Pet Shop Boys Community

FirthofForth wrote:And I may get flamed for this, but TFF has WAY better production than the Beatles ever did in the 60's (and some of that is just technology, I know, but it really makes it so I don't want to listen to the Beatles to often).

All of it is technology, with the exception of stereo mixing -- at the time it was considered a novelty and not taken seriously. Up until the white album, they were using mostly 4-track equipment. Considering that limitation, it's amazing that their records sound as good as they do.

The Beatles are much more listenable if you hear them the way they meant their records (up until the white album, anyway) to be heard: in mono.

The Beatles are much more listenable if you hear them the way they meant their records (up until the white album, anyway) to be heard: in mono.

While I don't agree that it's all technology (we have low-fi groups today when they could do hi-fi, and Trevor Horn production sounds different than Stephan Hague even though they are both talented) I totally 100 percent agree on the mono. I refuse to listen to the Beatles in Stereo..it annoys the crap out of me. Having sounds split up in the channels is distracting. That said, I still personally don't find the Beatles as a very "listenable" group. That's just me. They obviously had rediculously good songs. But how often do I want to hear them? A couple times a year will do. Whereas I want PSB at least a couple times a week.

FirthofForth wrote:That said, I still personally don't find the Beatles as a very "listenable" group. That's just me. They obviously had rediculously good songs. But how often do I want to hear them? A couple times a year will do. Whereas I want PSB at least a couple times a week.

I'm in the same boat. I don't care for anything they did prior to 1966, and I also think the white album is one of the most overrated and self-indulgent works in pop music history. But IMHO, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour are brilliant, and there's no denying their influence on Very. The 7" mix of IWDTKOT makes that as clear as can be.

Love STSOL.. has a swing feeling to it..

Bruno Republic wrote:The 7" mix of IWDTKOT makes that as clear as can be.

Which was done by The Beatmasters.

I also think the white album is one of the most overrated and self-indulgent works in pop music history.

\

It's a great song, but i think TFF has at least 10 better tracks than STSOL.... oh what a nice band, one of my top 5

It's a great song, but i think TFF has at least 10 better tracks than STSOL

They are all on The Hurting right?

FirthofForth wrote:

I don't think it's innovative if it's so derivative of the Beatles, via ELO, but it was a clever move for a synth band at the time. I like it - it's their second best song.

I don't know about this. I'm a big ELO fan, they are second only to PSB for me. And I can't say STSOL has much to do with any ELO song. I'm assuming you think it sounds like Mr. Blue Sky, which I can't agree with.

Don't assume - it makes an ass out of u and me. I wasn't saying Sowing The Seeds of Love was like any song, ELO or otherwise. I said it was derivitive of the Beatles via ELO. In other words Seargent Pepper was obviously the inspiration for the song which also influenced ELO.

Last winter I re-listened to it, and some other songs from "Seeds of Love", and yeah, it sounds great still. I will admit I like "Break It Down Again" better. "All the love in the world.."
It really brought me back. And "Sowing" is a very good song.

"Seeds" was meant to be their big, expensive, major league album after their massive "indie' success worldwide in 1985. But by 1989 pop music tastes had so drastically changed, esp. in the UK I think, they were considered passè in all the proliferating styles -electronica, acid house, rare groove, etc. TFF weren't cool anymore. This album got lost in the shuffle of styles (something PSB masterfully negotiated, now that I think of it.)

But it's a great sounding album, and I like that you brought it up. It deserves a re-consideration.

Deschanel wrote: "Seeds" was meant to be their big, expensive, major league album after their massive "indie' success worldwide in 1985. But by 1989 pop music tastes had so drastically changed, esp. in the UK I think, they were considered passè in all the proliferating styles -electronica, acid house, rare groove, etc.

That, and the fact that they took so long to make it that they'd lost a lot of the momentum they had. Back then, a 4-year gap between albums was unthinkable for a pop act. Funny how today that wouldn't be deemed unrealistic, as bands now do world tours that take years to complete.

Don't assume - it makes an ass out of u and me

For some reason I have a pet peeve, which is, it annoys the shit out of me when people write or say this. It's such a 4th grade teacher, "I don't know, CAN you go to the bathroom" type statement. It's making a correction, and in the process, being a personal attack, or at least has the connotation of being dull.

I will admit I like "Break It Down Again" better

Another super fantastic song

Seeds" was meant to be their big, expensive, major league album after their massive "indie' success worldwide in 1985

I'm not sure if Shout and Everybody Wants To Rule the World are "indie". Though there were a couple experimental tracks on the album. Seeds is much much more eccletic, usually not working, but occassionaly shining.

FirthofForth wrote:

I will admit I like "Break It Down Again" better

Another super fantastic song

And it's not on "The Hurting"