Pink Floyd’s Animals: An indictment of capitalism, and ideological support
By Jason Kalchik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The summer of 1976 was not a good summer in Britannia. The economy was crumbling beneath the weight of striking trade unions and double-digit inflation and unemployment. More than one-hundred-thousand teenagers graduated that year to an idle and aimless life on unemployment. A strange climate shift, from one of a typically soggy summer, brought a rare heat wave. Originally considered a blessing beside the United Kingdom’s economic crises, the heat wave eventually proved to be just another in a long stream of curses as crops failed and water was rationed to the citizenry.
Amidst this turmoil arose a new order of teenagers. The punks had arrived. Music was reverting to a primal, three-chord, angst-ridden scream against the establishment, and established acts would either adjust beneath this new musical current or be swept away into obscurity.
Pink Floyd had – up to that point – represented everything that punk music was against: long, psychedelic and bloated musicality, and vague, self-indulgent lyrics. Indeed, they were specifically targeted by one of punks newly emerging heroes.
[Pink] Floyd played an unwitting role in Chelsea bondage-boutique owner Malcolm McLaren’s discovery of the notorious Johnny Rotten . . . McLaren recruited the “teenaged amphetamine hunchback with green hair and rotten dentures to match” as the Sex Pistols’ lead singer largely on the strength of Rotten’s “sadistically mutilated” Pink Floyd T-shirt with the words “I hate” scribbled in a Biro trembling with furious loathing above the Dodo’s moniker (Schaffner, 210).
It was apparent that Pink Floyd needed to adjust their musical and lyrical approach in order to keep up with the times of social unrest and ever evolving rock and roll.
In 1977, lead mainly by bassist and lyricist Roger Waters, the band composed and recorded what would prove to be their most politically charged and aggressive album to date, Animals. Although similar to George Orwell’s political allegory, Animal Farm, in its anthropomorphic manner of explaining political realities, this album was different in very specific ways. Orwell was dealing with the events following the Russian Revolution of 1917. Waters was commenting upon his homeland and its fiercely-capitalistic ways. In his book, Which One’s Pink?, Phil Rose provides a Marxist summary of what the content of the album might signify – both lyrically and musically. “Animals is a critique of the capitalist economic system. Roger Waters documents his own recognition of superstructure and, like Marx, attempts to illuminate the masses about their exploitation and oppression” (Rose, 60). Amidst all the turmoil, Waters had suddenly become greatly concerned with the political and economic state of his nation. This is reflected in his art. Although Waters made a conscious attempt to criticize 20th century capitalism in Animals, and actually accomplishes a scathing indictment of the economic base and the components that support it, he inadvertently provided support to the most insidious guardian of that base, cultural ideology.
By Jason Kalchik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The summer of 1976 was not a good summer in Britannia. The economy was crumbling beneath the weight of striking trade unions and double-digit inflation and unemployment. More than one-hundred-thousand teenagers graduated that year to an idle and aimless life on unemployment. A strange climate shift, from one of a typically soggy summer, brought a rare heat wave. Originally considered a blessing beside the United Kingdom’s economic crises, the heat wave eventually proved to be just another in a long stream of curses as crops failed and water was rationed to the citizenry.
Amidst this turmoil arose a new order of teenagers. The punks had arrived. Music was reverting to a primal, three-chord, angst-ridden scream against the establishment, and established acts would either adjust beneath this new musical current or be swept away into obscurity.
Pink Floyd had – up to that point – represented everything that punk music was against: long, psychedelic and bloated musicality, and vague, self-indulgent lyrics. Indeed, they were specifically targeted by one of punks newly emerging heroes.
[Pink] Floyd played an unwitting role in Chelsea bondage-boutique owner Malcolm McLaren’s discovery of the notorious Johnny Rotten . . . McLaren recruited the “teenaged amphetamine hunchback with green hair and rotten dentures to match” as the Sex Pistols’ lead singer largely on the strength of Rotten’s “sadistically mutilated” Pink Floyd T-shirt with the words “I hate” scribbled in a Biro trembling with furious loathing above the Dodo’s moniker (Schaffner, 210).
It was apparent that Pink Floyd needed to adjust their musical and lyrical approach in order to keep up with the times of social unrest and ever evolving rock and roll.
In 1977, lead mainly by bassist and lyricist Roger Waters, the band composed and recorded what would prove to be their most politically charged and aggressive album to date, Animals. Although similar to George Orwell’s political allegory, Animal Farm, in its anthropomorphic manner of explaining political realities, this album was different in very specific ways. Orwell was dealing with the events following the Russian Revolution of 1917. Waters was commenting upon his homeland and its fiercely-capitalistic ways. In his book, Which One’s Pink?, Phil Rose provides a Marxist summary of what the content of the album might signify – both lyrically and musically. “Animals is a critique of the capitalist economic system. Roger Waters documents his own recognition of superstructure and, like Marx, attempts to illuminate the masses about their exploitation and oppression” (Rose, 60). Amidst all the turmoil, Waters had suddenly become greatly concerned with the political and economic state of his nation. This is reflected in his art. Although Waters made a conscious attempt to criticize 20th century capitalism in Animals, and actually accomplishes a scathing indictment of the economic base and the components that support it, he inadvertently provided support to the most insidious guardian of that base, cultural ideology.