I like to think of it as home...
https://www.petshopboys-forum.com/
Could be anything. Their fee. Their rider. Camera angles. Not being able to use their own person for something. Photographs. It’s not like 1986 when they were up for appearing on anything.Patrick Bateman wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:40 pm What kind of contractual issue would prevent you appearing on the same stage as someone? How bizarre.
- quoting Elton lyrics!!ThisDog wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 6:34 amNo, 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.Drico One wrote: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?Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:50 pm
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.
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.
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!
- this is what makes it obvious this has nothing to do with contractual issues. Why was this event not promoted on their website and social media? Why hasn’t the track been mentioned on their website and social media. More telling is the fact that Neil seems to have gone offline? Where is his public support of the performance? Where is his link to the performance on YouTube? It’s clear there has been a massive falling out - probably with Elton. Everyone knows he can be difficult and maybe he managed to upset Neil and Chris in some way? Who knows? Either way, it’s more than what they are saying. No contract issues would prevent PSB from saying how much they loved Elton and Olly’s performance.Exactly.canveyboy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 6:57 am No contract issues would prevent PSB from saying how much they loved Elton and Olly’s performance.
Drico One wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 11:45 pmIf 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?Dog wrote: Wed 12 May 2021, 10:50 pmI’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.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.
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.
Intriguing they have posted that. Now *that's* spectacular.canveyboy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 8:44 am And just in case we needed reminding what It’s a Sin is really about…
Be easier to be reminded if the bloody thing was released on dvd!canveyboy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 8:44 am And just in case we needed reminding what It’s a Sin is really about…
This is what I think it’s boiling down to alsoDisco. wrote:
As you mentioned, could it be about the royalties, Olly Alexander put up a tweet that the song was now available to download and that a portion of the royalties went to charity(Elton’s Foundation) earlier it had been indicated on several sites that all royalties went to charity.