|
Post by Mad Bugger on Jun 6, 2016 2:57:47 GMT
Here, you can discuss said album and other such related thingies! (And yes, before you ask The Lunatic , I listened to this one too. ^u^ Just after DSotM, actually.) I listened to this one a few weeks ago, and it was pretty great, I found! Although it was sometimes difficult to discern which song was which (I usually check track listings and such before I listen to unfamiliar albums, but not this time. Whoops!), I really enjoyed listening to this one as well as DSotM. I think two of my favourite bits included the ha ha, charade you are! bits and the acoustic guitar on both parts of Pigs on the Wing, which for some reason reminded me of the acoustic guitar on Mother. Weird. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jun 6, 2016 13:21:09 GMT
Here, you can discuss said album and other such related thingies! (And yes, before you ask The Lunatic , I listened to this one too. ^u^ Just after DSotM, actually.) I listened to this one a few weeks ago, and it was pretty great, I found! Although it was sometimes difficult to discern which song was which (I usually check track listings and such before I listen to unfamiliar albums, but not this time. Whoops!), I really enjoyed listening to this one as well as DSotM. I think two of my favourite bits included the ha ha, charade you are! bits and the acoustic guitar on both parts of Pigs on the Wing, which for some reason reminded me of the acoustic guitar on Mother. Weird. *shrugs* Hehehe, you know me too well... YAAAAAAAAAAY I'm glad you did, cos it's one of my favourite Floyd albums (some of my earliest Floyd exposure, in fact). I put it on when I'm in the mood to fangirl over Roger-- he's at his best here. (After this one he gets a bit self-indulgent, in my opinion.) He's doing the full cynical-rock-god act here, and never does he do it better. As for the POTW/Mother guitar... well, they're both Roger strumming an acoustic guitar in G. very similar. I often find that the Floyds sort of recall themselves-at-other-times quite a lot, it makes for interesting listening.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jun 28, 2016 14:06:08 GMT
I think two of my favourite bits included the ha ha, charade you are! bits and the acoustic guitar on both parts of Pigs on the Wing, which for some reason reminded me of the acoustic guitar on Mother. Weird. *shrugs*As for the POTW/Mother guitar... well, they're both Roger strumming an acoustic guitar in G, very similar. (see bolded text) Not really. Actually, the first part of 'Mother' is basically a straight cop of 'Pigs On the Wing'-- only he elaborates on the concept with Dave's voice and the rest of the band and the electric guitar solo and... etc., etc. As I said, the Floyd do this a lot: they try an idea, then they try it again, only elaborating on the previous experiment, and they just do this over and over. So a lot of Floyd songs are reminiscent of earlier ones, but completely different too, and it's quite fun to spot the patterns.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jul 8, 2016 17:16:38 GMT
And speaking of 'Pigs On The Wing', does anyone here actually have a theory as to what the flying pigs actually represent? They must mean something, because this is Pink Floyd we're talking about here, and they wouldn't feature so prominently in the song if they were nothing but a catchy title. I've been turning it over in my mind, trying to think what the pigs in 'Pigs' would be if they were on the run wing, and trying to equate it to the traditional figure-of-speech meaning 'when a completely mad impossibility happens'. The best I can come up with is that Roger, the dog, needs empathy-- love-- to provide 'a shelter'-- from the empathy-less 'sane' madness of modern society, as outlined in DSOTM, to a lesser extent WYWH, 'POTW' part one, and the three main pieces in Animals-- the 'pigs on the wing'. Hey, that came out better than I thought it would... So basically, in 'Pigs On The Wing' he's alone, introspecting, and states, 'If you didn't care what happened to me/ And I didn't care for you/ We would...' etc. and then proceeds to illustrate his point by demonstrating three species of The Seemingly Sane Empathy-Less Modern-Day Societist (that's not a word but who cares), exposing the true madness of it all; finally, in 'Pigs On The Wing Part 2'-- speaking directly to his wife at the time/the listener/Pink/whoever you please-- he reveals that 'You know that I care what happens to you/ And I know that you care for me too', further revealing that he, the dog-- a member of the mad modern society-- 'won't feel alone, or the weight of the stone/ Now that I've found somewhere safe to bury my bone/ And as any fool knows, a dog needs a home'-- as any fool knows, home is where the heart is, so 'home' would be with the people whom he knows he can trust, whom he knows cares-- 'a shelter from pigs on the wing', or the empathy-less representatives of the impossibly insane modern society (which mostly consists of boredom and pain). That wasn't basic... So basically-- really this time-- he's saying (to use a Harrison quote): 'With our love, we could save the world', from boredom and pain. THAT's DEEP, MAN Oh dear... I've done it again. Seriously, I should do this for a living.
|
|
|
Post by Mad Bugger on Jul 8, 2016 22:59:27 GMT
And speaking of 'Pigs On The Wing', does anyone here actually have a theory as to what the flying pigs actually represent? They must mean something, because this is Pink Floyd we're talking about here, and they wouldn't feature so prominently in the song if they were nothing but a catchy title. I've been turning it over in my mind, trying to think what the pigs in 'Pigs' would be if they were on the run wing, and trying to equate it to the traditional figure-of-speech meaning 'when a completely mad impossibility happens'. The best I can come up with is that Roger, the dog, needs empathy-- love-- to provide 'a shelter'-- from the empathy-less 'sane' madness of modern society, as outlined in DSOTM, to a lesser extent WYWH, 'POTW' part one, and the three main pieces in Animals-- the 'pigs on the wing'. Hey, that came out better than I thought it would... So basically, in 'Pigs On The Wing' he's alone, introspecting, and states, 'If you didn't care what happened to me/ And I didn't care for you/ We would...' etc. and then proceeds to illustrate his point by demonstrating three species of The Seemingly Sane Empathy-Less Modern-Day Societist (that's not a word but who cares), exposing the true madness of it all; finally, in 'Pigs On The Wing Part 2'-- speaking directly to his wife at the time/the listener/Pink/whoever you please-- he reveals that 'You know that I care what happens to you/ And I know that you care for me too', further revealing that he, the dog-- a member of the mad modern society-- 'won't feel alone, or the weight of the stone/ Now that I've found somewhere safe to bury my bone/ And as any fool knows, a dog needs a home'-- as any fool knows, home is where the heart is, so 'home' would be with the people whom he knows he can trust, whom he knows cares-- 'a shelter from pigs on the wing', or the empathy-less representatives of the impossibly insane modern society (which mostly consists of boredom and pain). That wasn't basic... So basically-- really this time-- he's saying (to use a Harrison quote): 'With our love, we could save the world', from boredom and pain. THAT's DEEP, MAN Oh dear... I've done it again. Seriously, I should do this for a living. Yet again again, very good theory, FP. Ye sound like a philosopher! I personally thought that it had something to do with the government and greedy, materialistic politicians (or pigs) that only care about money and power, not the well-being and ideals of the greater population, and how their actions affect those people in such a negative way. In some ways, this could be likened to "Piggies" and its themes of greed and wealth in the more powerful upper-classes (and as we know, upper things are higher above the rest, and for things to get so high (like birds), they would need to be able to float or fly (akin to needing the ability to excel above the rest to be in the upper-class) and to fly, most things need wings (power)). Such people could possibly be politicians and the government as a whole. Basically, the majority of the album could be summed up as "Roger hates the government and apparently loves concept albums so here take this". Oh well, that's just my short little take of it.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jul 9, 2016 1:19:13 GMT
Yet again again, very good theory, FP. Ye sound like a philosopher!
I know, right?! It's just the Pink Floyd talking-- I was stoned out of me mind on Floydmusics when I wrote that. More seriously, I think the deep and heavy philosophical bent in the Floyd's lyrics influences me so that I write deep and meaningful analyses of the albums' concepts when I should be doing the dishes. By the way, you can call me Pink for short. I personally thought that it had something to do with the government and greedy, materialistic politicians (or pigs) that only care about money and power, not the well-being and ideals of the greater population, and how their actions affect those people in such a negative way. In some ways, this could be likened to "Piggies" and its themes of greed and wealth in the more powerful upper-classes (and as we know, upper things are higher above the rest, and for things to get so high (like birds), they would need to be able to float or fly (akin to needing the ability to excel above the rest to be in the upper-class) and to fly, most things need wings (power)). Such people could possibly be politicians and the government as a whole. Basically, the majority of the album could be summed up as "Roger hates the government and apparently loves concept albums so here take this". Oh well, that's just my short little take of it. That's a more straightforward interpretation of just the middle threesome. While fairly spot-on, I feel it doesn't tell the whole story, which is more along the lines of what I alluded to. Your take does have a place in mine, though-- somewhere in the middle ought to do nicely, methinks. So not only does Roger hate overarching authority and the established/corrupted order of society-- AKA the government-- and love concept albums, but he also believes that 'Oh, 'tis love, 'tis love, that makes the world go round!' Or, at least, 'tis empathy that will save the world from the established and corrupted authority/society. I think...
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Aug 24, 2016 0:48:52 GMT
Listening to it now, and I just heard something for the first time (!): the piano part in 'Pigs (Three Different Ones). It's during the bridge, in the left channel, quite low. All in all, it's just another brick in the wall of grungy rhythm on the track. Not a huge part, but still -- Rick!
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Sept 26, 2016 23:25:25 GMT
Yeah, as long as there are guitars and things, the songs are brilliant, but after a certain point they get self-indulgent. That's probably the one great drawback to Animals, and why it doesn't generally rank higher than it does, because otherwise it's extremely tight -- conceptually and musically it's pretty flawless, but about halfway through each song the band just wanders off into the weeds and it takes a bit of patience not to skip to the next 'interesting' bit.
I find that one to be not quite as bad: it's just synth solos over the same backing as the rest of the track, rather than the whole song stopping in its tracks for this extended synthfest. But it's certainly a prerequisite to the Animals album, right down to the particular guitar tone on the outro solo.
|
|
|
Post by Mad Bugger on Jan 23, 2017 2:39:10 GMT
While perusing through the calendar, I noticed that Animals's release date was set to the 21st. I could have sworn it was the 23rd.
|
|
|
Post by syd gilmour on Apr 21, 2017 3:05:51 GMT
My friend got into Animals this week, and I revisted the album. All songs are fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Apr 21, 2017 18:13:18 GMT
syd gilmour don't you just love albums with five songs on them that are all equally awesome?!
|
|
|
Post by TheVelvetBride on Apr 21, 2017 23:12:26 GMT
This is the only album I own on vinyl.
I like it. But I wish Dogs was split into two parts (like Shine On You Crazy Diamond). It gets rather tedious in its 17 minutes of entirety.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Apr 22, 2017 2:12:30 GMT
This is the only album I own on vinyl. I assume you mean the only Floyd album. I know you have lots of other albums on vinyl. It does drag a bit after a while, although I don't know that splitting it in two would do much for the overall strength of the piece. I think I'd just cut out some of the synthy wanderings, but that'd be sacrilegious...
|
|
|
Post by TheVelvetBride on Apr 22, 2017 2:31:40 GMT
This is the only album I own on vinyl. I assume you mean the only Floyd album. I know you have lots of other albums on vinyl. It does drag a bit after a while, although I don't know that splitting it in two would do much for the overall strength of the piece. I think I'd just cut out some of the synthy wanderings, but that'd be sacrilegious... Only Floyd LP, of course, that's what I meant. Dunno, I personally like the thinthithithers, (the ELP coming out in me I suppose). But I don't think it would make the song any less powerful, I mean, it didn't for 'Shine On'. (Of course that song could be cut into 3 second pieces and still be powerful. )
|
|
|
Post by syd gilmour on Apr 24, 2017 4:53:32 GMT
IMO it doesn't reallt matter how it is split up because I like to listen to everything in sequence. Animals could be a one song album and I would like it just as much.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jan 23, 2018 16:03:50 GMT
Listening to this masterpiece on this, the 41st anniversary of its release.
|
|
|
Post by The Lunatic on Jan 23, 2019 20:03:01 GMT
Listening to this masterpiece on this, the 41st anniversary of its release. *42nd
|
|