"The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?" (c)
If you are more than just a casual fan, "Saucerful of Secrets" is a must-read. This is the first biography of the Floyd that trails its history from infancy through the golden years and Roger's conceptualism to the beginning of the 90's (Schaffner has never seen his book published as it was finished in 1991 right before his death). Writing about a band so ultimately private and largely mystified must be not an easy task. I have read quite a few books on Floyds, and although this one does not cover the Division Bell and Live 8 reunion, it manages, in my opinion, to surpass by a large margin all of the later efforts. It throws light on the inspiration and tensions behind every song and contains quite rare facts that even a very ultimate fan might have never come across before. An idea of matching the titles of the chapters to the band's discography is simple, yet very moving.
I will start with a grain of salt. One cannot disregard Schaffner's HUGE admiration for Syd Barrett (nearly half of the book is concentrated on just one particular character). And although I do agree that Syd was probably one of the most talented lyricists in the history of music, it was impossible not to be annoyed by this fact, particularly not when the author continued highlighting an importance of Syd's influence on completely stylistically deviated post-Ummagumma Floyd. When reading a biography, one expects it to be unbiased and balanced, and I would definitely prefer the genius of Roger's lyrical and David's musical abilities to be put in the same spotlight. Additionally, there were several inaccuracies, though, all of them concern very minor facts and can be written off to the lack of reliable information sources at the time. It is also slightly disappointing that Roger refused to be interviewed for the book, which made the coverage of some widely known tensions one-sided.
What I liked very much is that the book touches not just a story of one band, but covers the spirit of several epochs, from psychedelic late 60s with the arthouse venues like UFO to hippies and punks, pirate radios and many more. This fact is not surprising given that Schaffner knew the world of rock&roll from within, having written The Beatles' and John Lennon's biographies and being acquainted with nearly every significant music figure.
This book is also very valuable for me because it made me realise at least some of the reasons behind the Floyd phenomenon. It always remained unexplained to me, how could the music to such extent arthouse, experimental, space out ("timeless, ageless, spacious", as David himself addressed it in 1971 video interview) become so widely popular. 60-70s were rich for good rock bands: Stones, Beatles, LedZeps, Cream, The Who and many many more. But if there exists quite a logical explanation for their popularity: catchy/danceable/memorable pop tunes + good vocals + good guitar sound + a classical rock idol lifestyle = masses buy it, Floyds always stood out as not quite a fit for this formula. Quiet boys of rock music, they always remained in the shadow of their own brand and played not what the mass wanted to consume but what they thought was important to say. Entirely undanceable, conceptual, pretentious (so pretentious that they even struggled to reach the inner peace), searching for original harmonies and complicated tunes, they never even attempted to be down to earth. "They were middle-class kids...Most english rock and roll was very much a working-class phenomenon." (Miles). What I realised is that it has to do with a number of random facts that clicked, the first one being a pure luck for the early Floyd to become a headliner for the acid-driven psychedelic London scene. The tragic story behind the "crazy diamond" was, paradoxically, their second lucky ticket, together with Dave Gilmour who finally brought musicality and shaped the sound into something that shined, something that we loved as Pinks Floyd. Wouldn't there be this substitution, interest in the Floyds would have vanished together with the interest in the whole subculture. There was also a very rare chemistry between the Floydians, such that the sum of the parts was far greater than their individual offerings. This is something that happens very rarely even for great musicians, let alone ones as amateur as Floyds. David and Roger complemented each other in an iconic way. "Dave made people enjoy it. And Roger made them think. The combination worked really well." (N.Griffiths). And when this chemistry met their pedantic perfectionism, tendency of nailing every single note, every visual and lyrical row, progressing from record to another, their sound became irresistible even for people with polar tastes. There is hardly any other band that would be so consistent in terms of the quality of their songs across all the albums. Take as an example something as acclaimed as Zeppelins who had several completely genius records, whose vocal and drum work, as well as live sound were objectively better than those of Floyds. Yet, when it comes to the quality of the musical product as a unity, this chemistry rarely happened: among these brilliant songs, there often occurred objectively quite undistinguished pop ones with simple repeated chords, mainstream melodies, poor lyrics and little sound progression. And final stroke in this set of random facts, I believe, was something that Floyds discovered after the Meddle album and something they were unbeatably good at - building massive structures. I never drew parallels before reading this book, but Waters, Wright and Mason all studied architecture and hence had had a purely architectural vision of music - great cathedral constructions taking up whole albums and building amphitheaters. They were architects even in terms of technicalities of recording, using multitrack tapes. This gave Floyd its famous depth. All of this sequentially summed up and enabled Floyd dictating their own concept of music and producing DSOM that still remains the best selling album in the history of rock music and holds a record for staying in Billboard charts for the longest period of over 3 years. Weird in a good way, they did great job using their strong sides. And Schaffner...he has also done a great job on this book!
"Floyd was like an experimental theatre - let's try this, let's try that...completely unafraid" Audrey Powell, Hipgnosis