I was listening to/thinking about the the pig motif in The Wall the other day, and it suddenly hit me. Perhaps The Flying Pig in the context of The Wall concerts doesn't necessarily *only* symbolize fascist pigs, nor is it just a recycled inflatable from years past. Maybe what it is is the '77 In The Flesh tour in quotes, or reflected, so to speak. The Wall starts out with "In The Flesh?" which we are brought back to (in a different version) later in the album. Coincidence that these songs are what that tour was called--the tour which ended with the spitting incident in Montreal which sort of started the whole Wall idea snowballing? After the 2nd "In the Flesh" is when Roger does his "do you like my pig" etc. spiel, which again harkens back to '77. I see this part of The Wall concert like a little vignette of the '77 show, how Roger saw himself becoming. The songs "In The Flesh" are not just recycled titles, they are there as a purpose. They represent 1977.
Does this make sense? Am I stating the obvious (it wasn't obvious to me...I just figured it out!) or am I off base?
The Pig in The Wall
-
Pugs on the Wing
- Judge!
- Posts: 1743
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:44 pm
- Location: over the rainbow
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
You're right on the money, Pugs.
Originally, the songs now called "In The Flesh" were called "The Show."
Both songs also represent a point in the story of the album where the setting is Pink's concert. The title "In The Flesh" WAS appropriated from the '77 tour which the pig (as you noticed) is another reference to.
The musical part of the songs themselves are a sort of crude self-parody...the sort of "dinosaur rock" which was played in stadiums so much during the 1970's. The big, dumb guitar riffs, bombastic drumming and manic organ playing are intentionally structured as a send up of not only Pink Floyd, but also...say...Yes, ELP and the like.
Taking a closer look at the artwork of the album will reveal that a stadium is clearly visible in the background.
I am also fully supportive of your notion that all of these elements are represented in these two specific songs to paint the picture of what Roger saw himself becoming as a result of having allowed things to progress to the point where the money was the over-riding factor in all decisions that the band was making.
Which harkens back to the recurring theme in Waters' lyrics of the cycle of "economic recession leads to war leads to economic recovery leads to economic recession leads to war...etc." being the betrayal of the "post-war dream" of people like his father who gave their lives in wars.
By allowing himself to become a part of this cycle, Waters had, effectively, become the type of person responsible for the death of his father...hence, another dimension added to the facist persona...as well as a potential explanation for what Pink wonders if he's "guilty" of.
I could go on and on (and have before and most certainly will again,) but I was just posting to say...
Well spotted, Pugs.
Originally, the songs now called "In The Flesh" were called "The Show."
Both songs also represent a point in the story of the album where the setting is Pink's concert. The title "In The Flesh" WAS appropriated from the '77 tour which the pig (as you noticed) is another reference to.
The musical part of the songs themselves are a sort of crude self-parody...the sort of "dinosaur rock" which was played in stadiums so much during the 1970's. The big, dumb guitar riffs, bombastic drumming and manic organ playing are intentionally structured as a send up of not only Pink Floyd, but also...say...Yes, ELP and the like.
Taking a closer look at the artwork of the album will reveal that a stadium is clearly visible in the background.
I am also fully supportive of your notion that all of these elements are represented in these two specific songs to paint the picture of what Roger saw himself becoming as a result of having allowed things to progress to the point where the money was the over-riding factor in all decisions that the band was making.
Which harkens back to the recurring theme in Waters' lyrics of the cycle of "economic recession leads to war leads to economic recovery leads to economic recession leads to war...etc." being the betrayal of the "post-war dream" of people like his father who gave their lives in wars.
By allowing himself to become a part of this cycle, Waters had, effectively, become the type of person responsible for the death of his father...hence, another dimension added to the facist persona...as well as a potential explanation for what Pink wonders if he's "guilty" of.
I could go on and on (and have before and most certainly will again,) but I was just posting to say...
Well spotted, Pugs.
-
quicksilver
- Hammer
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 7:50 pm
- Location: Wisconsin USA
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
-
Spinoza
- Hammer
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2002 5:35 pm
Yeah, Although i think That Pink Floyd's 1994 Division Bell Tour was the best light show they ever did, the more i see from the Wall-show, the more i think it was MAGNIFICENT and certainly a peak for the band.:mosespa wrote:But then it was over.
The ... nerve and arrogance to built this gigantic wall and block themselves from the audience...."
I have to give Roger credit in being a great visionary. After the split, both Roger and Pink floyd lost something. Roger lost a great group. Pink Floyd lost a great visionary and lyricist.
They should try to release the video's from the shows !!!!!!
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
Spinoza...you and I have disagreed before on the legitimacy of PWPF, but I have to agree with you on this point...PULSE is definitely their best light show...judging by the videos I have seen.
I wish I could have been at The Wall concerts, though. Certainly a high water mark for rock theater...as well as the band on the whole.
The Wall concerts just go to show, in my humble yet outspoken opinion, that they should have disbanded after that album.
How in the world is anyone going to top building this great wall onstage and tearing it down? Never mind the puppets, animations and the rest...how are you going to top the spectacle of this giagantic wall crashing down?
Anything they did afterwards (at least for another seven years or so) would have been simply anti-climactic by comparison...they certainly couldn't go back to just standing there onstage playing while a bunch of lights swirled around them in the fog, now could they?
I wish I could have been at The Wall concerts, though. Certainly a high water mark for rock theater...as well as the band on the whole.
The Wall concerts just go to show, in my humble yet outspoken opinion, that they should have disbanded after that album.
How in the world is anyone going to top building this great wall onstage and tearing it down? Never mind the puppets, animations and the rest...how are you going to top the spectacle of this giagantic wall crashing down?
Anything they did afterwards (at least for another seven years or so) would have been simply anti-climactic by comparison...they certainly couldn't go back to just standing there onstage playing while a bunch of lights swirled around them in the fog, now could they?
-
Yucateco
- Supreme Judge!
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:23 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Munich, Germany
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
-
David Smith
- Moderator
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
- Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year
-
Pugs on the Wing
- Judge!
- Posts: 1743
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:44 pm
- Location: over the rainbow
I was thinking the same thing after I posted this topic...Yucateco wrote:Sounds all quite logical to me Pugs, but now i wonder... why did he call his 99-02 tour again In The Flesh? On Wall, the title surely stands for something negative and he also doesn?t really like the 77 tour, so why did he use that name again?
...and then answered myself with a very similar answer to mosespa's.mosespa wrote:Irony.
Think about it...the title of a tour in which he experienced the most alienation becomes the title of the tour in which he tries to re-connect with his audience.
Also, sort of closure. The cyclical thing.
But I don't think the first ITF tour (77) could have been self parody because to parody yourself, you need to have some distance and perspective which they wouldn't have had about themselves (in that way) at that time.David Smith wrote:Yeah, the last tour really was Roger in the flesh while the others were self parody
This does bring up interesting questions, though, are the subsequent ITF tours actually self-parody or simply reflection upon the past? PF and RW don't really seem to be about parody. I think they take their art too seriously, and maybe even themselves too seriously, for it to be simply parody. I don't think taking yourself or your art too seriously is a bad thing necessarily, in fact, in this world where everything seems to be so Onionesque--good for a quick grin--it's nice to have something a little deeper and genuine.
-
David Smith
- Moderator
- Posts: 7074
- Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 12:54 pm
- Location: Edinburgh or Aberdeen depending on the time of year
Sorry, that was badly said, what i was actually meaning was that the last tour was him in the flesh and the songs on the wall were self parody. However,i feel 1977's tour being about the problems with capitalism and how it effects us as people just as much as a country can be considered self parody being that the gig was really just that, ok, maybe a ridiculous claim but i'm sure Pink Floyd aren't a total bunch of hypocrits so you never knowPugs on the Wing wrote:But I don't think the first ITF tour (77) could have been self parody because to parody yourself, you need to have some distance and perspective which they wouldn't have had about themselves (in that way) at that time.David Smith wrote:Yeah, the last tour really was Roger in the flesh while the others were self parody
Maybe Roger was being like Buddha, he's experienced a form of gig and so he expeiences the other extreme of a stadium gig and realises he's not so happy with those atall
The wall was for him very much what the tree was for Buddha
-
mosespa
- Moderator
- Posts: 11559
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 5:54 pm
- Location: In the editing bay...working on the final cut...
If you want to get really deep, it could be said that beginning with the first post-DSOTM tour, the group was already becoming entrenched in self-parody.
Roger has said on several occasions that had the group been honest with themselves about what they were after and what they wanted to achieve, then they could have/should have broken up following DSOTM. Because they had achieved all they had set out to do.
Part of the reason that the theme of WYWH is absence is because the group itself was "absent" at the sessions. The band that had produced DSOTM no longer existed. Now they were simply four guys going through the motions of pretending to care about being a rock band when all they really wanted to do was go home and enjoy the new toys that the success of DSOTM had brought them. (WARNING...the previous statement is VERY presumptuous, but it's pretty much been validated in a number of interviews conducted around the time of WYWH and since then.)
In this sense, Pink Floyd had actually become a parody of it's former self. Following DSOTM, the experimentation that had long been a hallmark of the PF sound was gone. In it's place were highly structured, regimented pieces that didn't allow a lot of room for the improvisation they were known for.
They began playing with more films, which meant that they had to play with click tracks in order to remain in synch with the films and by the 1977 tour, Roger was ensconced in headphones for the entire show.
The freedom was gone...the dream was over and was being replaced with a nightmare in which Pink Floyd was no longer a band, but the "real" job that no one wanted in the first place. It became about creating a product and satisfying consumer demand. No wonder Roger felt like he was no longer connecting with his audience. The band had become an assembly line, the audience had become consumers and the venues in which the band played were simply the marketplace.
The band were no longer able to do whatever they pleased for the sake of experimentation...now, there were certain criteria that had to be met in order to live up to the brand name. There were other people now who's opinions were to be taken into consideration. Record labels, A&R people, promoters, tour managers...etc.
Granted, it's a nightmare many of us would give various parts of our anatomy to be able to live...so it's really hard to feel TOO much sympathy...but I understand Roger's point.
It had become an empty shell of it's former self...it was, indeed, self-parody by Animals.
Roger has said on several occasions that had the group been honest with themselves about what they were after and what they wanted to achieve, then they could have/should have broken up following DSOTM. Because they had achieved all they had set out to do.
Part of the reason that the theme of WYWH is absence is because the group itself was "absent" at the sessions. The band that had produced DSOTM no longer existed. Now they were simply four guys going through the motions of pretending to care about being a rock band when all they really wanted to do was go home and enjoy the new toys that the success of DSOTM had brought them. (WARNING...the previous statement is VERY presumptuous, but it's pretty much been validated in a number of interviews conducted around the time of WYWH and since then.)
In this sense, Pink Floyd had actually become a parody of it's former self. Following DSOTM, the experimentation that had long been a hallmark of the PF sound was gone. In it's place were highly structured, regimented pieces that didn't allow a lot of room for the improvisation they were known for.
They began playing with more films, which meant that they had to play with click tracks in order to remain in synch with the films and by the 1977 tour, Roger was ensconced in headphones for the entire show.
The freedom was gone...the dream was over and was being replaced with a nightmare in which Pink Floyd was no longer a band, but the "real" job that no one wanted in the first place. It became about creating a product and satisfying consumer demand. No wonder Roger felt like he was no longer connecting with his audience. The band had become an assembly line, the audience had become consumers and the venues in which the band played were simply the marketplace.
The band were no longer able to do whatever they pleased for the sake of experimentation...now, there were certain criteria that had to be met in order to live up to the brand name. There were other people now who's opinions were to be taken into consideration. Record labels, A&R people, promoters, tour managers...etc.
Granted, it's a nightmare many of us would give various parts of our anatomy to be able to live...so it's really hard to feel TOO much sympathy...but I understand Roger's point.
It had become an empty shell of it's former self...it was, indeed, self-parody by Animals.