Pet Shop Boys Community

patrick wrote: 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.

Why would Bilingual be a number one album?

I accept that I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more sold 11,000 units more than I'm with stupid but the two figures simply can't be compared on their own unless the singles markets in 1999 and 2006 were at the same level.

I know you hate chart positions but for me they give a more accurate picture of a single's popularity in comparison with another because they reflect the market at the time, whereas sales comparisons can be misleading for the reasons above.

patrick wrote: stupid fan masturbation, really.

patrick wrote:
Its lead single matched Can You Forgive Her. I'm just using your math."

patrick wrote: I'm sorry, but that's an irrelevant comparison. Every single is a consumer transaction and an objective indicator of popularity. What you want to do is grade on a curve.

Lush wrote:How did an insightful and witty thread on lead singles turn into a completely pointless discussion on sales vs. chart positions?

Kris wrote:

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:Is it objective, though?

There were far many more CD singles pressed for I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and New York city boy than there were for I'm with stupid due to the difference in markets, and I can tell you that there were tons of both I don't know what you want but I can't give it any more and New York city boy left over in the stores after its fall from the charts compared with earlier singles, which for me confirms that both sold way below expectations and were unpopular with the public.

MD wrote: Hi guys,

Just how many copies did Fundamental sell in the UK

Flaffer wrote:

patrick wrote: stupid fan masturbation, really.

wahey, we have found the title for the proposed box set of demos and unreleased remixes

Hello again, and why not?

Now that the latest lead single has emerged, I thought I’d reclaim my hijacked thread (with apologies to Kris and Patrick) and embark on a discombobulating disquisition of Love etc. in the context of its place in the canon.

Never a man to use one word when sixteen will do instead, forgive me as I attempt to do (pop)justice to this new addition to a line that started with It’s A Sin 22 years ago. I’ve tried to eschew the time-honoured knee-jerk reaction approach by tempering my thoughts in a little slow-burning consideration before posting them here. Call it musical marination, if you will. This way, I feel that I’ve got a solid foothold on the record and won’t be forced into wild vacillation when deeper immersion ensues.

Thematically, we’re taken on a journey through acquisition, consumerism, and grasping avarice before emerging from our expedition with the almost “naïve” realisation that real fulfilment is free of charge. That may all seem obvious enough, but the real achievement, in my view, is in how this somewhat straight-forward result is arrived at.

Superficiality isn’t completely dismissed, with Neil wisely conceding that skin-deep attractiveness is both nice and useful in “achieving” the “love that we need”. Such an admission gives the main, earnest contention much greater credibility. Furthermore, one wonders if the word choice here is a sly dig at our social-climbing comrades. According to this thesis, love can be achieved just like wealth, power, and success. But can it be? Is love not more innocent and its emergence less contrived than steady “getting on in the world”?

Musically, the record begins with a metronomic synthline reminiscent of Home and Dry. This insistent, consistent rhythm is apposite as the song, from the outset, takes us on a road trip, one where Neil finds himself in the familiar position of observing the society that surrounds him. Boredom rules and an undercurrent of ennui pervades any attempt to break out.

Melody is sacrificed in the rush to create a football terrace chant, and suddenly, we’re confronted by the “More-ons”, the name I’ve taken to giving the choir that appears throughout our adventure. This works as a clever foil to Tennant’s somewhat sleazy serpentine delivery, and the counterbalance is heightened when one realises that Naughty Neil himself is front and centre of the mob.

The initial “You need more” incantation acts as a glottal diversion – especially prior to the introduction of German abstract artist Gerhard Richter and a world of lovers, wives, limousines and high society regalia. If Chris places a fretting, curious, and observant Neil in a crystalline city, the More-ons work here as gruff traffic wardens forcing Neil down musical avenues he may have previously eschewed.

By now it’s all Kids in America, but the subtle and evocative musical flourish prior to the “Too much of anything” line recalls the soundtrack to 1970s British TV comedy The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, the story of a man who felt so trapped in a world of relative success that he fakes his own suicide to escape the shallow achievement of it all.

While by no means immediate, Love etc. has the happy knack of getting better as it goes on. By the final verse, it’s as if we’re all caught up in a shopaholic shuffle to redemption that climaxes in some classically romantic Tennant backing vocals.

Stepping out of the song, the problem our heroes now face is that we’ve had them for most of our lives, putting aural expression on our thoughts and dreams. “Too much of everything is never enough”, and one wonders if the insatiable demand to produce the immediate, instant hit of yore rather misses the point of having them at all. No, it’s not an It’s A Sin or a Can You Forgive Her?, but it’s a worthy return which, I think, will reward those who explore its secrets. And that perhaps is the point. Even when they seem to be superficial, there always seems to be something more to discover.

Drico.