1. Pigs On The Wing, Pts. 1 and 2: The perfect opener and closer for this album. They fill their niche very well. - 8.0
2. Dogs: From a lyrical standpoint, this is one of Pink Floyd's finest songs. The music on this track is admirable but seems restrained to some degree. Nevertheless, this is a tremendous specimen of music. - 9.0
3. Pigs (Three Different Ones): This is undoubtedly Pink Floyd's coolest song. It's a real funky jive with some oddball lyrics. I love everything about this track, the pig squealing included! It's a very distinctive and strange piece of rock music. The song does slightly remind me of "Have a Cigar" off their previous album, both songs have a similar vibe. Outstanding! - 9.5
4. Sheep: Simply the best song on this album and one of my all time favorite rock songs. It has an intensely cool sound, and it proves once again that Pink Floyd were truly masters of musical innovation. This track is altogether immaculate! - 10
5. Album Artwork: This is my second favorite PF album cover. The picture is at once both beautiful and ugly, and almost seems unreal. A pig flying between the smokestacks of a powerplant...just incredibly epic. - 10
Final Score: 9.3 (out of 10)
Final word: Another remarkable concept album that contains a couple of Floyd's most unique songs. I honestly can't muster any criticsm for this album, to me it seems nearly flawless. A genuinely sublime musical composition!
I love this album. There aren't many albums I can listen to from beginning to end (by anyone, not just PF. As I'm getting older my attention span is getting shorter) but this one I do. To me there isn't a dud on here, and the riff towards the end of sheep makes me happy
I like this one which surprises me as it took me a while to get into the Waters 1976-83 era. I'll never hold it to my heart like I do Piper, but it's really good unique music.
I find myself liking this album more and more with each listen. I'm not a politically-minded person, but I'm able to understand the scorn Waters feels for Capitalism and the social ladder that he builds the album around. I wish I'd been exposed to this album when I studied Animal Farm back in high school. At first, I found the musical aspect of it a little dry. "Dogs" has been growing on me, but I loved "Pigs" and "Sheep" from the moment I first listened to them. The satire and sense of humor on the album really click with me, and it's a joy to listen to each time. Definitely one of the band's best.
Stephen wrote:This is my least favourite of all the Floyd albums ... I've not one good thing to say about this album, it's a pile of shite from start to finish.
Started reading this thread just to read your review m'colleague. It's as expected.
Animals is a rocky album for me. I mean, I love it like anything for months, then hate it for months...and so on. I guess I have to be in a cynical mood to like Dogs, or else that song drags on for me. There's more sarcastic cynicism than emotional connection that was present on DSOTM or WYWH. I'm with Stephen here. However, it has a great concept and the songs are executed pretty nicely, great lyrics, but too bleak for me to enjoy it all the time. But I agree that if you give this album periodic listens on a late night (and, like Keith said - "loud!"), you're gonna have a high opinion of this one.
So overall, I've voted it a 5, because there's no real reason for me to be voting it down, but if I'm really pushed to take this album with me to a desert island, I'd plain refuse.
i like how Gilmour tried to emulate barks, moans etc. with his guitar on this one. this album is the best of the "classic era" for me - some songs, from a songwriting point of view, could have used some fat cutting, especially when you compare the three main pieces and realise that they're more or less built on the same frame ("aah so now it's the quiet fucked-up part with the animal noises, tension setting in, BANG, last part, intense outro") but i enjoy it nonetheless. the band regains the balls that it lacked since Pompeii for one last time in the studio and the playing is quite to the point. love it although, by now, i'd much rather listen to their 66-72 output.
mastaflatch wrote:. the band regains the balls that it lacked since Pompeii .
What on earth does that even mean?
excuse my phrasing.
i meant that when you listen to Pompeii, what you see and hear is a band that's hungry, determined to bring the house down while on DSOTM and WYWH, the playing is really tame, it's like it's not even the same drummer. i feel that Animals was a relatively quick album to record on which they didn't chew over every tom tom hit or every hammond note, probably because Sheep and Dogs were well-rehearsed live for some time. Pink Floyd sounds livelier and healthier as a band on Animals than it did since Pompeii or OBC or from The Wall onwards in my humble opinion. anyway, that's why i like it.
The band does sound like a more direct and less perfectionist/neurotic version of itself, you could even call it a "punkier" take on the Floyd sound. But we don't know much about the recording process of Animals, do we? Was it a no-nonsense straight ahead process like Obscured By Clouds?
danielcaux wrote:The band does sound like a more direct and less perfectionist/neurotic version of itself, you could even call it a "punkier" take on the Floyd sound. But we don't know much about the recording process of Animals, do we? Was it a no-nonsense straight ahead process like Obscured By Clouds?
I remember reading an interview with Nick Mason promoting AMLOR and when asked about his favorite Floyd albums he replied "A Saucerful of Secrets" and "Animals" because they were recorded quickly.
