Pet Shop Boys Community

Nickname wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 2:05 pm I really belive this version (the music part, I mean) could be the one they are going to play in concerts for the Dreamland Tour. I don't believe they are going to do another version for the tour, apart from this one.

By the way:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artis ... 1620812531

I assume that's the same article from January even though it's dated today.

"And yet, we know that the daft cover version lives on in at least one record collection. According to the Pet Shop Boys' biographer Heath, Chris Lowe bought a copy of King's record "because he liked it". Now that really is a sin."

hotspotnot wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 2:29 pm

Nickname wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 2:05 pm I really belive this version (the music part, I mean) could be the one they are going to play in concerts for the Dreamland Tour. I don't believe they are going to do another version for the tour, apart from this one.

By the way:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artis ... 1620812531

I assume that's the same article from January even though it's dated today.

"And yet, we know that the daft cover version lives on in at least one record collection. According to the Pet Shop Boys' biographer Heath, Chris Lowe bought a copy of King's record "because he liked it". Now that really is a sin."

It was a charitable donation. Chris knew King would need the extra cash for the legal fees!

Ooh, gossip alert.

coufy wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 9:03 pm https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/2 ... ars-years/

Well it could be because of the collaboration with Henk van Daam, he's on another label.

There was clearly an issue. It didn’t make sense that there wasn’t even a text to acknowledge the performance and the release of the track they’d produced. It sounds like a royal falling out.

I wonder what happened?

Annually 2022 is going to be fascinating. Only the year away now.

Drico.

Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 9:16 pm There was clearly an issue. It didn’t make sense that there wasn’t even a text to acknowledge the performance and the release of the track they’d produced. It sounds like a royal falling out.

A Royale with cheese!

Most intriguing!

It's in The Sun.

Neil isn't singing on the single anyway so they'd have only appeared both playing keyboards in that quaint way they did with Liza on Wogan.

An insider from the awards, at London’s O2 Arena wrote:Some wanted it to be a celebration of gayness, others thought it’d be better to make it more general. Let’s just call it creative differences.

versus

a rep for the band wrote: It’s not true that creative ­differences led to them not appearing.
The staging and ­casting ideas were approved by PSB along with Olly and Elton.
The non-appearance of PSB was ultimately due to a contractual issue that proved unresolvable and about which there will be no further comment.

Note that the "creative differences" is the insider's interpretation, which he/she is clear about by saying "Let's just call it". Hence no surprise it is denied by the rep.

Conversely, the specific info about "celebration of gayness" vs "general" disagreement is not explicitly denied. Which makes me think it did take place: PSB simply did not want to endorse this masterpiece as another gay anthem.

"a contractual issue that proved unresolvable" would have been just a generalisation of this specific issue: disagreement on what the show is to convey / how it is to be perceived by the public.

Neil wanted to dress as the Pope but Elton wouldn’t let him.

I do think there might be something in an unease about a purposefully ambiguous song being given such a singular reading.

Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:26 pm I do think there might be something in an unease about a purposefully ambiguous song being given such a singular reading.

Ha ha, it's a bit late for that!

Drico.