Pink Floyd - Animals

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

Rate This Album

5 - Best
98
62%
4
42
27%
3
10
6%
2
2
1%
1 - Worst
5
3%
 
Total votes: 157

User avatar
vizor
Axe
Axe
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Glendale CA

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vizor »

sheep.jpeg
--------------------Baaaaaaah !!!!!!!---------------------------
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
twcc
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1284
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:02 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Whitelackington, UK

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by twcc »

Has anyone seen, or heard, anyting regarding the release date for the 5.1 mix ? ... Roger mentioned it months ago but I have seen nothing recently.

<ii>
learning+to+fly
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:18 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by learning+to+fly »

Hi,

I'm hoping someone can help.

I have just got a new turntable and have dusted off my vinyl and when I came to my copy of Animals I noticed it has a pink ink 'splat' above (about 30mm up and right from) the third cooling tower. Angling the cover it seems to be beneath the varnish and must have occured during print.

It seems to be a 77 pressing (I picked it up second hand in the mid-90's) and I can't find any references to similar copies online.

Does anyone have any info?

Cheers
MoreOrLess
Blade
Blade
Posts: 179
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 4:35 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by MoreOrLess »

Bigmanpigman wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:44 pmYep 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.
Floyd really were a good demonstration of the problems with assigning writing credits I would say, the focus on basic melody and lyrics rather than extended instrumental sections. You can see the issue with that going back to something like Money were the instrumental section in the middle is a massive part of its appeal that Gilmour seems to have been the chief architect of.

Its a shame really as Animals to me feels like it could and should have been a blueprint the band stuck to for awhile. Unlike so many of their contemporaries it does have a decent response to Punk/New Wave to it in Waters anger(ironically directed more at the establishment than most Punk) and removing any sense of pretension towards classical form(not something Floyd had ever followed that strongly granted) yet it doesn't loose the bands strengths in dramatic atmospherics. To me its between Meddle and Animals(coincidently my favourite Floyd studio albums) for the album in which Gilmours influence is strongest and whilst Wright has more of a support role its still a very important one.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Annoying Twit »

MoreOrLess wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:00 pm Floyd really were a good demonstration of the problems with assigning writing credits I would say, the focus on basic melody and lyrics rather than extended instrumental sections. You can see the issue with that going back to something like Money were the instrumental section in the middle is a massive part of its appeal that Gilmour seems to have been the chief architect of.

Its a shame really as Animals to me feels like it could and should have been a blueprint the band stuck to for awhile. Unlike so many of their contemporaries it does have a decent response to Punk/New Wave to it in Waters anger(ironically directed more at the establishment than most Punk) and removing any sense of pretension towards classical form(not something Floyd had ever followed that strongly granted) yet it doesn't loose the bands strengths in dramatic atmospherics. To me its between Meddle and Animals(coincidently my favourite Floyd studio albums) for the album in which Gilmours influence is strongest and whilst Wright has more of a support role its still a very important one.
I've just heard a live cover of Sheep. My thoughts about hearing the track is that it has several distinct sections, and these vary quite a bit. If this was split up into various sections, say Pigs I-IV or something (I haven't counted the actual pieces), then I suspect that some of those sections would not have a sole Waters credit. And, maybe there should be more members credited on that track. TW is different - but Animals sounds much more a band effort to me.
User avatar
vizor
Axe
Axe
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Glendale CA

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vizor »

" I suspect that some of those sections would not have a sole Waters credit." Animals was as much as an effort for Waters to commandeer the record as The Wall was. To make it all his own. Funny, at Live-Aid there is a point where he turns his back on the audience. It may be that he is not facing Nick, but looking up at the overhead screen because he knew his Pigs would be there. There are clues about the recording of Animals and the conflicts between Roger and Dave that reveal where those conflicts lied: the credits.
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by space triangle »

vizor wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:46 am sheep.jpeg

--------------------Baaaaaaah !!!!!!!---------------------------
:lol:

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
User avatar
vizor
Axe
Axe
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Glendale CA

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by vizor »

thumbs-up
babsed
Embryo
Embryo
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:04 am

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by babsed »

This and Wish You Were Here mark the Floyd's highpoint for me. Dogs and Sheep are simply amazing lyrically and musically. Amusing with hindsight to remember how the Floyd were considered dinosaurs in '77 and yet the lyrical content on Animals is as angry as anything off Never Mind the Bollocks. I suppose the difference is that Lydon was 20 and a pleb, whereas Waters and Co were ex public school millionaires. Do these things still matter?
ZiggyZipgun
Knife
Knife
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:04 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by ZiggyZipgun »

babsed wrote: Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:17 amDo these things still matter?
Nope. Rock and roll is cosplay. You can be anything you want to be - especially if you're super rich.

In the immortal words of Dolly Parton, "It costs a lot of money to look this cheap."
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by space triangle »

Why they played Animals album 1977(In The Flesh Tour) in a different order of songs than it's on the album? Why they opened a shows with Sheep instead of Pigs on the Wing pt1? Was Pigs on the Wing pt1 too mellow or to short too open a live shows?
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Annoying Twit »

space triangle wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:36 pm Why they played Animals album 1977(In The Flesh Tour) in a different order of songs than it's on the album? Why they opened a shows with Sheep instead of Pigs on the Wing pt1? Was Pigs on the Wing pt1 too mellow or to short too open a live shows?
Why wouldn't they change the order of the songs?
User avatar
space triangle
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:25 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by space triangle »

Annoying Twit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:04 pmWhy wouldn't they change the order of the songs?
Dark Side, WYWH, The Wall...All of these conceptual albums were played live in a order from the first to the last song. In my opinion Animals is a concept alalbum too(or maybe I'm wrong?) and songs should be presented live in order too.
User avatar
Annoying Twit
Hammer
Hammer
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:26 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by Annoying Twit »

space triangle wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:45 pm
Annoying Twit wrote: Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:04 pmWhy wouldn't they change the order of the songs?
Dark Side, WYWH, The Wall...All of these conceptual albums were played live in a order from the first to the last song. In my opinion Animals is a concept alalbum too(or maybe I'm wrong?) and songs should be presented live in order too.
Yes, there are examples them doing that. But, I don't see why that creates an expectation that the album should be played in the same order. They may have considered that since they had been playing the last two albums in sequence, that they'd do something different for the Animals tour. Certainly I think that what they'd done in the past doesn't have to create a 'should' that they should play all albums in sequence.

The Wall tells a vaguely linear story, so it's more important to play it in order. Animals, not so much. In 1977 tours, they would sometimes play all of Animals (not in original order), and then all of WYWH (in order).

Re-arranging the songs for a concert doesn't seem a biggie to me. It could be for any one of a wide range of reasons. They might just want to start with a song with all of them on stage.
User avatar
azza200
Judge!
Judge!
Posts: 2101
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:18 pm

Re: Pink Floyd - Animals

Post by azza200 »

I actually prefer the live set order of the Animals songs as well as the AMLOR order of songs both have a good flow too them Animals, live set order has a good flow and works between each of the 10 min or near 20 min run length of Dogs, or Pigs3do