Talk:The Final Cut (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] General

Can somebody spell check this?

[edit] Weasel Words

Second Pink Floyd article I've consulted today, and this also (the other was Meddle) throws up that word "rumoured", "claimed", "many have said" etc. I want to read the article for FACTS not rumour, speculation, gossip. 84.13.246.35 10:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album Story

Do you think anything else should be added concerning the "story" of the album? I marked down what I thoguht it was from the lyrics, any other ideas of what he was saying? Habsfannova 15:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought the teacher did try to kill himself in The Final Cut, but someone else told me it was Roger Waters' character trying to isolate himself. Mad, I removed any mention of The Final Cut on the teacher's story and made the Track ten part a third story.

[edit] One Guitar Solo?

The article claims that "Not Now John" has the only guitar solo on the album. Perhaps I'm crazy, but I count four: "Your Possible Pasts," "The Fletcher Memorial Home," "The Final Cut," and "Not Now John." Is there something I'm missing here? anonymous 02:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next Album - Works

I replaced the next album link which was Momentary Lapse with Works. I was reading through all the albums tonight, and other compliations from the band were in the order, so Works should be too. A Nice Pair & Relics were in the "next - previous" sequence, so this should be too.

[edit] Cover

I thought the album art was with 'pink floyd the final cut' in white on it. --Leoremy 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on some later releases of the album, Pink Floyd: The Final Cut is present in white. But on the first release, there was nothing. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concept and Analysis

The 'Concept' and the 'Analysis' sections seem to contradict each other. While the former states that the 'depressed person' narrating the album is likely to be 'Pink' from The Wall the latter claims that it might be the teacher from the same album. Would it not be safer to assume that the lyrics reflect Roger Waters’s view of world affairs and his disappointment in the post WW2 world order? Personally, I don't think that these attempts at interpreting the lyrics should feature on wikipedia as they inevitably reflect the author's personal opinion and will never be factually accurate (unless of course written by Roger Waters himself). Let's not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia...(HighburyVanguard 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Although it's thoughtfully written, I have to say that I disagree with the several aspects of the interpretation of the album's "story,", which opens with this:
One portrays Waters' view on world affairs at the time (Tracks 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 13 of the 2004 reissue). Much of this was formed by the Falklands War, condemning among others Margaret Thatcher, Ian Paisley, Ronald Reagan, Leonid Brezhnev and Menachem Begin. The name Fletcher in "The Fletcher Memorial Home" is in honour and remembrance of his father (to whom the whole album is dedicated in the credits), who was killed in action at Anzio during World War II. The album also espouses his views of an ideal world, ending the album with a nuclear holocaust he feared might happen in the real world.
In the original album (before the insertion of "When the Tigers Broke Free"), issued on vinyl, Side One consisted of the tracks up to "Paranoid Eyes", and Side Two began with "Get Your Filthy Hands...". It was clear the first side was presenting the POV of a bitter, alienated WWII veteran living in modern era (1980s), and Side Two representing the next generation, quite possible the son of the veteran in Side One, possibly the "Pink" of The Wall, but most obviously a character that is a stand in for Waters himself -- the bitter post-war generation. (In fact, one of the things I love about this album is the notion that psychological damage of war echoes down through the generations.)
Also, the author of the passage quoted above mentions an "ideal world" -- I assume this to be a reference to the Gunner's Dream.... This is very clearly not the POV of a modern generation, but the WWII generation: "a place to sleep/enough to eat" etc (Google for whole passage, I'm not going to quote at length). Those lines are clearly in reference to a soldier dying in WWII (the ideal world of the "post-war dream"), and is almost certainly a deliberate homage to the poem "Flanders Field."
Now if we can only find some bonehead music magazine writer who's bothered to write about the album intelligently, we can have our references and a NPOV article.... StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Closest thing to a love song?

Isn't Bike a lovesong?

I cannot speak for that song, personally, since The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one of the few Pink Floyd albums I do not own. However, the clause in question ("The title track is arguably the most personal Pink Floyd song ever written and the closest thing to a love song in their catalogue") is definitely false. Both "Pigs on the Wing" songs from Animals are love songs. I am going to make the wording here more accurate. 72.82.60.7 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the whole Pink Floyd canon up to The Final Cut pretty damn well. It's kind of hard to characterize Bike, or any songs of the Early Pink Floyd catalogue, as "love songs." It's more about being surreal than a particular expression of a love, IMO. I agree with the above writer, however, that "Pigs On the Wing" are love songs, of a sort, especially Part II. One could also argue that some of the songs on The Wall are *sort of* love songs -- or at least songs addressing disappointment, lust, anger, or obsession in romantic love. ("Oooh Babe, I need you... to beat to a pulp on a Saturday night...."(!) ) That's as close as these guys get to writing a love song! StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Meddle is the place to find Pink Floyd love songs. "A Pillow of Winds", "San Tropez", and "Echoes" all have elements of romance. "If" from Atom Heart Mother could be seen as a love song, too.
--63.25.227.132 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a "socialist" critique

Although one might make the argument that Waters' political critique certainly comes from left of center, and his named targets in Fletcher Memorial Home are right wing conservative leaders of the early 1980s (Thatcher, Reagan, Begin, Haig et. al), I can't see how it's defensible to characterize the album as a *socialist* critique. Socialism is a political philosophy espousing various degrees of state control over the economy, and in stronger forms, over the governance of ordinary life. However, the economic critiques, such as they are, in The Final Cut, are primarily criticisms of the Thatcher government selling off the shipping industry and coal industry to the Japanese. The general political stance of the entire album does not particularly embrace a philosophy (even the utopia described in The Gunner's Dream only describes a world without violence and with enough food and shelter for everyone, and the point of view is that of a dying World War II soldier, so it's hard to call this a utopia of any political flavor). Rather, it is primarily a critique of war in general, of state-sponsored violence that damages economies, families and personalities. The most trenchant insight of the album, I think, is that the effects of war echo down the generations -- as in Waters' bitter loss of his father in WWII.

All of this to say -- I removed the phrase "socialist" from the section that characterized it as a "socialist" critique. StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seeing references where none exist.

The following looks like it was written by the kind of person who analyzes Division Bell lyrics looking for a "message":

During the end of "The Fletcher Memorial Home", the main character's newspaper includes the headline "Your Son's Head in a Box". This is most likely a reference to "Run Like Hell" from Pink Floyd's previous album, The Wall.

Really? I would have thought it was more of a reference to the fact that war (the central theme of the album? remember?) can result in your son (or daughter, nowadays) being shipped home dead in a box.
"Run Like Hell" is about paranoia, and has nothing to do with anything on The Final Cut. You could also interpret "RLH" as being about the fearful state of living in a fascist dictatorship, which is closer to the themes of TFC, but it's still not a reference.
Why do some people need to believe that every detail about Pink Floyd is inter-related and forms a grand, magnificent, wholistic something or other? (Of course, it doesn't help that David Gilmour really does seem incapable of writing a Pink Floyd lyric that isn't, at least somewhat, a dig at Roger Waters . . . .)
--63.25.227.132 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it could be a deliberate reference to the lyric of 'Run Like Hell' since Waters has always liked referencing other Floyd lyrics/musical motifs/sound effects in his work. In some cases, this may be intended to convey some meaningful point to the listener, but in this case, even if the reference is intentional, I can't see there being any deeper meaning to it, it's just playfully referencing a previous work. And in any case, it's just as likely that Waters simply used a similar phrase twice in his work without intending any referencing to other work, something that you'd expect a songwriter to do from time to time, the connection to 'Run Like Hell' may never even have occurred to him until afterwards. Regardless, it sounds like 'original research', in this case a contributer including his own speculations. Even if they are right, it's not a particularly notable or significant point, so feel free to remove it from the article if you like, or else attache a 'citation needed' tag to it to see if there is any actual source for the speculation.
As for Floyd's work being interconnected, well there is obviously some degree of deliberate interconnection with some of the albums made with Waters as I think he'd maintain himself, but obsessive fans are probably prone to exgaggerate and look for deeper, mysterious hidden meanings. I'm sceptical though that the subsequent Gilmour-led albums have much in the way of interconnected themes, but Gilmour seems to revel in encouraging fans to look for hidden meanings when he knows fully well that almost always they aren't there (the Publius Enigma is one example, not sure how much if anything Gilmour had to do it with originating that, but I'm sure he enjoyed it all). He seems to enjoy all the speculation about which of the songs may or may not be about Roger Waters. With regard to most of his songs being digs at Waters, some of them probably are in part (maybe 'Sorrow' and 'A Great Day for Freedom', certainly 'Poles Apart'), but I know Gilmour wrote all of the lyric for 'One Slip' and I can't see how that could be construed as an attack on Waters, unless it's Gilmour's playful way of revealing that Waters fathered a bunch of illegitimate children while away on tour with the band, rather like Mick Jagger, though I doubt it somehow, Roger dosen't seem the type. MarkB79 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vocals on Not Now John

I just removed a recent addition suggesting that Waters has claimed that he sings vocal parts attributed to Gilmour on 'Not Now John'. In the context of where it was put it the article, it implies that Gilmour does not sing at all on this song and hence the whole album features vocals by Waters only. I have no idea if Waters has claimed that he sings the whole of 'Not Now John' but if he has he is wrong and misremembering what actually happened. The majority of the vocal parts attrubuted to Gilmour (i.e. the verses) clearly are actually Gilmour and they are credited as such by reputable sources. It is the last verse which Waters sings while trying to mimick Gilmour's vocal style, which I presume is what Waters has referred to (or possibly misremembered, depending on what exactly he has said). You can hear its not Gilmour on this last verse although Waters' attempts at sounding like him do disguise his own voice and makes it difficult for the most part to recognise it as him. The point is that the way it was put in the article suggests that Waters sings the whole song and Gilmour does not sing at all, which is patently false, even if Waters has claimed it. MarkB79 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In any event, the edit was not sourced, so I agree with its removal. Now if it WAS sourced to a review by Waters, it would have to stay, because WP:V states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (see the link for explanation). The only way to counter that is to provide another source which counters his claim (with a good explanation), and in that case it would be best to include both quotes in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well perhaps but even if it is sourced and stays in the article I don’t think it should be placed where it was (in the intro). The intro briefly mentions that Gilmour only sings one song on the album to highlight Waters’ domination of the work, putting a load of detail in the intro about how Waters might have once disputed that Gilmour sings this one song and how others say otherwise (especially when Waters would clearly be wrong) probably isn’t necessary or appropriate in the intro, it would be better placed further down the page under ‘Recording’ or wherever. If a source stating that Gilmour sings on the track is needed, the Floyd Encyclopaedia by Vernon Fitch could be used. Incidentally I very much doubt that Waters has ever actually disputed that Gilmour sings this song – he would not only have to misremember the events, he also couldn’t have listened to the song in years because with a quick listen he could tell for himself that Gilmour is singing the first few verses on the track, and I imagine Waters must listen to this album at least once in a while. I think it’s likely that Waters has probably said in an interview something along the lines of “on ‘Not Now John’, I remember singing vocal parts and trying to sound like Gilmour” without being more specific and this has been misinterpreted by the contributor as meaning all the vocals attributed to Gilmour rather than just the last verse. If that turns out to be the case, I don’t think we should be putting words in Waters’ mouth and using an interview to suggest that he disputes that Gilmour sings on the track at all if he doesn’t actually say that, we should only do that if he states that specifically. MarkB79 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Until someone demonstrates the interview actually exists, it's all Waters under the bridge. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)