Pet Shop Boys Community

Drico One wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 6:48 pm
I like Paninaro '95, but it wasn't new. In fact, it was the fourth of their last five singles to be "old" - and the fourth in a row if you didn't consider Absolutely fabulous to be canonical. I wouldn't normally do, Liberation, Yesterday, and then Paninaro. Sure, three of them were remixed, but there's a sense they were coasting by 1995. To be fair, I also think Chris's personal tragedy had lots to do with that. I recall watching a video on the ITV Chart Show - I think it was Before - and the pop-up text accompanying it suggested that they wouldn't be doing any promotion for the record. So, they were semi-detached at this time, touring South America but not Europe and barely promoting their releases.

Alternative was a breath of fresh air - well, if not quite fresh, a reminder of what they really were after the annus miserabilis of Absolutely fabulous and Disco 2. I realise I am being overly picky and a little haughty about the mid-90s, but Alternative was Pet Shop Boys as I understood them, with its echoes of the glorious Disco, while Disco 2 was Pet Shop Boys on a bender. I think they let themselves go. The problem with that was one of their most interesting characteristics was their reserve, their slightly repressed hedonism, the battle between that yearning for freedom and the stiff upper lip. Once the floodgates opened, they were quaffing champers with "Pats", recording duets with Elton, and consorting with Tony at number 10.

Drico.

Patrick Bateman wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 9:48 pmI think one of the most surprising things about the Pet Shop Boys is that Neil didn't go full Showbiz Neil until the mid-1990s. When you hear people talking about him when he was at Smash Hits, he sounds like exactly the kind of character who loved hanging round (and bitching about) other celebrities. During those early years, he came across as a bit more aloof but it was clearly an act. Absolutely Fabulous is the moment he really came out as a showbiz luvvie.

NotInvisible wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 9:50 pm
I mean, he came out as a showbiz luvvie appearing on shows with Dusty and Liza...

I know we hold the '80s in aspic as pop perfection (and I agree it was), but their DNA is evident as far back as 1985.

jasonjohn wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 11:45 pmIt was a charity single, released under the artist name "Absolutely Fabulous", and they clearly prefer to keep it as such.

Harry wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 3:41 pm

NOBODY75 wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 3:34 pm In previous messages about the song "Yesterday," someone—I don't remember who, I'd have to look it up—talked about Chris's problems or situation at that time. He didn't appear in the video, and then there was very little promotion for "Bilingual." I had read something about it before, but it was vague. Does anyone know what happened to him?

I think the point was that we don't know. It might have just been that he was tired of promotion at that time, and in his mid-30s didn't feel like doing as much. Perhaps that was how he was able to continue to enjoy doing PSB at that time. He had definitely cheered up by the time they were at the Savoy.

petshopgrrl wrote: Sat 01 Nov 2025, 6:14 pm This song is the right amount of banger and bonkers and the music always lifts me up. Not sure how many other acts could have got away with doing this (and I know there's plenty of you who think they didn't!). Techno techno bloody techno darling!

NotInvisible wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 8:55 pm

rathound wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 10:54 amThey never really committed to being a dance act though did they? I suspect it was lack of confidence/concern about the media reaction as much as the quality of the material.

I think it's more that they just didn't want to be a dance act. They're a pop group influenced by dance, which is a different thing. Even on the debut album you're still getting Later Tonight.

markus wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 12:05 pmI wouldn’t want to live in a world without Very, Bilingual or Nightlife either. That said, Release, Fundamental and Yes could easily have been contemporary 2000s trance-electro and dance-pop records.

I mean, we know from countless examples this isn't the case, and teaming them with Stuart Price didn't exactly set the pop world on fire even if we love Electric.

markus wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 4:13 amElectric was a commercial success within its limits

restored belief when the fanbase had shrunk dramatically

Had this approach been taken earlier — around New York City Boy and Rollo’s club sound in 1999 — the 2000s might have played out very differently.

With Stuart Price, they did find a recipe capable of setting the pop world on fire.

NotInvisible wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 6:16 am

markus wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 4:13 amElectric was a commercial success within its limits

The fact that you have to write "within its limits" says everything.

restored belief when the fanbase had shrunk dramatically

There's no real evidence of this. They were still landing Top 10 singles in the Fundamental era and Yes corresponded with their critical reevaluation as elder statesmen of pop.

Had this approach been taken earlier — around New York City Boy and Rollo’s club sound in 1999 — the 2000s might have played out very differently.

Nightlife was that approach - it didn't get too much bigger than Faithless at the time when it came to electronica. And yet we all know what happened there, general disinterest, half-sold concerts and Neil suggesting they pack it all in. They survived because they didn't take your advice; instead they rebuilt the fundamental idea of what Pet Shop Boys could be from the ground up, making their eventual return to electronics part of a broader palette instead of a tired stereotype. They wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done that.

With Stuart Price, they did find a recipe capable of setting the pop world on fire.

None of the songs were pop hits. Not one. Most of them were very nice, though.

NotInvisible wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 6:16 am

markus wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 4:13 amElectric was a commercial success within its limits

The fact that you have to write "within its limits" says everything.

restored belief when the fanbase had shrunk dramatically

They survived because they didn't take your advice; instead they rebuilt the fundamental idea of what Pet Shop Boys could be from the ground up, making their eventual return to electronics part of a broader palette instead of a tired stereotype. They wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done that.

jasonjohn wrote: Thu 22 Jan 2026, 11:56 pm And I guess we could analyse why Taylor didn't stick to folk, or U2 to their earnest guitar tracks, or Dylan going beyond poetic guitar strumming.

Seems to me after their Discography hiatus they made a deliberate decision to mix things up and enjoy themselves a little. The Discovery tour was loose

BUT then again MCMLXXXIX was probably the campiest of them all, so if you only noticed later Showbiz Neil and Sailor Chris you probably were in complete denial (less to do with them!)

But another thing to remember is that they evolved with the CD format and remix culture (which in the 90s expanded beyond a few well known expert producers to people at home) .... mass distribution and the business of remixing became more accessible, and they had product!

NotInvisible wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 6:16 am

markus wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 4:13 amElectric was a commercial success within its limits

The fact that you have to write "within its limits" says everything.

restored belief when the fanbase had shrunk dramatically

There's no real evidence of this. They were still landing Top 10 singles in the Fundamental era and Yes corresponded with their critical reevaluation as elder statesmen of pop.

Had this approach been taken earlier — around New York City Boy and Rollo’s club sound in 1999 — the 2000s might have played out very differently.

Nightlife was that approach - it didn't get too much bigger than Faithless at the time when it came to electronica. And yet we all know what happened there, general disinterest, half-sold concerts and Neil suggesting they pack it all in. They survived because they didn't take your advice; instead they rebuilt the fundamental idea of what Pet Shop Boys could be from the ground up, making their eventual return to electronics part of a broader palette instead of a tired stereotype. They wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done that.

With Stuart Price, they did find a recipe capable of setting the pop world on fire.

None of the songs were pop hits. Not one. Most of them were very nice, though.

markus wrote: Fri 23 Jan 2026, 7:29 amThis is a discussion forum, not the CERN laboratory.

They should have rebuilt the fundamental idea of what Pet Shop Boys were.

The people filling arenas by then were largely their ’80s fans — many of whom had had enough of the campness and just wanted to hear Always On My Mind.