Pet Shop Boys Community

Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:50 pm

Drico One wrote:This is the band that performed Paninaro '95 with oiled muscle boys on Top of the Pops, were labeled "too gay" for the ITV National Lottery Show after New York City Boy's BBC performance, opened a charity show with a song called "Homosexuality", and dedicated the Winner video to transgender rollergirls.

I'm really not convinced they'd be "uneasy" about any "singular reading" of a 34 year-old song.

Drico.

I’m not talking about any unease about it being an expression of sexuality. I mean it being framed as a song about AIDS. But I am guessing, speculating, that’s all. I’m not trying to land any kind of point.

If that's the case, why allow Olly do a cover of it earlier in the year and agree to produce the collaboration with Elton where all proceeds go to his AIDS foundation? Or have they pulled their royalties and is that the contractual issue? I just don't get the idea that they'd be precious about the song being "framed" as "about AIDS" when some of their greatest ever songs have at least touched on the subject (Domino Dancing, Your Funny Uncle, Being Boring, Deaming of the Queen). Are people really getting queasy now about Olly molesting Elton's grand piano?

To be fair, I think a little distance from Elton is no bad thing. They're generally at their best when being mannered and reserved and letting the music carry the burden of flamboyance. That contrast makes them interesting. Olly can carry off the slinky cabaret act right now, but he's falling into the Andy Bell trap of essentially typecasting himself as a sequinned nymph who will tragically fall from grace with age. The more mature performer never really looks great in such company.

Drico.

Drico One wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 11:45 pm why allow Olly to do a cover of it earlier in the year and agree to produce the collaboration with Elton where all proceeds go to his AIDS foundation? ... I just don't get the idea that they'd be precious about the song being "framed" as "about AIDS" when some of their greatest ever songs have at least touched on the subject

There is nothing wrong about touching the subject. I guess it's just the fact that It's a sin, in their view, is not specifically about that subject. There is a game-changing difference between allowing others to re-interpret the song for a good purpose, and doing so themselves, effectively letting down a great share of devoted fans.

Greendrake wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 11:57 pm

Drico One wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 11:45 pm why allow Olly to do a cover of it earlier in the year and agree to produce the collaboration with Elton where all proceeds go to his AIDS foundation? ... I just don't get the idea that they'd be precious about the song being "framed" as "about AIDS" when some of their greatest ever songs have at least touched on the subject

There is nothing wrong about touching the subject. I guess it's just the fact that It's a sin, in their view, is not specifically about that subject. There is a game-changing difference between allowing others to re-interpret the song for a good purpose, and doing so themselves, effectively letting down a great share of devoted fans.

Why would anybody feel "let down" unless they were homophobic? This is the band who had Les Child out-Ollying Olly nearly 25 years ago. I really can't see how any association with a TV series that dealt with AIDS is so massively toxic to Neil and Chris that they'd pull out of a live performance having agreed to produce the record. I'm sure their reasons were much more prosaic.

Drico.

Greetings,

Drico One wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 11:45 pm To be fair, I think a little distance from Elton is no bad thing. They're generally at their best when being mannered and reserved and letting the music carry the burden of flamboyance. That contrast makes them interesting. Olly can carry off the slinky cabaret act right now, but he's falling into the Andy Bell trap of essentially typecasting himself as a sequinned nymph who will tragically fall from grace with age. The more mature performer never really looks great in such company.

Well said. Even though it seems there was a bit of a "fake news" surrounding the speculation, I'm happy about the outcome for this reason.

Retro.

I'm sorry but the version is simply terrible. It's like an off-off-off Broadway pale ersatz barrel-scraping pastiche of the latest soon-to-fail copycat bandwagon-jumping stage show from Ben Elton based upon the original reasonable Abba idea. I've no issues with how it's been presented by the artists and will acknowledge that the singing isn't entirely without merit, but it's basically glossy but ultimately vacuous X Factor/Pop Idol/American Idol standard dross entirely missing the power of the original presentation by muzaking the song within an inch of its life. However, I'm sure it will get millions of pointless streams (but zero physical sales) each earning 0.000000000001p for char-id-ee given what makes 'the charts' these days...

Drico One wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 12:01 am Why would anybody feel "let down" unless they were homophobic? ... I'm sure their reasons were much more prosaic.

At the end of the day, again, why would they let down homophobes if those pay a great share of their bills?
That is reason prosaic enough I reckon.

But, I do disagree that one needs to be homophobic to feel let down.

Didn't Neil once say something to the effect of 'We don't do charity singles' then promptly forget that to release Absolutely fabulous?

effectively letting down a great share of devoted fans

Who are they letting down?

Drama!

It could be something so simple as they didn't agree with the contractual obligations around Covid processes at the event.

No biggie.

Spittingcat wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 12:42 am

effectively letting down a great share of devoted fans

Who are they letting down?

No one. Precisely by not participating in that performance.

Drama!

They are control freaks when it comes to their recorded output. It’s the availability of the download that was probably what put a stop to them being part of the actual performance. Any release they would probably want to come out on their own terms. I’m taking sound/performance/vocal quality, not money terms. Still, they did the backing music, so haven’t been unsupportive, and their part in this sounded great to me.

It's a pity they didn't appear only in that it would have been an ideal platform to maybe capitalise on the publicity from the Opportunities Super Bowl advert and the success of the It's A Sin series by being exposed to a younger audience...

Either way it's great to see them in the charts! Having hardly ever left.

Although - we've come a long way from hanging out to see what hand Neil will dramatically raise during the chorus.

Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:41 pm

Future Lover wrote:Not the homophobes feeling validated because the Boys didn't participate!

I do hope you don’t mean me. That’s not where I am coming from at all.

Not at all. It's clear from further posts who is living for this, and speaking of homophobic fans who would've hated the joint performance... when it's more of a fan, singular.

Drico One wrote:

Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:50 pm

Drico One wrote:This is the band that performed Paninaro '95 with oiled muscle boys on Top of the Pops, were labeled "too gay" for the ITV National Lottery Show after New York City Boy's BBC performance, opened a charity show with a song called "Homosexuality", and dedicated the Winner video to transgender rollergirls.

I'm really not convinced they'd be "uneasy" about any "singular reading" of a 34 year-old song.

Drico.

I’m not talking about any unease about it being an expression of sexuality. I mean it being framed as a song about AIDS. But I am guessing, speculating, that’s all. I’m not trying to land any kind of point.

If that's the case, why allow Olly do a cover of it earlier in the year and agree to produce the collaboration with Elton where all proceeds go to his AIDS foundation? Or have they pulled their royalties and is that the contractual issue? I just don't get the idea that they'd be precious about the song being "framed" as "about AIDS" when some of their greatest ever songs have at least touched on the subject (Domino Dancing, Your Funny Uncle, Being Boring, Deaming of the Queen). Are people really getting queasy now about Olly molesting Elton's grand piano?

To be fair, I think a little distance from Elton is no bad thing. They're generally at their best when being mannered and reserved and letting the music carry the burden of flamboyance. That contrast makes them interesting. Olly can carry off the slinky cabaret act right now, but he's falling into the Andy Bell trap of essentially typecasting himself as a sequinned nymph who will tragically fall from grace with age. The more mature performer never really looks great in such company.

Drico.

No, sorry, I meant that they may have an issue with the song being positioned as being about a single topic. That they could feel it was inauthentic, given it isn’t about that. I wasn’t saying that they would have a problem with being associated with the topic of AIDS in itself. Anyway, I am sure you are right.

Even with any contractual issues you would have thought that they would still have acknowledged the performance and the track (which they produced) on social media. Instead they link to The Sun article!