Deep into The Wall

Bret Urick is a veteran Floydian from Albany, Georgia. Below is my interview with him on Roger Waters' magnum opus "The Wall". For more on The Wall, visit Bret's website

The Wall is timeless. It has come to be the mouthpiece of several generations. What are some of the things that make it so relevant today even after two decades of its existence?

"The Wall" is timeless simply because it tells a timeless story: Man's journey to find himself. Even if the specifics are different, the general story of the fictional Pink is one that we can all relate to in that we all at times have felt alienated from our loved ones, from friends, from authority figures and society as a whole. Oftentimes, as with Pink, it feels as though life conspires against us, and as a result we build up these massive walls, these psychological defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from being emotionally vulnerable. While these defenses help shield us from the pain, Pink Floyd has gone to great lengths to show the negative aspects of such self-isolation, namely a breakdown in personal stability due in large part to a lack of communication and connectivity to the world around us. It's for this reason alone that we may feel the concept of the wall can even be applied to societies as a whole, and how wars might very well result from such social isolation, even those being waged today. It seems Roger Waters himself felt that the evils of Nazi Germany were created by this same self-righteous detachment from humanity, this hiding behind a wall of xenophobia. War, hatred, and all the ills of this modern world seem to be the product of so many personal walls clashing with each other, refusing to allow the other in. t's a universal message that has been reiterated time and again throughout history: History is bound to repeat itself, personally and socially, unless we learn from our mistakes as individuals and as a collective society.
Put simply, "the Wall" is still relevant because it is about us, all of us, as individuals and a society. It is about our capacity for evil jut as much as our capacity for good. It is, in a way, the story of humankind. Stories don't get much more universal than that!

How unique would you consider The Wall to be in terms of a concept album (both before and since its release)?

By the time "the Wall" came out in 1979, the concept album wasn't an entirely new rock and roll form. Arguably, the Beatles had taken a shot at it with "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", and the Who had already released two concept alums of their own, "Quadrophenia" and "Tommy." To me, though, "the Wall" marks a slight shift from these previous rock operas in that its subject matter is arguably more contemplative and grim, more universal and epic. I really can't think of any other album that manages to tackle many of humanity's most persistent philosophical questions quite as successfully as Pink Floyd's "the Wall". (What is the self? How much of a role does the past play in creating the present? Are we products of society or nature? How closely is reality tied up in our perception of things? What is the nature of war? Of good and evil? Where lies the dividing line between rebellion and conformity? etc.)
So while it is not entirely unique unto itself, "the Wall" manages to put a very grown up, philosophical spin on the concept album.

You might want to shed some light on a few insights that you might have gained into the persona of Roger Waters during the course of your analysis.

What struck me most while writing my analysis was his absolute love of all things cyclical. Evidence of this can be seen even in the previous works, the circular nature of albums like "Dark Side of the Moon" (which begins and ends with human heartbeat, suggesting the continuous flow of life and death), "Wish You Were Here" and "Animals" (both of which begin and end with different versions of the same song).

"The Wall" is no different, beginning and ending with the same music playing faintly in the background, along with the line "Isn't this where..." ending the album, and the rest of the line "...we came in?" beginning the album. The idea is that "the Wall" as an album and a philosophical idea repeats itself continuously, that when one person's wall comes down, another is building his or her own from the wreckage.

I get the impression that, for Waters, the cycle is a double-edged sword of sorts. On the positive side, life will always go on. But on the negative side, man's capacity for committing evil will also persist...unless one can break the cycle, so to speak, by learning from history.

One other interesting trait about Waters is that, although many view "the Wall" as a very serious, almost pessimistic work of art, I think Waters himself is very much an eternal optimist. Despite all the maliciousness he sees around him, all the walls being built, I think Waters ultimately finds sparks of hope in mankind. The fact that Pink (the protagonist) learns from his mistakes, realizes that he is the author of his destiny (not just the victim of chance) and tears down his wall is incredibly promising. Also, that Waters chose to end the album with the song "Outside the Wall" also belies his more optimistic leanings; the message is that for every wall of isolation that is built up, there are just as many "bleeding hearts and artists" willing to make a stand and help tear down these oppressive walls.

The album has certainly come alive in its visual form through the movie, but would you point out any contrasting features that separate the movie from the album?

Considering that Roger Waters and film director Alan Parker often butted heads during the making of "the Wall" movie, I think the main contrasts between movie and album lie in this contrast of visions. That said, with the movie being such a cult classic, it's hard to imagine it as anything but what it currently is. Many feel that the movie isn't nearly as epic as the album; I definitely think that's a valid point. But at the same time, I think Parker's skills in film making helped give the story more structure and visual cohesiveness...something that was definitely needed in order to tame the more sporadic nature of the album.

Would you like to describe the role that Scarfe's animations -- hammers, dove, eagle, flowers -- play in shaping the idea of the wall?

As much as I admire Alan Parker's work, I think Gerald Scarfe's animations absolutely make the movie. Sequences like "Goodbye Blue Sky" and "What Shall We Do Now?" wouldn't have had nearly the same kind of visceral effect had they been regular film pieces. The brilliance behind Scarfe's animation lies in his ability to boil down some rather complex ideas and themes into a single animated "character." It's simply amazing how an image as simple as crossed hammers can invoke such a wide range of ideas and emotions in the viewer: force, violence, oppression, mob rule, brutal fascism, the Nazi party. The same goes for the flowers. It's hard to imagine getting anything out of a picture of two flowers, yet Scarfe somehow manages to encapsulate an entire history of love and abuse and violent sexuality within a sequence that is barely 30 seconds long. In this way, Scarfe's animation almost acts as another instrument in "the Wall", filling in some rather important and relevant information that the lyrics only hint at. Likening it to a person, "the Wall"'s live-action shots are like the story's exterior - the skin, the eyes, the hair, the physical qualities of the action - while Scarfe's animation is like the mental landscape, revealing an often sordid look into what's making this character tick.

Comment on Another brick in the wall.

"Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2" is pure rock and roll. It's also pure Pink Floyd. Throughout much of his artistic life, John Lennon was obsessed with advertising slogans. He loved the way that simple words could convey grand ideas. This idea was the impetus behind some of his most well known sons ("Give Peace a Chance," "Imagine"). I think the same idea lies behind "Another Brick." When you step back and look at it, it's a rather simple melody, a simple beat, and a rather simple and repetitive lyric. It's easily recognized and easily sung. At the same time, the simple lyrics hint at much broader themes, especially that of rebellion. And what could be more rock and roll than a song about rebellion, about standing up to the status quo!

What makes the song even more interesting is that, once you get past the exterior, you'll find an even more complex interior. The line "We don't need no education" is so anthemic that it practically lends itself to mass singing...which is exactly Roger Waters's ironic point. At what point does this mass singing, this mob rebellion, begin to resemble the very same mob rule that the singers are rebelling against? (Again, an example of Waters's circular logic.)

Going into my analysis, I might have believed that "the Wall" was a terrific rock album, but coming out I know it to be nothing short of a great work of art.