Concretebadger wrote:
Really insightful. Thanks for sharing! Pink Floyd are one of my favourite bands but I've never seen or heard many interviews of theirs, especially in their early days.
I've never been able to appreciate the early material quite as much as their 70s-era stuff, but I admire Syd enormously even though I never felt I understood him (but then, who did?). He didn't seem to be copying or ripping off anyone else - Syd was Syd, and I don't think anyone has ever really worked out where his inspiration came from. As an artist, he was one of those truly unique and original characters.
What interests me about that interview - I got a bit annoyed by the interviewer...i'm not sure if he was himself being narrow-minded or was simply playing a part to appease the TV audiences of the time - is the sort of answers that Syd and Roger gave. Reading interviews with bands of the soundscape-y/experimental/alternative music of the present day, not much has changed in the past forty or so years! In that sense, they were ahead of their time in making use of dynamic changes and understanding that sheer volume can be expressive and even beautiful, instead of offensively loud. Talk to the likes of Kevin Shields, Sigur Ros, Mono or Godspeed You! Black Emperor, and their approach to live music isn't all that different from what Pink Floyd were doing in the late 60s.
It's interesting, now that I think about it. Using things like quiet/loud dynamics, rising/falling scales, key and/or tempo changes, wide varieties of sounds, occasional dissonant notes, etc... to set a mood/atmosphere or create sense of tension are mainly features of classical music. Prior to the 1960s psychedelic rock, prog-rock, and heavy metal these features were pretty much non-existent in western pop and folk music.