Favourite song in Dark Side of the Moon

Following up on the Animals discussion, musically Animals is not innovative by any means but the lyrical concept is very convincing and the music is a perfect fit for it. I can see why people who are looking for innovation and surprise find it lame. However in my view it's a very good and legitimate way to follow up on the super successful DSOTM and WYWH. There is justified disappointment when a band after such a success just tries to do it again and produces an uninspired clone. On the other hand I'm fine with bands that develop slowly rather than doing something completely different, and surely not everybody has to "go with the time" (which may mean development as well as losing identity and trying something that others do better). Animals sits pretty well in the middle. It builds on the predecessors and sounds very mature and confident, and it also has some edge that DSOTM and WYWH don't have. Also in its time it may not have been the coolest most exciting thing around, but listening to it in 2019 it has aged quite well and for my personal listening pleasure why would it make a difference whether it came out in 1977 or 1973?

Strange discussion ... since PF was already doing all of the ANIMALS and WYWH material during the DSOTM tour. It was well known that they liked to play the stuff and smooth it out before putting it on record.

My take on the order of the releases, is that the record company wanted an album that was not so different from DSOTM, and thus WYWH was put together, which to me, is just 2/3's of an album and the rest after Roy is just a throwaway left over. But the record company did not want to see "Raving and Drooling" and "You Got to be Crazy" released, because it was so different from DSOTM ... and on top of it, "Raving and Drooling" in its early form was one of the best pieces of SPACE ROCK, on line with 2 of their early pieces (Astronomy Domine and Interstellar Overdrive), and sadly, by the time it made it to an album, it was ravaged senseless and its drive was gone, into something else ... it was still good, but ... now it was just a song, instead of it being a really good trip!

And this is the part that I missed from PF ... in the middle of those years and their 2 or 3 albums, they stopped being a great trip band ... it was now all songs ... and of course, here we are, on a "progressive" board and someone is talking about "songs" ... the music is now worthless and simplified to the lowest level possible!

This, but it's my favorite album ever so I love basically all of it.

Obviously taken on its own Speak to Me is the worst since it's hardly a song.

BaldJean wrote: Foxprog wrote: BaldFriede wrote: richardh wrote: Time Money I'm not a massive fan of this album although I've seen it performed live in it's entirety and it becomes a different animal in that environment entirely. It rocks big time and the guitar licks are some of the best of any genre. However I will always turn towards Wish You Were Here and Animals if I feel like listening to some Floyd.   If I want to listen to Pink Floyd I will turn to "Ummagumma" or "Meddle", but most definitely not to the ridiculously overrated "Animals". Had "Animals" come out a few years earlier my opinion would be different, but for the time it came out it was absolutely lame compared to what was musically going on at that time.   Animals is not vastly overrated. By looking it objectively, it's the only Floyd album without "bad songs". The album is solid as a rock. It's also the favourite album by many hardcore Floyd fans.   first of all: there is no such thing as "looking at something objectively"; this only exists in your imagination. personal taste always plays a crucial role. and "bad" is in the eye of the beholder, or rather the ear of the listener. there are in my opinion definitely two weak tracks on "Animals", the two parts of "Pigs on the Wing". "Meddle" or "Ummagumma" don't have weak tracks. yes, I love "San Tropez" and "Seamus" (how someone can NOT love that dog's singing is beyond me, but I know many people hate that track). second: as Friede rightly pointed out an album has to be viewed in the context of the time it was recorded. had "Animals" been recorded in 1972 or 1973 it would have been great. but at the time it came out it sounded as if coming from a bunch of BOFs who are totally oblivious to what is musically going on around them and who have become so saturated that they can't get their fat asses out of their armchairs anymore to really get rocking. other artists had noticed the sign of the times and reacted; take for example Hawkwind's "Quark, Strangeness and Charme" or "Live Floating Anarchy" by Planet Gong which came out in the same year as "Animals". I know a lot of people love "Animals", but for me it is absolutely lame. in the context of time, of course

Why it's context so important? If the same notes, performed the same exact way had been recorded before or after it would be a great album, but when it did it isn't? It sounds strange, especially given you said in a different post that you don't care about production and only the music. I struggle to see how "context" falls under the definition of music but "production" doesn't  (though I kinda agree with what you said about production tho, it's just that context it's way more irrelevant than production for me).

Always hated "Money" (and still do).

"Great Gig" and "Time" are in a category of rarefied numen. We'll call it "peak progiastics" or "progasm."

A tough album to pick a "best" or "favorite" cuz I used to only play whole sides: all of Side One or all of Side Two after skipping "Money," every night, for years!

to b) same answer

to c) because most people who are into "progressive" rock are actually conservative in their musical taste. which is one of the reasons why "Animals" is rated so high. a proof for this is an album Friede currently rants about in this thread:

I totally agree with Friede that this album should be much higher rated, but I fear she is preaching to deaf ears. I have given up on promoting Roman Bunka on this site; I tried several times. he will remain the overlooked guitar player. but Friede still thinks she can open these deaf ears.

I too agree that bands should be doing what they want, but I question this is the case with "Animals". as Moshkito nicely pointed out somewhere "Dogs" had originally been a completely different animal, or was it "Sheep" (please forgive the pun)?