"Pigs on the Wing" presented...
Pink Floyd began with a group of college students in the mid-60s writing rock songs that were easy-going and light. They quickly evolved, entering the 70s writing music that captured intricate thoughts and concepts from obscure places of the mind. Throughout their history they released a number of albums, their most popular being The Dark Side of the Moon (1973). They went through favorable times and sufferable times but ended with a strong finish with their final album The Endless River, a large supportive fan base, and a place in the US and UK Rock n’ Roll Halls of Fame. In 1975, they got to work writing and producing what would be some of their best but most unappreciated art to come. Pink Floyd released its views on social and political problems occurring in the 1970s through their 1977 album, Animals, which had power, originality, and five psychedelic tracks that kept you on the edge of your seat, but ultimately with such an abstract style, inconvenient timing, and indirect approach, the album did not produce the influence or impression they were hoping for. Even though the album was well constructed and preformed, it was not interpreted correctly. Granted the album still made it to number two on the charts in the UK and number three in the US, fans were confused by the band’s new sound and were not in awe of the album as was expected.
In hopes of portraying their strong emotions of the current economic problems, Pink Floyd put in years of hard work making their album, Animals, and adding all sorts of intricate thoughts, ideas, concepts, and instrumentals to create more power in each track. The artists viewed the economy and its major contributors, such as the powerful businessmen of Wall Street, as corrupt and untrustworthy. Through this album they wanted to promote awareness of this issue. A lot of the lyrics featured in the tracks were deep, sinister, and full of emotion. Some of their more menacing lyrics are featured in their song “Dogs”: “You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to, so that when they turn their backs on you, you’ll get the chance to put the knife in” and “so have a good drown, as you go down, all alone, dragged down by stone” (Pink Floyd). Those few lines helped to express the band’s view of cynical businessmen with so much dominance and sentiment of disgust that it had the ability to leave listeners with chills and bated breath. The vocals were grabbing, along with the instrumentals, even though they were long, complex, and eerie. All of these substances put together just added to the sound and effect the band was going towards. The dark feel Pink Floyd put into the album added power that made their argument as to why their position on the current economic problems were so relevant, true, and convincing.
From the opposite perspective, however, those same aspects that helped to make the album powerful made some of the audience feel disconnected. Their new style was so abstract and aggressive that not everyone interpreted it just how the band had predicted they would. Even though Pink Floyd was already known for their long instrumentals, the new uncanny ring to them on this particular album did not appeal to everyone and came as somewhat of a surprise. A review written on the album by Frank Rose for the Rolling Stone magazine stated that “For Pink Floyd, space has always been the ultimate escape...romance of outer space has become the horror of spacing out”. It is also clear that the unfriendly lyrics made some listeners feel uneasy and I hypothesize that some people just could not grasp on to their literal meaning. My own first few times listening to the album, they were just catchy songs that I didn’t understand; it wasn’t until later that I could actually focus and decipher the meaning intended.
Most of the people that have heard Animals don’t actually know that it is based loosely on George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm. Like the book, each of the animals used on their tracks represented someone or some group of people. The dogs represent the competitive, egocentric businessmen; pigs are the manipulative and power-hungry people occupying the top of the social ladder, leaving the sheep to be the impressionable herd of society. This genius way of releasing their thoughts and beliefs was executed, in my opinion, flawlessly. The characters made it possible for Pink Floyd to transform the album into a continuous story with smooth transitions between each track. The album was portraying a vivid image that began with the superiority of the dogs and ended with the sheep rising up and replacing the dogs’ position in power. Pink Floyd’s lyrics “with your head down in the pig bin, saying ‘keep on digging’” (Pink Floyd), featured in their song “Pigs (Three Different Ones)”, was said to express powerful businessmen’s ravenous, insatiable greed. Without the use of the animals, I do not know how the artists could have found a way to effectively display those scenarios without the need for long explanations to be incorporated into the songs.
The use of the characters, however, also lost many listeners with its indirect approach. Unless you know the role that each animal is playing, it can be hard to follow along with the dialogue throughout Animals. The uninformed listener could be sitting there wondering why in the world Pink Floyd would have chosen to sing about and feature noises from a grungy farm animal, such as the reoccurring pigs in the album. I have had a few experiences with friends where I have played one of their songs from the album like “Pigs (Three Different Ones)” and they expressed shock and repulsion that I would enjoy listening to a song that had pigs squealing in the background. Pink Floyd’s approach to displaying their emotions and viewpoints may have been artistic and unique, but it didn’t get the same reaction from everyone; some loved the animals incorporated into the music and others just could not stand it.
Pink Floyd only put five tracks on their album, but it still reaches a final time of over forty minutes long. It is obvious that the artists put an immense amount of work into each track when they were composing it by the way they incorporated so many original and experimental components into each piece of every song. All of the tracks are convoluted and unique, yet they’re all organized in such a methodical way that it can become easy to get lost in the sound and it becomes difficult to tell when one song has ended and another has begun.
Unfortunately, even with all of the new substance put into the tracks, Pink Floyd released Animals after having released their tremendously successful album The Dark Side of the Moon just four years prior, which was very different to Animals in comparison. Both albums went forward to become multi-platinum records, but The Dark Side of the Moon sold an estimated count of fifteen million copies as Animals only went forward to sell an estimate of four million copies. The dissimilarity in lyrical content and overall style left fans displeased. Despite the bands’ hard work put into making the album, the special effects used in their concerts and tours, and giant inflatable pigs, the crowds still wanted to hear the band’s old hits. Some of the fans’ reactions to the album actually led to an incident at one of their shows in Montreal that ended with Roger Waters, the singer of Pink Floyd, spitting on a fan in the front row of the audience. This incident left such an impression that it ended with the inspiration of their next album The Wall (1979) that became very successful, selling an estimated twenty-three million copies, but it still proved to be a very negative experience for the artists.
The ultimate question though is, “What was it that caused the band and its fans’ so much discomfort?” Was the band just creating music that was so idiosyncratic that no one could relate to it, or were the fans just too close-minded about the artists’ new style? I believe that the discomfort was caused by the audience’s lack of esteem and understanding for what the artists were trying to create. When you analyze the lyrics, they portray the characters’ roles clearly and follow the story line ably. “What do you get for pretending the danger’s not real, meek and obedient you follow the leader, down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel” (Pink Floyd), presents the sheep as suggestible followers in the industry just as intended, the instrumentals are skillfully played, and the concept wholly expressed. “Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending, that everyone’s expendable, and no one has a real friend” (Pink Floyd), expressed how the selfish businessmen, portrayed as the dogs, constantly used others around them for their own personal gain. Because the concept is told through characters and with a story, however, unlike previous albums, the fans did not even take the time to try to decipher the simple message. To the fans, the sheep, dogs, and pigs were just silly animals and the artists were considered to be losing their charm. The fans were unopened to hearing anything from the artists that they were unfamiliar with and not sure to love.
The next important question would then be: is it the artists’ responsibly to create what the fans want to hear or is it the fans’ responsibility to appreciate the artists’ work as they mean for it to be? Some would argue that the artist is obligated to please the fans simply because they are the ones that determine whether their careers flourish or fracture. But considering that bands are discovered and made well known for their style, abilities, and talents, most would argue that it is the fans’ responsibility to appreciate the artist’s work. Every single piece of music, whether it be a track, album, compilation, LP, or any kind of variation, no matter whom the artist or producer happens to be, it is a form of art. When any artist is presenting their artwork, the observer has the choice of whether they want to admire and appreciate their work, or to loathe and decline it. Pink Floyd’s fans chose to shame and despise the artist and their work rather than recognize the actual artistry and good work taking form in front of them. Even with it being on the fans to try to comprehend what the artists have given them, Pink Floyd’s method of expressing their social and political views was ineffective. Although they made each track organized and compatible with one another, most did not take the time to find out what the concept of the album was, and therefore, discredited it.
There were numerous options that Pink Floyd could have used to express their views and stances of the economic matters differently, such as excluding the use of animals and shortening the length of some of the tracks. They could have even simplified the songs and made them easy-going, however, they stayed true to their style and made something completely eccentric and original. They may have lost the favor of some along the way, but they would have received no personal growth or development had they chosen to stick to what others already knew and recognized. Pink Floyd did not effectively convey their message of the social and political issues taking place in the 1970s the way that they were anticipating to through their style, timing, or approach, but they did manage to create an album that influenced rock n’ roll and forced listeners to expand their minds and start to think. Animals is a very underappreciated work of art, as it had the potential to lead an economic revolt, but even with its lack of influence it will continue to be remembered throughout the generations by those who are able to recognize and admire it’s prominent message and inventive elements.
Work Cited
Pink Floyd. Animals. Britannia Row Studios, London, 1977. CD
Wisdom, James P. Rev. of Animals, by Pink Floyd. Pitchfork. 25 April 2000. Web. <http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/6307-animals/>. 05 October 2015
Pink Floyd - The Official Site. 20 September 2015. Web. <http://www.pinkfloyd.com>. 06 October 2015.
Gilmour, David. Angelfire. Web. <http://www.angelfire.com/ok2/wall/statistics.html>. 08 October 2015.
Rose, Frank. “Animals.” Rev. of Animals, by Pink Floyd. Rolling Stone. 01 Feburary, 1969. Web. <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/aniamls-19770324> 13 October 2015
