that will make headlines, even if the truth has to be smudged to get it.
A lot of the Beatles fan would KILL me, knowing that I favor the Stones more than hem. I don't think SGT. Pepper their greatest album. I like Magical Mystery Tour a lot better than SGT. Pepper. I like how the Stones did on TSMR didn't take everything so seriously. Not everything the Rolling Stones due has to be compared to the Beatles. A lot like to say that Brian Jones copied George Harrison when he started doing sitar. Then didn't that mean George was copying other sitar players before him. Saying that a lot of their songs were just changed around Beatles songs. ow they hate the Stones mostly because Mick. I don't get it. It's like saying Aerosmith sucks because the singer just happens to resemble Mick a little bit.
People liked to peg them as a poor mans Rolling Stones, when they obviously weren't. I can hear Stones influences, among others, but they don't sound like EXACTLY like them. I hate it when they just like to copy everything Beatles. That Jagger/Richards were just imitations. I would like to see this argument rest. It's been over 40 years since the 60's. Give it a rest. I see Youtube comment all the time trying to say the Stones suck. If someone doesn't agree, they literally go off. I think they just feel threatened by the fans. Especially Paul fans. Calling the Stones all ' strung out, self decadent, sex obsessed, selfish, washed up band of junkies who just do drugs and drink booze. Seeing as thought the Beatles did it too. They were just dressed up for the public. JUST LET IT GO. The bands were fans of each other and loved each others music.
Just acknowledge that they all made some great music. Not everything has to be questioned, or compared. But, some people aren't just going to let it go. I don't care if Beatles fans or Stones fans get upset, though, it's more likely the Beatles fans than Stones fan but this i my opinion.
Also, I have been listening to "The Logical Song" by Supertramp all day. Damn spell checker saying Supertramp is misspelled.
