Pet Shop Boys Community

patrick wrote: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.

That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that. However, that makes me dislike Before even more now. Pretty uninspired stuff from Neil if that's the case.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:Pretty uninspired stuff from Neil if that's the case.

Not exactly Suffer Little Children, no.

Kris wrote: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.

If it wasn't on Fundamental for that reason, I'd be astounded. Horn hardly commands that much sway these days. Besides, I'm all for including quality tracks on bonus discs. After all, why else would we buy bonus discs if they were sub-standard? That said, the Fundamentalism disc was execrable, with the unforgettable lowlight being Elton's outright and not-at-all private defecation over In Private.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:That said, the Fundamentalism disc was execrable, with the unforgettable lowlight being Elton's outright and not-at-all private defecation over In Private.

I rather liked the Psychological mix and the Minimal one was sublime. Surely three solid tracks on a free CD is better than never having them at all?

In Private would have been inexcusable even in the Nightlife era. Possibly the single worst thing they have ever released, although I know Absolutely Fabulous has its fans. A bit like having sex with Jayne Mansfield. Today.

Nah, Fundamentalism might as well have been shelved and Fugitive tagged on to the main album. It would have saved on costs and given us just as many essential moments as were available with the double-disc release.

I'm all for bonus discs, but that disc was truly of the cutting-room floor. Or the toilet bowl, in the case of Elton.

Drico.

patrick wrote: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?

As much as I love Fugitive, I still can't see how a song with a chorus "you are my brother, I'm really going to miss you..." makes a hit single.

Sodom would have been the stereotypical PSB single that vindicated the snipers who had dismissed them as a gay band 15 years ago. It would have trivialised the band, reduced them to a parody of a caricature. The Daffyds would have loved it. But you're right - it works tremendously well live, as does Integral, and as does New York City Boy (a la the Nightlife tour). And we all know that that's no recommendation for single release.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:As much as I love Fugitive, I still can't see how a song with a chorus "you are my brother, I'm really going to miss you..." makes a hit single.

I don't think most people pay any attention to lyrics ... and the people who do might have ignited a firestorm, which could have been great for sales. Fugitive even made the Drudge Report, after all. Never underestimate the ability of reactionary idiots to help sell your records/movie/book.

Sodom would have been the stereotypical PSB single that vindicated the snipers who had dismissed them as a gay band 15 years ago. It would have trivialised the band, reduced them to a parody of a caricature. The Daffyds would have loved it. But you're right - it works tremendously well live, as does Integral, and as does New York City Boy (a la the Nightlife tour). And we all know that that's no recommendation for single release.

All true enough.

patrick wrote: Well no. At the end of the day you're still dealing with a set number of people buying shiny little discs and then making the argument that those transactions are somehow directly responsible for how the album fares. It's actually the chart placement that's irrelevant here.

Why? I've given you countless examples of how the performance of a lead single chartwise influences the performance of the subsequent album. That's the purpose of the single, to promote the album. If the single underperforms, the album is more likely to as well. Very shifted bucketloads on the back of Go West and became PSB's first number one album. It's no coincidence that Go West was also PSB's biggest chart hit for five years.

patrick wrote: I find it utterly bizarre that you're arguing I'm with stupid was somehow "more popular" than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more despite selling 11,000 fewer copies in its first week. If you lose a few thousand buyers surely you're less popular? Hence the folly of relying on chart placement for any sort of argument here - especially after dismissing Drunk as a Top 10 hit yourself.

The figures have to be seen in context, though. Single sales as a whole plummeted between 1999 and 2006 and PSB weren't going to be the exception to the rule.

Using a top 10 hit as a barometer (because, before the Nightlife era, a PSB lead single had never failed to reach the top 10), I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and New York city boy (Nightlife) and Home and Dry (Release) all missed the top 10 by a very similar margin in bogstandard sales weeks, and the subsequent albums underperformed with very similar sales patterns. Meanwhile, I'm with stupid charted six places higher, shifting more units than the benchmark sales figure for a top 10 hit. Fundamental subsequently shifted several thousand more units in its first week than the previous two albums. That's why I consider I'm with stupid to be more popular than the aforementioned singles, and why I don't consider the various chart correlations to be a coincidence.

As for Drunk, it's a more complex situation because it wasn't a lead single - and those are the singles that shift the most albums. As the third single release from Nightlife, it was always going to be up against it in terms of reviving the album because the casual fanbase had presumably decided not to buy it due to being underwhelmed by I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and New York city boy. They probably bought Drunk instead, which is not the result EMI would have wanted.

I'd actually love PSB to go back in time and release Drunk as the lead for Nightlife to see if it fared better than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more/New York city boy and gave Nightlife a better start. I think it would as it's arguably the best song on the album and probably the most conventional PSB tune in terms of its breezy melodies and structure.

I'm not dismissing Drunk as a top 10 hit and was delighted when it charted so well but it was undoubtedly a tactical decision to release it in the quietest week of the year so that it could chart higher than it would in a normal week, and potentially revive interest in Nightlife. But it failed to work and I guess that's why we've never seen a January release since.

Kris wrote:I've given you countless examples of how the performance of a lead single chartwise influences the performance of the subsequent album.

In fact you've done no such thing. You've thrown out a few highly charting singles and made unsupported inferences which are contradicted by examples of other highly charting singles that don't have the same effect (hello Drunk). Your contention is further undermined by the myopic fixation on chart placement rather than unit sales, leading to the frankly hilarious assertion that I'm with stupid was somehow more popular than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more even though the latter outsold the former by some margin. For your thesis to hold water, Nightlife would have had to outsold Fundamental. But it didn't and it doesn't.

There is a relationship between highly selling singles and highly selling albums, but it's not the one you're making.

Single sales as a whole plummeted between 1999 and 2006 and PSB weren't going to be the exception to the rule.

Which again is utterly irrelevant because the fact of the matter is that the Nightlife trailer outsold the Fundamental trailer by something in the order of 57% and yet album sales are the opposite of what your theory would imply. We're talking physical units - a direct and measurable barometer of how much a single impacted on the public. You yourself basically admit to the silliness of looking at chart placement instead of unit sales by dismissing Drunk, which is itself a rather inconvenient thorn in your side.

That's why I consider I'm with stupid to be more popular than the aforementioned singles, and why I don't consider the various chart correlations to be a coincidence.

It is absolutely moronic to suppose that a single that sells 11,000 fewer copies than another is somehow more popular. The kid with fewer votes doesn't win the popularity contest, even if we're grading on a curve.

Drico One wrote: As much as I love Fugitive, I still can't see how a song with a chorus "you are my brother, I'm really going to miss you..." makes a hit single.

i always thought they could've changed the lyrics intos something like "you're my lover," etc.. like a guy and girl running away from home and their first night together..

patrick wrote: In fact you've done no such thing. You've thrown out a few highly charting singles and made unsupported inferences which are contradicted by examples of other highly charting singles that don't have the same effect (hello Drunk).

I was talking about lead singles, which are the subject of this thread, are they not? Lead singles have the biggest influence on album sales. Drunk wasn't a lead single.

patrick wrote: Your contention is further undermined by the myopic fixation on chart placement rather than unit sales, leading to the frankly hilarious assertion that I'm with stupid was somehow more popular than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more even though the latter outsold the former by some margin. For your thesis to hold water, Nightlife would have had to outsold Fundamental. But it didn't and it doesn't.

That would be a fair comment if the single sales climates were the same for both I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and I'm with stupid but they weren't. PSB had previously always sold enough units to guarantee a top 10 position with a lead single, regardless of the sales environment. With I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more, they sold 26,000, which was short of the average sales threshold needed. It remains PSB's worst performing lead single and, with New York city boy faring little better, Nightlife became their worst performing album on the back of it.

In 2002, Home and Dry sold around 15,000 units in a climate where the average sales threshold for a top 10 hit was around 18-20,000. So it missed the top 10 by a similar margin to that of I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more in its climate. Release followed an almost identical chart and sales pattern to that of Nightlife.

In 2006, I'm with stupid sold a similar number of units to that of Home and Dry, despite the fact that the average sales threshold for a top 10 hit had fallen to around 12-13,000. Surely that proves that I'm with stupid performed better in its own sales climate than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more, New York city boy and Home and Dry did in theirs, resulting in a higher chart position and, subsequently, a better performance (both chartwise and saleswise) for Fundamental.

The key point is that, despite the singles market shrinking between 1999 and 2006, album sales stayed the same, which indicates that the performance of lead singles were still just as influential in promoting an album as before, despite their own popularity waning. Album sales are what record companies are most interested in and it's clear to me that I'm with stupid did a better job in promoting Fundamental than I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and New York city boy did with Nightlife, hence the better chart positions and sales.

Yes, I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more sold more units than I'm with stupid but it still undersold within its own climate. There's no way it would have sold 26,000 units in I'm with stupid' climate. That's why I think that chart positions are more influential than you think. They are a pretty accurate barometer for measuring the popularity of the record regardless of its environment.

Let's look at the last five PSB albums:

Very - lead singles #7 and #2, album #1
Bilingual - lead singles #7 and #8, album #4
Nightlife - lead singles #15 and #14, album #7
Release - lead single #14, album #7
Fundamental - lead single #8, album #5

Surely this is evidence that the better the lead single(s) perform(s), the better the album fares as a result?

Drico, thank you for insisting on the comma in "Love, Etc.".
I recall hating the comma absence in the movie "Love Actually". Wouldn't that title be so much better with a comma? I seem to remember Hugh Grant was in it, and that guy's speech is all commas.

I'm reminding myself of the author photo of Lynn Truss (Eats Shoots Leaves), surrepitously adding an apostrophe to the movie poster of "Two Weeks Notice" (sic). Ah well.

I think no-one is taking into consideration of what was in the charts at the time PSB released their lead singles. 'Before' was up against some amazing tunes in the charts at the time, for example.

Deschanel wrote:Drico, thank you for insisting on the comma in "Love, Etc.".
I recall hating the comma absence in the movie "Love Actually". Wouldn't that title be so much better with a comma? I seem to remember Hugh Grant was in it, and that guy's speech is all commas.

I'm reminding myself of the author photo of Lynn Truss (Eats Shoots Leaves), surrepitously adding an apostrophe to the movie poster of "Two Weeks Notice" (sic). Ah well.

I don't care as much for the comma in "Love etc." (I didn't even know it was needed which apparently it's not...) as I do for the quotation marks "around" the title! I insist on quotation marks! It's so much easier to distinguish a song title from the rest of the text if it is within quotation marks, especially when a one-word title starts a sentence. To me, these two sentences have different meanings:

1. London is beautiful. --> London (the city) is beautiful.
2. "London" is beautiful. --> "London" (the song) is beautiful.

Is it the standard in magazines to write it like (1) when it's about a song called "London"?

Also I don't like the English Way Of Writing All Words In A Title With The First Letter Capitalized. It looks stupid and is tedious to write on a keyboard. I know that's how your language works, but I really appreciate that the Pet Shop Boys seem to prefer "Home and dry" instead of "Home And Dry" - just look at the back of their albums!

Kris wrote:Let's look at the last five PSB albums:

Very - lead singles #7 and #2, album #1
Bilingual - lead singles #7 and #8, album #4
Nightlife - lead singles #15 and #14, album #7
Release - lead single #14, album #7
Fundamental - lead single #8, album #5

Surely this is evidence that the better the lead single(s) perform(s), the better the album fares as a result?

Sadly no. Otherwise we'd have Bilingual as a number one album and a graph that makes sense when singles' physical unit sales are considered. You're still stuck arguing that poorer-selling singles are somehow more popular in the end. I just don't buy that a single that sold 11k fewer units than another is somehow directly responsible for the album selling four times as much. It makes no sense. I think you're confusing correlation for causation.