Lead Singles: A Huge Rambling Retrospective...

[Drico One]

Well, he "outed" himself in 1994. Before came out, oooer missus, two years later. I'm saying this now because I know somebody else is going to jump on you for that minor inaccuracy if I don't beat them to it. I speak from bitter experience in this thread.

Of course, your point is still valid. Before was the first single that I can recall that explicitly referred to a male love interest: "whatever you need, he will return more." The narrative could also be Neil consoling somebody else, but I read that reference as Neil dipping his toe into being more open about things. It's certainly a fascinating track in that sense.

Drico.

[Palpatine]

I think both interpretations are valid, but I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense for Neil to come up with an O.J. reference. "Before" was recorded in New York City in 1995, when the O.J. criminal trial - with the possible exception of the Oklahoma City bombing - was the biggest news story in America, so fitting in a reference to it wouldn't be unusual. When he was at his hotel or in the studio, I'm sure Neil would've tuned in to CNN, which had non-stop, 24/7 coverage of the trial.

[patrick]

O.J. didn't actually end up behind bars back in the 1990s - though he was detained, so perhaps that was the reference - but even if you concede that it's hard to see how he ended up there because "he loved too much."

That's a paraphrase of one of the comments OJ himself made about Nicole Brown Simpson that caused even more people to believe he was the murderer. All over the US media at the time, so if Before really was written and recorded in New York that summer it makes sense.

[patrick]

As much as I like the lead singles in recent years as tracks in their own right, it's fair to say that they haven't had a truly stellar trailer since 1993.

At least part of this is down to confusion over what belongs on an album and what doesn't. The most obvious point for me is Bilingual. Sheer madness not to have Truck Driver and Hit and Miss as your first two comeback singles after your number one album at the height of Britpop, especially when the implied pride 'n kitsch combo of that movement could have elevated them to proper legendary status. Follow it up with a summer EP of the Latin tracks and you might have had some sort of mainstream fanbase heading into the doldrums of 1999. There's a decent version of Release in the making if you swap stuff out with its B sides as well.

Fundamental in my opinion is the first album since Very to work as an album, although I probably would have made the insanely overrated Integral a B side and put The Resurrectionist on. But even then, how is Fugitive not your lead single? Or even TSAGS (I know they wanted it to be), which the non-fans I dragged to the Cubism shows immediately assumed had been a hit single?

I kind of see the Pet Shop Boys' first decade as almost impossibly perfect in terms of career strategy (and while Behavior seemed a misstep at the time, without that album then it would have been game over in terms of longevity and lasting critical recognition). Their second decade feels the reverse, a series of constant miscalculations which they have survived almost despite themselves. The Peel Sessions (and where the hell is that EP) and PopArt singles hinted at a recovery and Fundamental was the return of the PSB proper to usher in their third decade. Hopefully Yes continues that turn and Love Etc. isn't the latest in a string of poorly chosen trailers. We'll see.

[Kris]

[quote
But how much airplay did the video receive? I barely saw any, so I don't think that it impacted on the chart position at all.

Lots. It was high in itunes video chart and yahoo's video chart[/quote]

Fair enough although I was leaning more towards airplay on the likes of MTV or The Box. Besides, would someone really buy a single on the strength of liking its video?

Ultimately, if I'm with stupid only sold well due to the video 'gimmick', how come Fundamental did so well on the back of it? The album charted at #5 and sold more than Release and Nightlife combined in total (in the UK at least). Surely that must reveal that I'm with stupid was well liked as a song.

[patrick]

Fair enough although I was leaning more towards airplay on the likes of MTV or The Box. Besides, would someone really buy a single on the strength of liking its video?

You're overlooking the strength of the Little Britain "brand" at the time. The video is funny even if you don't know the references and picking up the DVD single costs next to nothing.

Ultimately, if I'm with stupid only sold well due to the video 'gimmick', how come Fundamental did so well on the back of it? The album charted at #5 and sold more than Release and Nightlife combined in total (in the UK at least). Surely that must reveal that I'm with stupid was well liked as a song.

All it reveals is that the punters liked the album more than Nightlife and Release combined. Which makes sense, since it's at least twice as good as either of those.

[Kris]

Fundamental in my opinion is the first album since Very to work as an album, although I probably would have made the insanely overrated Integral a B side and put The Resurrectionist on. But even then, how is Fugitive not your lead single? Or even TSAGS (I know they wanted it to be), which the non-fans I dragged to the Cubism shows immediately assumed had been a hit single?

I can understand why Fugitive wasn't on the album because it wasn't produced by Trevor Horn but they really should have saved it for Yes rather than hiding it on a bonus CD.

EMI blocked TSAGS as the first single as they thought the title was too outrageous. To be honest it was probably the right decision as I don't think it would have got much airplay for that very reason. I've never rated the song that highly anyway. To me it sounds like a Closer To Heaven cast off, though it does sound much better live.

I agree that Fundamental works well as an album, though I'd replace the plodding Psychological with the fantastic Bright Young Things and move God Willing to its original position as the album opener (I still can't work out why it was moved to the middle).

[Kris]

All it reveals is that the punters liked the album more than Nightlife and Release combined. Which makes sense, since it's at least twice as good as either of those.

But sales of an album are largely dependent on the strength of its lead single - after all, punters don't know what the album sounds like until they buy it. PSB chose two substandard leads for Nightlife, charting at #15 and #14 respectively. The album sold poorly. Home and Dry was decent but lacked hit potential and it only made #14. Release sold poorly. I'm with stupid was much better received by radio and it charted at #8. Fundamental sold several thousand more units than either Release or Nightlife in its first week. That's no coincidence.

[patrick]

EMI blocked TSAGS as the first single as they thought the title was too outrageous. To be honest it was probably the right decision as I don't think it would have got much airplay for that very reason.

I'm sure it was outrageous a century ago. Anyone bothered by it today probably ought to be shot.

I agree that Fundamental works well as an album, though I'd replace the plodding Psychological with the fantastic Bright Young Things

I know it's all about taste, but I find Bright Young Things blandly predictable while Psychological is an atmospheric gem. I'd rather have the cliche work tucked away on the B sides, which is also where Integral should have been IMO.

[patrick]

But sales of an album are largely dependent on the strength of its lead single - after all, punters don't know what the album sounds like until they buy it. PSB chose two substandard leads for Nightlife, charting at #15 and #14 respectively. The album sold poorly. Home and Dry was decent but lacked hit potential and it only made #14. Release sold poorly. I'm with stupid was much better received by radio and it charted at #8. Fundamental sold several thousand more units than either Release or Nightlife in its first week. That's no coincidence.

I think it's actually far more of a coincidence than you're making out. Hence no skyrocketing of Nightlife sales when it eventually cranked out a Top 10 hit. I don't think I'm with stupid was a disastrous pick - merely a very boring one that owes much of its success to Little Britain (more popular than Pet Shop Boys by orders of magnitude at the time). I certainly don't believe it's had any lasting impact the way a proper hit single should.

The album sold well because it was the best thing they'd done in a decade. The reviews were great. The press was genuflecting. Buyer word of mouth was obviously much stronger than for their previous few albums. And more importantly than almost anything else, it wasn't 1999 anymore. The musical environment was more favorable to their style of music than it had been since Very. I find it difficult to imagine a universe where it did so well because general audiences were blown away with I'm with stupid while shopping.

And how many artists get a free hour-long infomercial to promote their new album on telly?

[glennjridge]

they arent picking the wrong singles. all their music is out of step with todays youth which drive the market.were all probably too old to recognize whats happened.

I know some love fugitive,and sodom,and for your own good, but come on...that stuff is so out of step with todays music its not even funny.

the youth know old when they hear it.its the natural cycle of life.
its not the PSB that have changed or gotten worse....I think they are getting better, but they are writing what they know and have always have done,....but the youth havent stayed static,they've changed.they want kanye west,rihanna,beyonce.

[patrick]

they arent picking the wrong singles. all their music is out of step with todays youth which drive the market.were all probably too old to recognize whats happened.

I know some love fugitive,and sodom,and for your own good, but come on...that stuff is so out of step with todays music its not even funny.

Glenn (and I mean this with at least some modicum of respect), you live in the middle of nowhere in a country that is almost aggressively retarded when it comes to music. It's absurd to expect two middle aged men to continue with relevant Top 10 hits forever but For Your Own Good came out while Faithless was riding high with God is a DJ and Richard X was hardly an alien sound in 2006. I don't expect someone in your ZIP code to know that, but looking at the US radio landscape is irrelevant here.

I don't think anyone seriously expects them to become trendy but on the other hand The Loving Kind could easily have been a Pet Shop Boys single with zero changes and here it is about to become yet another hit by someone the kids are in love with. So they obviously retain at least some touch with contemporary radio. Whether that actually helps them in any significant way ... well, I doubt it would. But it couldn't hurt to try to pick more relevant singles.

Meanwhile the new Lily Allen sounds like a Pet Shop Boys track and the kids are going to buy it anyway. The problem isn't that their sound is out of touch, because it really isn't when they're deliberately making contemporary pop. The problem is that they're older than the kids' own dads, which means they're uncool no matter how great and relevant a new single is.

The only way to reverse that is in 10 years time when they're welcomed back as delightfully ironic national treasures for a season or two, like when the Americans stupidly went mad for Cher.

[glennjridge]

what can I say, I dont think young people want to blast "sodom and gommorah show" out their car windows or dance to tony blair and bush I'm with stupid' at the club,or request on totally request live to play that dance song about the hijackers.

I'm not young anymore, but I dont think I've totally lost touch.

could it all just be the youth suddenly enmass are subconciously acting on some form of agism?who knows.

speaking for myself, I bought whatever sounded good to me.I think music trancends age. like U2 proves.unless the music and lyrics sound out of place. thats a different story.

[patrick]

I'm not young anymore, but I dont think I've totally lost touch.

You also don't live in the Pet Shop Boys' home market and clearly know nothing about its domestic music scene. The Loving Kind is hardly likely to crack your local radio station but it's on the cusp of being a Top 10 hit in its own market - the only one that really matters. Meanwhile any notion that For Your Own Good is a million miles from what the kids were listening to in 1999 London is clearly grossly misinformed.

The problem with the Pet Shop Boys is that they are the Pet Shop Boys. Their music packaged under any other name - a Faithless single, a Girls Aloud single, a Richard X record - blends into a music landscape that easily accommodates Calvin Harris records and Kylie Minogue tracks. The upcoming Lily Allen single might as well be a Pet Shop Boys record in sound and theme; the only difference is a young hot chick is singing it instead of a balding old man.

[PSBee]

Before was everything a PSB lead single should be: a great tune with a fresh, contemporary sound.

Before was dry and turgid and made no impact on the music scene whatsoever. It's barely made an impact on their own fans and is rarely played live.

And I'm With Stupid was a nod to their 80s heyday - a great pop song with a straightforward verse/bridge/chorus/middle-eight structure. I find it odd that people still question it considering it was their biggest chart hit for 10 years.

It's possibly the second-least-interesting song on Fundamental and musically dull. Frankly any other track on the album would have had the same chart impact as a debut single with that video attached. PSB owe Little Britain for that one.

Absolutely spot-on. I particularly ' don't get' I'm With Stupid. It feels more like a novelty song to me and I never play it.