Pet Shop Boys Community

dVTB wrote:

Joemoz wrote:Sorry to say this, but that is complete bollocks. Yes it sounds a bit like a Pet Shop Boys song, though not more than perhaps 200 other songs. They were very influential in those days, so whoever remixed it (and I think it's probably Ian Broudie and a friend) might have wanted it to sound PSB-ish - what better way than to mimic some of their tracks? The only real hint that they should be involved lie in the names, but that could be so many other people. I find it completely unlikely that they should secretly remix this track and never tell anybody about it, even now. I'm sure they would have been proud of doing that for Alison Moyet and the idea that she was afraid that Vince Clarke would find out is, well, hilarious

We will never agree about this. You think it sounds 'a bit' like a PSB song, but in my opinion it has PSB written all over it. It doesn't sound 'a bit' like PSB, it sounds totally PSB. If you're not able to recognize that, you should simply listen better, sorry. The signs of PSB are *everywhere*, all througout the song, from the first to the final note. And I'm also not able to mention even 5 songs with no PSB-involvement that sound *more* PSB than this track does.

What on earth makes you think Ian Broudie did it? Does it sound like a Lighting Seeds production? Not at all. - I don't know *why* the PSB involvement in this track is denied, I was just speculating about possible reasons. Apparently there is *some* reason why PSB didn't put their names on the sleeve. And I don't think it's because they aren't involved in this track.

I think you've completely convinced yourself about something that has no foundation in tangible evidence. Yes, it is a very good impression of a Pet Shop Boys song but I think the most likely explanation is that Ian Broudie or somebody else decided to rework that song in a way that was more PSB-ish, for the sake of the record company or whatever. Since they were doing something that was different from the way they normally worked with music, they decided to adopt new aliases for that particular project.

I am not saying that Neil and Chris couldn't have done it, but I find it completely unlikely that they should do it in secret then, and that even now nobody in the know should have revealed it or even hinted at it. A bit like the moon landing, really. I am sure that Neil and Chris have been asked about this several times, and if they were really behind it, they would have dropped a hint of some sort rather than just flat deny it.

You often start your arguments by saying "We will never agree about this". Why do you have the need to make such uncompromising statements when entering a discussion? Surely we would agree in the face of solid evidence either one way or the other? Or somebody could *gasp* change his mind? I discuss things to get smarter or more knowledgeable. I like to think that I would be willing to change my mind if the other side makes a convincing argument. With statements like these, the discussion is bound to be more of a polemic where nobody can yield any ground because of the ultimatums they started out with.

Joemoz wrote:I think you've completely convinced yourself about something that has no foundation in tangible evidence. Yes, it is a very good impression of a Pet Shop Boys song but I think the most likely explanation is that Ian Broudie or somebody else decided to rework that song in a way that was more PSB-ish, for the sake of the record company or whatever. Since they were doing something that was different from the way they normally worked with music, they decided to adopt new aliases for that particular project.

I am not saying that Neil and Chris couldn't have done it, but I find it completely unlikely that they should do it in secret then, and that even now nobody in the know should have revealed it or even hinted at it. A bit like the moon landing, really. I am sure that Neil and Chris have been asked about this several times, and if they were really behind it, they would have dropped a hint of some sort rather than just flat deny it.

You often start your arguments by saying "We will never agree about this". Why do you have the need to make such uncompromising statements when entering a discussion? Surely we would agree in the face of solid evidence either one way or the other? Or somebody could *gasp* change his mind? I discuss things to get smarter or more knowledgeable. I like to think that I would be willing to change my mind if the other side makes a convincing argument. With statements like these, the discussion is bound to be more of a polemic where nobody can yield any ground because of the ultimatums they started out with.

I wrote 'we will never agree about this' because you state it 'sounds a bit like a PSB song' and in my opinion it has PSB written all over it. This is purely subjective and it's a result of your own listening experience; something that's pretty un-debatable. It's just a simple observation that our opinions about how the song sounds are completely different: no harm done.

I don't even want you to change your mind. If you think PSB aren't involved, please continue to think so. I just wrote that - despite denials - I will continue to believe they ARE involved in that track. In my personal opinion, there are simply MANY signs to believe so. Apart from the arguments I mentioned (which you ridiculized, by the way, by stating: that's complete bullocks) I have no further arguments. Since you don't agree with those arguments, it's pretty useless to continue discussing.

I also don't agree with your philosophy. Why on earth would Ian Broudie imitate PSB production in the most perfect way, why was he so extremely succesfull doing so. Isn't it way more logical that the *real* Pet Shop Boys are behind it? You don't think so, I do.

dVTB wrote:Perhaps PSB didn't want to be associated with Alison? Perhaps PSB's record company didn't want PSB to do production work for a competive record label?

this latest reason would be the main reason, if you ask me! Simply somethings with 'EMI', 'Parlophone', 'rights' and 'law' in one sentense!

Did anyone ever asked this in the Q&A section? If so with what result? If not, WHY NOT??

PSB deny being involved. I am stubborn enough NOT to believe that.

dVTB wrote:

Joemoz wrote:I think you've completely convinced yourself about something that has no foundation in tangible evidence. Yes, it is a very good impression of a Pet Shop Boys song but I think the most likely explanation is that Ian Broudie or somebody else decided to rework that song in a way that was more PSB-ish, for the sake of the record company or whatever. Since they were doing something that was different from the way they normally worked with music, they decided to adopt new aliases for that particular project.

I am not saying that Neil and Chris couldn't have done it, but I find it completely unlikely that they should do it in secret then, and that even now nobody in the know should have revealed it or even hinted at it. A bit like the moon landing, really. I am sure that Neil and Chris have been asked about this several times, and if they were really behind it, they would have dropped a hint of some sort rather than just flat deny it.

You often start your arguments by saying "We will never agree about this". Why do you have the need to make such uncompromising statements when entering a discussion? Surely we would agree in the face of solid evidence either one way or the other? Or somebody could *gasp* change his mind? I discuss things to get smarter or more knowledgeable. I like to think that I would be willing to change my mind if the other side makes a convincing argument. With statements like these, the discussion is bound to be more of a polemic where nobody can yield any ground because of the ultimatums they started out with.

I wrote 'we will never agree about this' because you state it 'sounds a bit like a PSB song' and in my opinion it has PSB written all over it. This is purely subjective and it's a result of your own listening experience; something that's pretty un-debatable. It's just a simple observation that our opinions about how the song sounds are completely different: no harm done.

I don't even want you to change your mind. If you think PSB aren't involved, please continue to think so. I just wrote that - despite denials - I will continue to believe they ARE involved in that track. In my personal opinion, there are simply MANY signs to believe so. Apart from the arguments I mentioned (which you ridiculized, by the way, by stating: that's complete bullocks) I have no further arguments. Since you don't agree with those arguments, it's pretty useless to continue discussing.

I also don't agree with your philosophy. Why on earth would Ian Broudie imitate PSB production in the most perfect way, why was he so extremely succesfull doing so. Isn't it way more logical that the *real* Pet Shop Boys are behind it? You don't think so, I do.

My initial reaction to call it complete bollocks is that it is an old rumour which keeps coming up with not much new to support it, despite it being denied several times by the allegedly involved parties. It is true that the song sounds a lot like PSB - admittedly more so than I remembered initially - but still I don't think that it would be that difficult for other people to mimic that sound. A bit like PSB doing a New Order on Minimal and people immediately believing that no one other than Peter Hook himself could have done it.

I fail to see the strong arguments other than the way the song sounds. Again, I think somebody involved would have revealed the truth by now rather than flat out denying it, and I find it unlikely that Neil and Chris should have secretly gone behind the backs of their record company to help someone who we have never heard about them being friendly with. If it were really the case, surely they could have just passed it off as them "offering a few tips" to Alison Moyet/Ian Broudie, or letting Pete Gleadall take credit or something - I simply cannot believe that this would have given them trouble with the record company (much less so still give them trouble were they to admit it today, and thus take partial credit for yet another hit under their belt). The problem with most conspiracy theories is that if they were true, there'd be even more explaining to do - so to in this case. All IMHO of course.

Let me mention, BTW, that Essex is a fantastic album - definitely the best Alison Moyet has ever done and well worth checking out.

If you are really that bothered ask Neil or Chris after one of the shows this year. Hopefully it will help you sleep at night.

let me tell it that way:

it never was a topic in the last 10 years and we never heard anything about it, so: If they really have somethings to hide - they ever will until the end of their lives!. You can ask, but you always will get the same answer: "Not guilty!"

I didn't knew that 'Steve Rocket and Johnny Nitrate' did not appear on any other release/production... This now completly changed my thoughts on that issue! The rest you can get from your ears if you give it all a listen!

it never was a topic in the last 10 years and we never heard anything about it, so: If they really have somethings to hide - they ever will until the end of their lives!. You can ask, but you always will get the same answer: "Not guilty""

And if anyone would know about it - then it would be a legend like you!

i probably would wrote:If you are really that bothered ask Neil or Chris after one of the shows this year. Hopefully it will help you sleep at night.

I'm not bothered. I use my ears and common sense, so I don't need to ask. I will sleep well, no matter if it's confirmed or denied. I treat it as a PSB production, because I'm sure it is.

TheGardner wrote:it never was a topic in the last 10 years and we never heard anything about it, so: If they really have somethings to hide - they ever will until the end of their lives!. You can ask, but you always will get the same answer: "Not guilty!"

I didn't knew that 'Steve Rocket and Johnny Nitrate' did not appear on any other release/production... This now completly changed my thoughts on that issue! The rest you can get from your ears if you give it all a listen!

I also don't believe it will ever be confirmed (read: admitted). So I support The Gardner's suggestion: let your ears do the work, and decide for yourself.

TheGardner wrote:let me tell it that way:

it never was a topic in the last 10 years and we never heard anything about it, so: If they really have somethings to hide - they ever will until the end of their lives!. You can ask, but you always will get the same answer: "Not guilty!"

Why would they hide it until the end of their lives? It doesn't make sense that they should go to such lengths to deny it, and that Alison Moyet or Ian Broudie would never mention it either. Perhaps the Alison Moyet fans can shed some light on this - I'll see if I can find out anything.

Joemoz wrote:Why would they hide it until the end of their lives? It doesn't make sense...

Good question: It should be somethings, what can track them down or which could bring them a penalty - somethings what never become to be time-barred! (my thoughts).

Joemoz wrote:that they should go to such lengths to deny it, and that Alison Moyet or Ian Broudie would never mention it either. Perhaps the Alison Moyet fans can shed some light on this - I'll see if I can find out anything.

don't think that you will find any answers there! I will go one further and believe the Alison fans would vehement exclude any PSB involvement on this issue!

I also would guess, Neil (if he get the info about this topic) would immediately stop it with a "Not True!". If not - we already would know the entire story since 1994 and it would be common for all fans!