Pink Floyd - Animals

Discussions about Pink Floyd and Solo Official Album CDs and DVDs.

Rate This Album

5 - Best
93
62%
4
41
27%
3
10
7%
2
2
1%
1 - Worst
5
3%
 
Total votes: 151

Bigmanpigman
Knife
Knife
Posts: 350
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:24 pm
Location: Telford, UK

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Bigmanpigman » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:44 pm

Fingals Cave wrote:Great album. I like that it was just the four of them, after a couple of albums of guest players and singers. And that it sounds completely different to anything they had done before. With the songs being a few years old and well road-tested, the band really cooks. Compare to how clunky and leaden the Wall tracks are with their fake live effects..
It's much heavier rock in places but there is still plenty of their trademark atmosphere. The "dragged down by the stone" bit really does sound underwater as if you're drowning in it. Rick's intro to Sheep is so cool 8) . The instrumental between the second verse and the Psalm 23 is one of their best jams on record, and they really blaze away on the outro. Dave builds up a veritable guitar orchestra on Dogs and gets a wicked talkbox tone on Pigs.
Gonna have to listen to it now!
Yep a truly great album and my equal favourite along with WYWH. But the one thing that has always grated with me is the writing credits. This was the period when Roger was getting far too much up his own arse. Rick and particularly Dave are all over that album, but the credits show it all as Roger apart from a joint credit for David on 'Dogs'. A complete joke.

Follix
Knife
Knife
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:04 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Follix » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:59 pm

^ Well it's because Roger wrote the two other big songs... But you are right in the sense that ''Pigs'' without Rick and Dave's input would be a 5 minutes song probably with some acoustic guitar or piano in the background... Not a Prog epic. Dave said he wrote 90% of ''Dogs'' alone, Roger toned it down and wrote the lyrics.

Also one thing that is great about that album is that in the 3 main tracks, every intro and outro are amazing...


Dogs: Acoustic intro chord progression/Roger's rant
Pigs: keyboard + guitar intro/ David's solo
Sheep: Rick's intro / David's riff

Vegetable Layne
Axe
Axe
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Vegetable Layne » Thu Apr 21, 2016 9:32 am

The only thing I dislike about this otherwise bona-fide masterpiece, is how dominant Waters' voice is. Honestly, I really wish Dogs had Gilmour on vocals the whole way. This started the trend that followed in The Wall and TFC, where Gilmour would co-sing with Waters instead of having a song all his own.

Otherwise, a fantastic album. I only wish Rick and Nick had more of a visible contribution, but in retrospect it made sense, seeing as how Rick disagreed with the sentiments of the lyrics more than usual.

Wolfpack
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Wolfpack » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:30 pm

Roger Waters - Dogs - Desert Trip 2016 (MULTICAM)



To me, this performance proves what a horrible composition 'Dogs' actually is.
Boring and some forced vocal lines trying to make the lyrics fit. ("canCEEEEEEEEER", and elsewhere too busy on words that don't really flow)

Whew! I said it! \:D/

User avatar
vgonis
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vgonis » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:56 am

well, everyone to his own opinion and taste. it worked later for me, give it time. this is not a bad performance, by the way.

Flathead
Knife
Knife
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:05 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Flathead » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:14 am

Wolfpack wrote: To me, this performance proves what a horrible composition 'Dogs' actually is.

Wow.

Are you a Dream Theater fan by chance?

Wolfpack
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Wolfpack » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:27 am

vgonis wrote:well, everyone to his own opinion and taste. it worked later for me, give it time. this is not a bad performance, by the way.
I know 'Dogs' since the late 1980s.

For me, it's a precursor of Waters's solo career.
Much too heavy on words (that don't really flow), boring vocal lines.
Gilmour and Wright made some great arrangements, but that's just not enough.
For a song, vocal line is most important.

I think the singer doing Gilmour's vocal parts is forcing his voice to get through it all.

As a whole, I think it's horrible. Despite some good moments.
Flathead wrote:Are you a Dream Theater fan by chance?
No, I'm not. Why?
I only know Dream Theater by name.

User avatar
vgonis
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vgonis » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:37 am

About Waters' solo performances, it is true that what I miss lately is not Gilmour's guitar, but his voice. So on this point I can agree. As for the actual song and composition, maybe you like this version a bit better? https://youtu.be/jqULy8xQjZU The song was written so many years before the actual release of Animals, that it doesn't sound very anomalous to me when it appeared on 1977. Yes, more bleak, more angry, more to the point. Anyway, I know that Animals has always been "love it or hate it", so I can understand your statement. I just think that there is no way to explain it in a logical statement, why it appeared that moment and why.

And here are the different verses:

You gotta be crazy, you gotta be mean You gotta keep your kids and your car clean You gotta keep climbing, you gotta keep fit You gotta keep smiling, you gotta eat shit You gotta be small to be a big shot You gotta eat meat to stay at the top You gotta be trusted, gotta tell lies You gotta be able to narrow your eyes You gotta beleive they've gotta beleive you You gotta appear easy to see through Gotta be sure you look good on the TV Gotta resemble a human being You gotta keep one eye over your shoulder Gonna get harder as you get older Gotta fly south and hide in the sand Gotta forget that you're gonna get cancer And when you loose control You'll reap the harvest you have sown And as the fear grows The bad blood slows and turns to stone And it's too late to loose the weight You used to need to throw around So have a good drown As you go down Alone Dragged down by the stone Gotta be sure, you gotta be quick Gotta divide the tame from the sick Gotta keep some of us docile and fit You gotta keep everyone burying this shit You gotta get you started early Processed by the time you're thirty Work like fuck 'till you're sixty five And then your time's your own until you die I gotta admit to a lot of confusion Pain in the head is the child of collusion Gotta resist the creeping malaise You gotta beleive in the way you get out of the maze But you, you just keep on pretending You can tell a sucker from a friend But you still raise the knife to Stranger, lover, friend and foe alike Who was born in a house full of pain Who was sent out to play on his own Who was raised on a diet of shame Who was trained not to spit in the fan Who was told what to do by the man Who was broken by trained personnel Who was fitted with bridle and bit Who was given a seat in the stand Who was forcing his way to the rails Who was offered a place on the board Who was only a stranger at home Who was ground down in the end Who was found dead on the phone Who was dragged down


Have a lovely day.

Wolfpack
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:15 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Wolfpack » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:47 am

vgonis wrote:About Waters' solo performances, it is true that what I miss lately is not Gilmour's guitar, but his voice. So on this point I can agree. As for the actual song and composition, maybe you like this version a bit better? https://youtu.be/jqULy8xQjZU The song was written so many years before the actual release of Animals, that it doesn't sound very anomalous to me when it appeared on 1977. Yes, more bleak, more angry, more to the point. Anyway, I know that Animals has always been "love it or hate it", so I can understand your statement. I just think that there is no way to explain it in a logical statement, why it appeared that moment and why.
With the other version, you mean "Pink Floyd - You've Got To Be Crazy (Live Wembley 1974) Wish you Were Here Immersion Set".
I think this version is even worse. <.8.>
Even more heavy on words that don't really flow.

Either hating or loving the album 'Animals'...
I like the rest of the album.

For me, 'Dogs' has some interesting instrumenal sections.
And I think Gilmour does a good effort trying to get through those vocal lines.

Someone commented on the Waters 'Desert Trip' version:
Siddhartha Kapali
1 day ago
The original version had about eight times more lyrics than the album version. Gilmour found it impossible to sing those amount of words and Waters agreed, hence cutting down the words. Can't think of a point in the whole song where the vocal lines seem forced though.
Dogs is amongst Floyd's top ten masterpieces.
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNA6OsUBWVI

Obviously, I agree with Gilmour's opinion on 'You Got to Be Crazy'.

Don't at least the high notes sound forced? ("canCEEEEEEEEER")

As a Sydiot (Barrett fan) I get even more respect for Barrett squealing without sounding forced.
(For example "yes, I'm thiiiiiiinking...", in 'If It's in You')

User avatar
vgonis
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vgonis » Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:27 pm

Yes, I see what you mean. Some things do sound forced, but I tend to allow some "imperfections" when the rest works. And to me it works much more than say "On the run", which I skip when i play DSOTM. And listening ad infinitum Animals as a whole, with the intro and outro Pigs on the wig versions glued together, (with Snowy White-included on the 8 track version of animals) I think that it works as a whole much better, even with Caaanceeer and Stone. (both done in a way to convey the feeling, in prosody rather than words themselves).

Kerry King
Blade
Blade
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:54 am

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Kerry King » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:00 am

Every exposure I get to Roger Waters post 1980 diminishes all the magic and awe pink floyd once inspired. The further along I go chronologically the more the bullshit pink floyd myth dissolves. I don't even want to see Waters slog his way through Dogs in 2016. The dogs are dead. A band that is loved for original material which they recorded and then performed in it's entirety ( the 1977 floyd were playing the new album in it's entirety) is now reduced to it's past members selling oldies. The exact opposite of what they were when they were writing the once fresh material we all admire them for creating.

User avatar
vizor
Axe
Axe
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Glendale CA

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vizor » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:09 pm

That they tour with their hits forever and ever has to do with the deal they made with the recording industry when they first signed on. The industry recognizes young talent and sticks a microphone in their face. They say "record your music, and when you are a spent force, you are on your own to sign with lesser labels and play your music as much as you want." "WE have control over what you did for us, and the guarantee is that we will reproduce and distribute what you did for us in perpetuity on any media that becomes available." Its the music box. It plays over and over again perfectly as it was originally recorded.

How a musician behaves after they become a spent force is up to them. Roger behaves caustically because that is his act. It is his vain way of covering up that he cannot no longer produce hits. Or at least, produce them by himself without the synergistic efforts of others. "Others" are: anyone that is not yet a spent force.

Dave behaves well. Again, the music industry doesn't care because they have the recordings he originally did when he was young and uninhibited. But Dave continues to record and tour with his new music. He knows that it isn't the kind of music that he did when he was young, but at least he acknowledges that in his shows by saying "the first half of the show will be the new music, and the second half we will get to the good stuff". He knows we want to hear the Pink Floyd hits. And he doesn't have to act like a man with an angry message.

Where we get lucky, is that when the shows are recorded for media release, we benefit in having new versions of the old hits for our music box. THAT is the full circle of the deal the artists make with the industry when they first sign on. The music is always made available to anyone who wants to listen. How the artists live out their lives is inconsequential to the music industry.

User avatar
mastaflatch
Knife
Knife
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:17 am
Gender: Male
Location: québec

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by mastaflatch » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:58 am

I don't think that Roger puts on an act to cover up some commercial or old age shortcomings. For someone who's so obsessed with details in his art, I find that his contradictions come off as completely sincere, candid even. And he's been like that forever - if anything, he's mellowed a bit.
Other than that, your analysis of the meat grinder that is the music industry is spot on!

Kerry King
Blade
Blade
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:54 am

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Kerry King » Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:20 am

None of this explains why the most recent Wall shows are exactly the kind of bullshit that Amused To Death was supposedly against.

Or maybe it does.
I guess their deals with the music industry were blood oaths. Fans spoiling them to the point where the fans mindlessly bought anything with the pink floyd name on it was just the icing on the cake.

User avatar
vgonis
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vgonis » Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:12 am

Too many topics here. First off, I do think that Roger's shows are very expensive. They are profitable, but not as much as we think. The audio visual part of PF shows was always integral since the very beginning, so it is unfair to talk about it now, as if it is something new. It is different and bigger, but this is 2017 not 1967. Having said that, I must admit that I enjoy small venues and bands that focus on music, and I see the shows as shows, not as mere music performances.
As for the contradictory nature of the shows and Amused to death message, I don't think there is any. If we accept that some messages can only be conveyed through certain means, then maybe the Wall can pass its message this way best.
As for the Pink floyd sales, I've always thought it weird that new editions pop up every once in a while, some times forcing completists and keen fans to buy all over the same things. But we forget that although they may be a part of the target group, the main target group is the ever growing world population, new fans mostly. The unfair thing that I detect is that there are super expensive editions-with unreleased material- that are not affordable by the average fan. I don't know if they have control over the way they are marketed, since I have spotted the same attitude in other artists as well (Bob Dylan, Mark Knopfler, etc). Maybe a flood of emails revealing our disagreement could help for the next release.