Pink Floyd Animals in 5.1 Speculation, Now Pricing & Shipping thread starting Page 248

I am a little bit confused…

…Consequently there’s a re-release of the new album, a version with a remix and a live album, coming out next year…

Can someone explain what is a re-release of the new album? Which new album? When was it released first?

 

You're not confused, Po is. The info that Roger posted appears to be the correct info for this release.

 

If we add a single comma to how that quote is written, there's a different meaning to the same words.

 

That's what I was (sadly) expecting. Pretty sure The Floyd wouldn't be announcing such an important morsel via a random interview with Po.

 

You change the quote so you can support your own conclusion, but that's not what the article says. Why he's refering a random live album by Pink Floyd along with Animals remix saying that the Bartesea Power Station photo is gonna be the cover of that album, if it's not related? If Powel is telling the truth or if he's confused is another thing, but the article is very clear!

"I’ve reshot the ‘Animals’ cover, which was the pig over the power station,” says Powell. “So although it’s not been released yet, we thought, well, okay, let’s put the new cover up there. They’re building blocks of flats there, and I wanted to get this picture before the power station was surrounded completely — which it is now – by apartments to the point you can barely see it, and do something with it. Consequently there’s a re-release of the new album, a version with a remix and a live album, coming out next year, and this is going to be the album cover. So there’s a history here going from way back when they started right up to the present day.”

 

Or it could be that the person who wrote the article just does not have great grammar or proof reading skills. There are grammatical errors on just about every article on the web these days, this would not be the first nor would it be suppressing. I would defiantly not overread into the article and get your hopes up.

 

Po could be mistaken, or the article could be inaccurately written, or something in between. Everyone is welcome to read into it what they choose.

 

That's a reasonable advice.

 

I'm aware of his anti-Gilmour and anti-Facebook videos, but has he actually had drunk videos out there? (If so: link, please!).

 

I spotted that as well - nice way to sneer as you say "I'm above the fray."

 

I agree with your logic in principal, but recent box sets (from PF and others) commonly manage to inspire underwhelmed fan head-scratching, and I'm thus unable to rule out anything that might accomplish that.

 

Yes, he did. If you go to his Facebook page you’ll find plenty. But so what? Just because he’s Roger bloody Waters, it doesn’t mean that he cannot drive on the fast lane. I’ll love the man to the grave and hey, today it’s his birthday, so I’ll drink to him!

 

The only "so what" for me is I have some videos to go watch.

 

I guess pigs do fly, after all.

 

Recent update at the bottom of the Variety article:

 

I wonder what this could possibly mean?

 

Try adding some commas.

 

"Consequently there’s a re-release of the (original) album with a remix, coming out next year, and this is going to be the album cover."

 

If I remember right, Po was the first person to break the news about the Later Years box, via a similar interview situation.

 

Probably that there's going to be no live album with this release

Shame. I was looking forward to making a bunch of "hold on, we can't talk about an Animals live album in this thread, this is a thread for an Animals 5.1 remix" jokes

 

He was in a german interview a few months before the announcement from what i remember at the time

 

RonToon: 1
Po: 0

 

Interesting. They corrected (what I assume to be) a direct quote, but didn't correct earlier in the article where they name the second album as “Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun.” Though that typo probably wasn't setting the interwebs all atingle like the other typo. How I wanted to believe in that other typo...