Talk:In the Flesh?/In the Flesh

Moved Content

I'm cleaning up this article, and moving the stuff about the second In the Flesh to the In the Flesh article, as these are two distinct songs. I've placed the existing text here (bar the lyrics) so that I can refer to it when doing the other article. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 21:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Old Text

In the Flesh? is the dramatic opening piece of Pink Floyd's The Wall. Though the first version is merely used as an introduction to the album, a version played later in the album, In the Flesh, is a song about the main character Pink's belief that his concerts are fascist rallies and that he is a fascist leader. The track begins with a few seconds of the album's last song, "Outside The Wall": this was intended to give the album a "circular" structure.

Interestingly the furious organs aren't played by Richard Wright, who was on the rocks with the band at this time; they were played by Freddie Mandell. Also, the synthesizers parts of the song were played by album co-producer Bob Ezrin.

During the concert a fake band wearing face-masks of the members of Pink Floyd would play this number.

Question

Why is so much importance given to the organ in the intro when the loudest instrument heard is a distorted guitar? The organ can barely be heard.--200.14.108.1 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just did a substantial edit, in which I replaced "... featuring distorted organ" with "... featuring organ and distorted guitars playing a low-pitched melody." I hope most would agree that's a better description. The organ is really just ornamental; it's the power chords and that creepy melody riff that take center stage in this section of the song.

--Ben Culture (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

I've never come across this interpretation before:

In the movie, this song can also be perceived as a birth, the beginning, genesis. Pink is in a room which represents a womb at the end of an empty, sterile hallway. He is immobile in half-fetal position. The crowd rushing through narrow corridor can be seen as ejaculation, and the scene and the song ends with a new-born baby crying. A further symbolism of life is represented through the heart-beat sound from The Dark Side of the Moon, which can first be heard from the moment the first lyrics of the album begin.

Sounds like Original Research to me. And there's no citation. I might just go ahead and remove it. If it's still there when you (anybody) read this, and you want to remove it, go ahead. --Ben Culture (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be one person's interpretation, and an extremely abstract, precise one at that. If there was any evidence that this was the intended interpretation, it would be valid, but in the absence of a citation something of this level detail has no reason to be documented. I will remove it; it will be preserved in the discussion if anyone sees reason to restore it. --ValekHalfHeart (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that! I should have done so at the time I wrote here about it.
I just removed some more original research, albeit much less of an offense than the example above. A previous contributor wrote that the baby crying, heard at the end of the song, following the sound effects of a dive-bomber, indicates that Pink was born "at the moment" of his father's death. There's no real indication of this anywhere on the album, nor has it come up in interviews, or even been said in any fan-oriented books about the band that I've read. The baby crying is Pink, of course, and its placement here in the album indicates that Pink and his mother are left without a father and husband due to the horrors of war, so I just wrote that in place of the "at the moment" interpretation.

--Ben Culture (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Taking a second look at this "birth, the beginning, genesis" stuff, I'm struck at what a poor interpretation it in fact is. Even if it were brilliant, it would still be original thought/research and suitable for removal, but it's not brilliant at all. First of all, "In the Flesh?" simply ISN'T the beginning of The Wall's story by any means. It's chronologically late in the story, and the actual beginning is told via flashback -- "The Thin Ice" (or "When the Tigers Broke Free", in the film) is the beginning of the story. So that's just lazy thinking. And using the three terms "birth, the beginning, genesis" is redundant padding. Of course, he used the weasel words "can also be perceived" to excuse his work. (Personally, I perceive "In the Flesh?" as a bag of Fritos.) If Pink's hotel room represents a womb (and there is nothing in the film that really indicates this), why would it be at the end of an "empty, sterile hallway"? Next, Pink's seating position is described as "half-fetal", which means, I guess, "not fetal at all". Without getting out the DVD and watching it, I'm pretty sure Geldof's legs are fully extended. Then, "The crowd rushing through narrow corridor can be seen as ejaculation", except they DON'T rush through the narrow corridor of the hotel room, but the wide ampitheatre of the concert. There's no evidence that the person who wrote this is really even all that familiar with the work. Comparing something to sex is a cliche and an easy, pretentious cop-out. You can't find many rock concept albums that are less sexy than The Wall. The only thing about this song that has any remote connection to sex is the baby crying, but that "can be perceived" as taking place at the beginning of "The Thin Ice" rather than at the end of this song. Finally, I'm absolutely puzzled by the author including a statement about Dark Side of the Moon, which has little to do with The Wall as a whole and even less to do with this song specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Culture (talk • contribs) 08:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Second Solo Album?

I thought Pros and Cons was his first solo album.Vorenus (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is. What's your question? Friginator (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

My question is, why does the last sentence in the opening paragraph say that it is his second solo release? - Vorenus (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because, technically, Music from The Body was the first album released on which he was a solo artist.

Well . . . technically, that's a Roger Waters And Ron Geesin release!

--Ben Culture (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Substantial rewrite

I just did a number of edits, intended to shorten the word-count while imparting as much, or, ideally, more information. I was also trying to make it clearer.
I don't mean to single any contributor out (the article wasn't bad by any means in the first place, I just felt it could be better), but here's a specific example of something I axed:

As with the other songs on The Wall, "In the Flesh?" tells a portion of the story of Pink, the main protagonist. This first song signifies the beginning of the show (which is being narrated by Pink himself).

This was changed to:

"In the Flesh?" introduces the story of Pink, a rock star. It begins with the opening of a rock concert.

Hopefully, most would agree this provides the same amount of information, more clearly, without an excess of verbiage, or redundancies like "... the story of Pink, the main protagonist."
Another example would be:

"The song also informs the listener, although not directly, that Pink's father is killed; this is done using the sound effect of the dive-bomber, indicating his death during World War II ..."

changed to:

"The song also subtly indicates that Pink's father is killed in a war, with the sound effect of the dive-bomber."

I don't want to reduce the amount of information in the article, just the amount of words used to say it. Saying things with the least amount of words possible almost always results in a clearer statement.
Some information that I did remove was detailed timing. I don't know if anybody cares that one section lasts for 15 seconds, and the next lasts for 1:06, then the vocals go on for 0:38, etc. If somebody wants to put that information back in, I guess I don't object, so long as my edits (which were substantial rewrites) aren't simply reverted. --Ben Culture (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why 6/8 and not 12/8?

The sheet-music book for this album designate both versions of "In the Flesh", and "The Thin Ice", as being in 12/8. Is there a reputable source that says otherwise?

--Ben Culture (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In the Flesh?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717042441/http://www.thewallanalysis.com/main/in-the-flesh1.html to http://www.thewallanalysis.com/main/in-the-flesh1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)