So true. "A Great Day for Freedom" is also very good, especially around the beginning.

I can't believe I'm seeing all this love for Animals. The pigs on the wing songs are basically half developed ideas that never turned into real songs, and don't try to tell me they're good intros, because they're really not. The three songs that make up the middle part are decent songs to begin with, but at one point the band must have said "fuck it, this is all we've got, its time to start making them twice as long as they need to be so we can fill out the album."

And I will admit, not everything they attempt on the Wall works, but for a double album the ratio of great songs to overall number of songs is quite high, and there's nothing thats absolutely pointless. The Wall just seems like a much more concise and clear album to me, despite it being twice as long. People seem to think of it as a Roger Waters ego trip, but honestly his artistic vision is clear throughout, and everything on there is reflective of that; which is more than can be said of Animals. The album tells a story that adds depths to the music, and that doesn't interfere with the band playing songs as awesome by themselves as "Hey You", "Another Brick in the Wall", "Confortably Numb", "Good Bye Blue Sky" among others. Basically, much better than Animals to the point where I don't even understand why anyone would take Animals over The Wall, besides the fact that Animals is shorter.

Both albums are awesome and Husker Du sucks.

They don't "need" to exist in the first place, so whatever point you're trying to make is a failure. If you meant that they could have gotten their point across that pigs = politicians, dogs = business men, and sheep = general public in a shorter amount of time then I agree, but if that was the point of making music than it's an incredibly inefficient medium and any and all songs could be shortened to less than a minute if we trimmed out the "unnecessary" parts.

I really don't think he meant "need" in that sense - just that he would cut out the sections he finds boring. To be honest, I reckon Dogs could easily be a good 5 minutes shorter, for instance.

i was on a lot of acid the other day after a neon indian concert and after my friend picked me up, Have A Cigar came on and it was fucking perfect.

That's what I thought he probably meant, I'm just being an asshole because it annoys me when people think that their opinion of what is or isn't boring should be shared across other people or that a band was simply wasting time during parts that didn't amuse him. If he finds parts of Animals to be boring then he should have just said that.

Animals epitomizes wasted potential. Simply dreadful album

Oh STFU, let me do the trolling around here, at least I don't actually mean it when I say stupid shit like that.

So you're going to nitpick at my language to try to disprove my point, or do you really not understand that I mean "twice as long as I think they should be.? I think that they could have gotten their message across if their songs were shorter; You can just get lost in those songs, especially Dogs, and not in a good way, in a "where the hell is the original song" kind of way.

No, you've got it wrong. I'm right about Animals and Hüsker Dü is awesome.

You are aware that music is more than a vehicle for poetry, right? Getting lost in songs sounds like a plus point to me.

Yes, of course. When I say "gotten their message across" I mean not only lyrically, but musically as well.
A lot of that song is just them messing around, and while getting lost in a song can be pretty awesome sometimes, its just boring for me in Dogs.

I love all 17 minutes of Dogs and I wouldn't change a thing about it.

Dogs is too long in my opinion, but I also think it's simply the weakest track on the album, so even if it were shorter, I doubt I'd like it much more.