It's a Tuesday rotation thing

[Mike]

Speaking of Bowie...I was playing Alladin Sane in the car today. Damn. What a great disc. And "Watch That Man" might just be my #1 favoriate Bowie song of all time. Am I the only one?

Well it's not my all time favourite Bowie track but it's up there. But Aladdin Sane is without doubt my favourite Bowie album with tracks like Drive in Satuday, Jean Genie, Cracked Actor, Prettiest Star etc. I rembember having the vinyl on the double gatefold sleeve and my Dad throwing a fit when he saw it. Bowie at his best by a long way IMO.

Cheers
Mike

[ForeverAutumn]

Hey, one question for folks on Animals. So, the album is excellent and all. But, you know, it really only has four songs on it. And yes the songs go on for a long time and have a lot of atmosphere, but they don't really have more ideas in them than many other shorter songs of similar quality. It seems to me that with an album like Wish You Were Here or Animals, Pink Floyd is really creating full length albums that substance-wise, are EPs. Good for them, but what do you think about the difference between an excellent album like Animals or WYWH with four real songs, compared to an album with 10 great songs of the same length? Are you getting less. I have no grand conclusion here, but I wonder what you think. I guess for me, I really like it, but it is like listening to half an album for me, even with its respectable 40 minute length.

I agree with Troy. It's a shame that this discussion is buried in the Tuesday Thread.

Over the past month, I've been re-listening to my Pink Floyd collection in chronological order, beginning with Atom Heart Mother because I didn't have anything earlier than that (although I do now have a copy of Piper...Dawn but haven't spun it yet). And ending with The Division Bell (which I also haven't listened to yet). It's been interesting to see the progression of the band and the music from album to album so far.

Animals is a fantastic disk. It is, IMO, the last musically great PF disk. I don't mean to say that the disks which followed aren't great in their own right, they are. But there is a definate change of pace after Animals. The Wall is an obvious turning point in PF musically. It's almost like suddenly they have become a different band. Same enough that they could keep the same fans, but different enough that it's as though they crossed a line (or a wall, so to speak) between Animals and The Wall. They went from the dreamy, spacey, psychedelic music that is Animals, to the hard, angry, staccato that makes up The Wall and continues to flow into The Final Cut and A Momentary Lapse Of Reason.

I have always loved Animals for the music. It's a great disk to sit back, relax and listen to, as Todd put it, in an altered state. But for pure listening enjoyment I've always preferred Meddle or WYWH.

My response to Darius' original question is that I don't feel like I'm getting less because a disk has fewer songs or ideas. The key is that, the ideas that it does have need to be good ones. In my opinion the music just has to be good. I don't care how many songs I hear. I care about how much I enjoy what I'm listening to. Is Yes' Close To The Edge any less of an album because it only has three songs? Or, Rush's Hemispheres an EP because it only has four songs?

Animals wouldn't be Animals if it had shorter songs. Don't you ever hear a song that's only 3 or 4 minutes long, that you like so much, you wish it were longer?

[Mr MidFi]

Or, Rush's Hemispheres an EP because it only has four songs?

No...Hemispheres is an EP because it's, like, 32 minutes long.

Seriously, I listen to both Hemispheres and Permanent Waves a lot more than I used to, now that I burned them both onto a single disc. They work well together.

[Dusty Chalk]

...there is a definate change of pace after Animals. The Wall is an obvious turning point in PF musically. It's almost like suddenly they have become a different band.

Actually, that's about the point at which Roger "took over". If you watch the Dark Side of the Moon Making-of DVD, they mention that they even had a "formula" up until that point, if you can believe it. Of course, it's not much of a formula: about 50% instrumental, 50% music with lyrics. It's just that on albums like Atom Heart Mother and Dark Side of the Moon, they're regulated...erm...relegated to separate tracks, whereas on Animals and Wish You Were Here, they're mixed in. The Wall and The Final Cut are completely different -- you're absolutely correct, Roger is trying to tell a story, as he continued to do in his solo career. What's funny is, if you look at Division Bell and Momentary Lapse of Reason, they follow the formula of about 50% instrumental music (if you take into account the long instrumental sections of most tracks on Division Bell, for example), and are therefore more true Pink Floyd albums, than The Wall or The Final Cut.

I know, I can already feel the flames coming on. That's alright, it's just an opinion, but it's one I feel I can defend.

[mad rhetorik]

What's funny is, if you look at Division Bell and Momentary Lapse of Reason, they follow the formula of about 50% instrumental music (if you take into account the long instrumental sections of most tracks on Division Bell, for example), and are therefore more true Pink Floyd albums, than The Wall or The Final Cut.

A Momentary Lapse Of Reason is probably the least 'Floyd album next to The Final Cut. Whereas The Final Cut is almost exclusively written by Roger Waters (the sole exception being "Not Now John"). Richard Wright wasn't on board and Nick Mason wasn't even drumming on all the tracks. On A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, Nick Mason admitted in interviews that he didn't do any of the actual drum tracks. Richard Wright also admitted later that he only added his keyboards to one track. Virtually everything on that album was written by Gilmour. It should be considered a Gilmour solo album, just as The Final Cut should be considered a Waters solo (and in the credits it says "Written By Roger Waters, Performed By Pink Floyd").

Now, for The Division Bell Richard Wright and Nick Mason actually contributed something. But to say that it's more "Floydian" is a matter of opinion. For me Pink Floyd was all about the partnership of Waters and Gilmour. The later albums do use the 50/50 "Floydian" formula, but Gilmour did this in a cynical attempt to recall the 'Floyd's glory days. Post-Waters 'Floyd is an arena-rock dinosaur and little more. That's not to say I don't enjoy "On The Turning Away," "Learning To Fly," "Terminal Frost," "Cluster One," "Poles Apart," "Marooned," and "High Hopes"--I just consider them to be fine Gilmour songs, not Pink Floyd songs.

[mad rhetorik]

I think Animals' more minimalist sound was intentional. It's very much a textured, subtle effort compared to Wish You Were Here and Dark Side Of The Moon, which contained more studio effects and musical ideas. Animals is all about the spare atmosphere. The guitar and keyboards serve as a vehicle to move Waters' evocative lyrics along, while in The Wall Roger's voice and Kamen's orchestration were the focus. I like Animals' simplicity--it fits in the context of most music released that year. Sure, you could conceivably make an EP out of it, but these songs are so good that you want them to be longer and develop more.

And I'm surprised that nobody yet has mentioned the album's centerpiece, "Pigs (Three Different Ones)." Gilmour's incredible solo at the end of that jam is a total epiphany. I put it in my Top 5 favorite guitar solos of all time.