No Numb LIVE, no Numb SINGLE?

Message

Burj · #61 Post by **Burj** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:16 pm

jamie1978 wrote:The simple fact is that NOTHING offical has indicated that Numb will be a single.

true, but, conversely, there's been NOTHING official, not even the merest hint, that PSB have, quote, "NO INTENTION" of releasing Numb as a single either

jamie1978 · #62 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:17 pm

Burj wrote:
actually there are in-house reference CDs for PopArt which show Miracles, Flamboyant AND Numb in the tracklisting.

But it wasnt on the album, which is the point. This bit of information is totally irrelevant, though mildy interesting I'm sure.

Burj wrote:
the fact that they intended to make a minimal electro album but still wanted to carry over Numb for it rather than use it as a B-side indicates that they see the song more than mere 'filler'.

Well, thats speculation of course and neither of us can be seen to be right or wrong. Lets deal with the facts, then. No-one from EMI, nor Neil or Chris, have said that Numb will be the third single. Fact.

jamie1978 · #63 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:18 pm

Burj wrote:
jamie1978 wrote:The simple fact is that NOTHING offical has indicated that Numb will be a single.
true, but, conversely, there's been NOTHING official, not even the merest hint, that PSB have, quote, "NO INTENTION" of releasing Numb as a single either

Well, I'm not the one making ridiculous threads stating that as Numb will be the third single it should be played live.

profile790 · #64 Post by **profile790** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:21 pm

jamie1978 wrote:Right, so name me all the big hit 'slow/balllad' singles the Pet Shop Boys have released then.

Oh, there aren't any. Funny that. Both the songs you mention are dead cert flops just like very other slow paced song they have released as a single.

By asking this question to me, you're contradicting your own theory. You said that single success didn't count; all that matters are album sales.

What do you think will sell more albums? Three similar sounding singles, or three singles that display a wider variety of music styles? In order to sell more albums, you need to have a clear picture of your remaining target audience. Do you want to sell it to dance freaks? Release Fugitive. Do you want to sell it to the 40-something Radio 2-listener? Release Indefinite Leave To Remain.

dgraysn · #65 Post by **dgraysn** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:21 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
dgraysn wrote:
exactly - great response
Yeah apart from the bit where everyone is ignoring the fact that no-one in an official capacity has even hinted that Numb will be a single.

Get. A. Grip.

and you continue to ignore the fact that no-one in an official capacity has hinted that Numb WON'T be a single.

jamie1978 · #66 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:23 pm

stats-freak wrote: I find it rather ridiculous to claim that PSB were still seen as a major commercial force in March 1997.

In which case you know nothing, really.

Very sold over 4 million copies and became the biggest selling album for Parlophone in the 93/94 financial year. Hopes for Billingual were very high indeed.

The 1.5m copies Bilingual sold were a dissapointment to EMI, of course, so its natural to want to try to squeeze more out of the album.

But now of course, the Pet Shop Boys are a truly fan-based act who do not appeal to a mainsteam audience. Releasing more singles doesnt sell more albums, because the people who will buy the album have done so already. Thats why the approach we saw with Nightlife and Release will be applied to Fundamental.

Burj · #67 Post by **Burj** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:23 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
Well, I'm not the one making ridiculous threads stating that as Numb will be the third single it should be played live.

neither am I, but then I wouldn't be as pompous and trying to pass off opinion as fact in claiming PSB had "NO INTENTION" of considering Numb as a single, unless I were a fly on the wall at PSB Towers

jamie1978 · #68 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:23 pm

dgraysn wrote:
jamie1978 wrote:
dgraysn wrote:
exactly - great response
Yeah apart from the bit where everyone is ignoring the fact that no-one in an official capacity has even hinted that Numb will be a single.

Get. A. Grip.
and you continue to ignore the fact that no-one in an official capacity has hinted that Numb WON'T be a single.

You could say that about ANY song on the album. Honestly, this discussion is ridiculous.

Burj · #69 Post by **Burj** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:27 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
Burj wrote:
actually there are in-house reference CDs for PopArt which show Miracles, Flamboyant AND Numb in the tracklisting.

But it wasnt on the album, which is the point. This bit of information is totally irrelevant, though mildy interesting I'm sure.

yes, irrelevant when you claim that Flamboyant REPLACED Numb.

jamie1978 · #70 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:30 pm

Burj wrote:
jamie1978 wrote:
Burj wrote:
actually there are in-house reference CDs for PopArt which show Miracles, Flamboyant AND Numb in the tracklisting.

But it wasnt on the album, which is the point. This bit of information is totally irrelevant, though mildy interesting I'm sure.
yes, irrelevant when you claim that Flamboyant REPLACED Numb.

Well there was also a tracklisting with Miracles and Numb, without Flamboyant. I'm looking however at what was *actually* released.

Burj · #71 Post by **Burj** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:30 pm

jamie1978 wrote: You could say that about ANY song on the album. Honestly, this discussion is ridiculous.

you're the ridiculous one, because we're not talking about other songs, but about Numb and when YOU SPECIFICALLY CLAIM that PSB had "NO INTENTION" of wanting Numb as a single. You don't have any quotes or info to back that claim up at all. how can anyone take you seriously when you didn't even know PSB didn't write The Crying Game?

jamie1978 · #72 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:35 pm

tbh I havent even listened to the Crying Game since it was released in 1992. I do whoever know it was a big hit in the USA due to it accompanying a film, and that Numb has no such honour.

As far as I am concerned, the ridiculous nature of this thread stems from several people assuming that Numb will be the third single without anything to back that up. My assertion, somewhat forcefully made I agree, is that its not going to happen.

Who is right? We can't say. We don't know. However, I'd bet a considerable amount of money that Numb is not the third single, and that there won't even BE a third single if Fundamental doesnt climb up the album chart when Minimal is released.

profile790 · #73 Post by **profile790** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:36 pm

jamie1978 wrote:
stats-freak wrote: I find it rather ridiculous to claim that PSB were still seen as a major commercial force in March 1997.
In which case you know nothing, really. Very sold over 4 million copies and became the biggest selling album for Parlophone in the 93/94 financial year. Hopes for Billingual were very high indeed. The 1.5m copies Bilingual sold were a dissapointment to EMI, of course, so its natural to want to try to squeeze more out of the album.

I'm a Pet Shop Boys fan for 20 years now, so I know *something*. I am aware of the commercial success of Very. I made the sentence about squeezing bold: why wouldn't EMI want to do that with Fundamental as well? - Expectations around Fundamental are high, it's a major key release for EMI, its production was very expensive. Why wouldn't EMI try to squeeze the maximum out of this album as well? And why did Neil say that 'Bright Young Things' will probably be the bonus track on *a* single later this year. It's not on the Minimal cd's, so... - Perhaps this suggests that the plans have already been made and that a third single is likely to follow?

jamie1978 wrote:But now of course, the Pet Shop Boys are a truly fan-based act who do not appeal to a mainsteam audience. Releasing more singles doesnt sell more albums, because the people who will buy the album have done so already. Thats why the approach we saw with Nightlife and Release will be applied to Fundamental.

This is nonsense. PSB have a large and loyal fanbase, but are still commercially successful. The way you present your arguments suggests that PSB may as well not release singles at all. Just deliver the album and don't bother any further.

As soon as you're SURE that people who might want to buy the album, already did so, it's pointless to release further singles. But when, according to your analysis, there might be commercial potential left to shift extra copies, it may help to release an appropriate single.

After all, Play by Moby was hardly a hit after Honey, Run On and Bodyrock had been singles. Fortunately his record company didn't give up, and decided to release a 4th (5th, 6th) single...

jamie1978 · #74 Post by **jamie1978** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:37 pm

Disagreeing with the assertion that the Pet Shop Boys are a fan-based act with little appeal in the pop mainstream makes you look very silly indeed.

The Pet Shop Boys actually stated before Release was, well, released, that it would have 4 singles. In the end, two were released. So it doenst really matter what Neil said about Bright Young Things because EMI decide how many singles to release, not the PSB's.

You're just clutching on to straws like most other deluded fans, you appear irrational and react badly to some simple home truths.

I'm a Pet Shop Boys fan, I love their work, but I'm also a realist.

Burj · #75 Post by **Burj** » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 4:40 pm

jamie1978 wrote:I'd bet a considerable amount of money that Numb is not the third single, and that there won't even BE a third single if Fundamental doesnt climb up the album chart when Minimal is released.

Best hop over to William Hill ASAP then.

FWIW, I don't really care if Numb is a single or not, but my beef was someone claiming PSB had NO INTENTION of considering it as single material when it's clear at some point they have done, and that it's not single material, when of course they approached Diane Warren to give them a hit in the first place.