PSB 8th in hit singles list

[Technotrancemix]

And Engelbert Humperdinck didn't.

I can't really say I'm a fan of his but there's something about him in my genes. Can't work it out

[dVTB]

dVTB, there have been far more British victims of Islamic fundamentalism in London than in Tehran, so Neil and Chris are in far greater danger there.

And I don't recall Neil or Chris ever winning Most Fanciable Male on Smash Hits polls, so I can't see how they were considered good looking...unless you're psb-freak.

You're *yet again* making wrong comparisons. The UK is a democratic country that respects human rights. Yes, a few idiots walk around in London. Yes, London recently suffered from a terrorist attack, but that was not aimed at particular people. In the Islamic republic of Iran, it's even lawful to execute teenagers because they're gay. What makes you think the Iranian government would even *tolerate* a performance by two openly gay artists, and what makes you think people would even *dare* to go and watch it? And why do you think were PSB adviced not to go there?

Back in the 80's, the looks of Neil and Chris appealed to a certain group of teenage girls. Not winning a Smash hits poll doesn't mean you can't be considered good-looking. All I wanted to say is that being (considered) good-looking is not a reason to put an artist into a certain box. Yes, manufactured act like the Spice Girls and Westlife are being brought together by a casting office, who selects the 'artists' mostly on their looks. But that doesn't automatically turn good-looking people into manufactured bands.

[Zeus On The Loose]

Certain people here seem to think that liking The Beatles is tantamount to being brainwashed. Let me assure you all that I love The Beatles for exactly the same reason that I love David Bowie, T-Rex, Pet Shop Boys or The Smiths - ipso facto, they made some fantastic pop songs.

And Engelbert Humperdinck didn't.

No, I think that people who just accept that the Beatles were the best band ever and X band wouldn't exist without the Beatles and so on, especially when they're not their favourite band ever and they're before their time have been brainwashed into thinking that because that's how it's supposed to be.

As for the Beatles being pop and not rock, that's not what John Lennon claimed in his Rolling Stone interview...

[Zeus On The Loose]

You're *yet again* making wrong comparisons. The UK is a democratic country that respects human rights. Yes, a few idiots walk around in London. Yes, London recently suffered from a terrorist attack, but that was not aimed at particular people. In the Islamic republic of Iran, it's even lawful to execute teenagers because they're gay. What makes you think the Iranian government would even *tolerate* a performance by two openly gay artists, and what makes you think people would even *dare* to go and watch it? And why do you think were PSB adviced not to go there?

No, I'm not making wrong comparisons. You said it would be very dangerous for PSB to visit Tehran because there are a lot of muslim fundamentalists there when recent history has showed that a Brit is in far more danger of being a victim of muslim fundamentalism in London than in Tehran. So, it's pretty obvious, that they are in more danger in London.

There's not such law in Iran. The two boys were executed for raping a kid, not for being gay. Western propaganda made the best to twist the facts, but do some googling and you'll see. And Neil saying he would find perofrming there intriguing is a WORLD away from actually doing so and if they were to do it, they'd have to be formally invited by the goverment. Your problem with Neil's suggestion was 'How in the world can a gay man want to play in a country that condemns homosexuality' which is a totally ridiculous thing to say based on what and how Neil said what he said.

Back in the 80's, the looks of Neil and Chris appealed to a certain group of teenage girls. Not winning a Smash hits poll doesn't mean you can't be considered good-looking. All I wanted to say is that being (considered) good-looking is not a reason to put an artist into a certain box. Yes, manufactured act like the Spice Girls and Westlife are being brought together by a casting office, who selects the 'artists' mostly on their looks. But that doesn't automatically turn good-looking people into manufactured bands.

You have a tendency to completely lose the point, whenever I'm discussing with you I feel like I'm trying to discuss with my dad.

Neil and Chris had very minimal appeal to teenage girls and that's evident by them not EVER making Most Fanciable Male on Smash Hits, which was the barometer of who teenage girls fancied. You claimed PSB sold sex because they were good-looking and were fancied.

a.They never sold sex (and a few nude men in recent years doesn't count) as they were never personally portrayed as sex symbols. They spent YEARS of being portrayed totally asexual.

b.They never were fancied by teenage girls in an amount to play any significant role in their sales (never made Smash Hits polls).

The Beatles did sell sex and WERE fancied by teenage girls, exactly like the Spice Girls.

[dVTB]

No, I'm not making wrong comparisons. You said it would be very dangerous for PSB to visit Tehran because there are a lot of muslim fundamentalists there when recent history has showed that a Brit is in far more danger of being a victim of muslim fundamentalism in London than in Tehran. So, it's pretty obvious, that they are in more danger in London.

I'm not denying that *any* person living in London is under danger of possible terrorist attacks by muslim fundamentalists. That's not something you need to convince me about. I ask you to explain what makes you so sure that it's perfectly safe for PSB to perform in Iran.

There's not such law in Iran. The two boys were executed for raping a kid, not for being gay. Western propaganda made the best to twist the facts, but do some googling and you'll see.

My Googling results:
The Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran enforces Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex: variously including hanging, stoning, beheading or dropping from a high place. According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. A later news story by Iran Focus, which claimed to be based on this original ISNA report, said the youths were executed for raping a 13 year old boy. But the ISNA report does not mention any rape or any 13 year old boy. - So far for my Googling.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/20 ... l_me_.html

And Neil saying he would find perofrming there intriguing is a WORLD away from actually doing so and if they were to do it, they'd have to be formally invited by the goverment. Your problem with Neil's suggestion was 'How in the world can a gay man want to play in a country that condemns homosexuality' which is a totally ridiculous thing to say based on what and how Neil said what he said.

Not only did Neil say he would find it intriguing to perform in Iran, they also actively tried to arrange it. The following is a quote from Neil, taken from a BBC interview: "We have actually approached Iran, to perform in Tehran with this. Of course Tehran is nominally a revolutionary society - but they're not having it."

Iran does not only condemn homosexuality, it also puts gays to death. In my initinal post, I wrote: This is probably the most insane thing Neil ever did in his life: asking to perform in a country that puts homosexuals (even teens, like recently happened) to death.

I stick with that opinion.

You have a tendency to completely lose the point, whenever I'm discussing with you I feel like I'm trying to discuss with my dad.

When I'm discussion with you, I have the feeling you avoid to answer lots of questions. Perhaps your dad has the same feeling when he talks to you.

Neil and Chris had very minimal appeal to teenage girls and that's evident by them not EVER making Most Fanciable Male on Smash Hits, which was the barometer of who teenage girls fancied. You claimed PSB sold sex because they were good-looking and were fancied.

a.They never sold sex (and a few nude men in recent years doesn't count) as they were never personally portrayed as sex symbols.

b.They never were fancied by teenage girls in an amount to play any significant role in their sales (never made Smash Hits polls).

I mentioned Neil and Chris in the 'good-looking' discussion, to make clear that *even* THEY thank a certain amount of their fans to their good looks. Of course there's more to PSB than that and of course the actual number of fans who like N&C for their looks, is very limited. But there *are* a bunch of female fans who adore N&C for it.

I did NOT claim that PSB sold sex because they were good-looking! This is again twisting my words. I said PSB sold sex in a couple of videoclips, featuring almost naked men and another clip with lots of teens in a swimming pool.

a: PSB were indeed never portrayed as sex symbols themselves.
b: I did not claim that. I claim that artists can't help it when they're considered good-looking (and that *even* PSB have gained *some* fans for that reason, but that was actually irrelevant in this discussion)

The Beatles did sell sex and WERE fancied by teenage girls, exactly like the Spice Girls.

*sigh* For how long do I need to continue here, to explain *once again* that the Beatles just had benefit from being good-looking? In what way did the Beatles sell sex? Tell me. Just by appearing on stage on in their videoclips? - Were they doing erotic dancing on stage, were they portrayed half-naked?

You seem determined to show how many similarities the Beatles and the Spice Girls have. Do you want another one? When Geri left the Spice Girls, the band had 4 members. Just like the Beatles! Wow, so now they must be placed in one league. Do you want another one? Both had a relatively short and stormy career.

Yet you cleverly ignore all other comments about the Beatles:
- about the 214 songs they wrote, compared to a few 'zabadida' lyrics the Spice Girls contributed to their songs.
- about all the other artists that covered Beatles songs.
- about Beatles albums still selling 35 years after their split
- about most of the Spice Girls singles being totally forgotten already

The comparison is just totally ridiculous. I'm not denying any contribution of the Beatles to pop or marketing, but most important is their immense contribution to and influence on music. This band ruled the most important musical decade with their own songs, the Spice Girls had 10 hit-singles in 4 years time, almost completely written and produced by hit factory production teams.

[Nightlife]

Blimey......

[Zeus On The Loose]

Slimey......

[Eldritch]

Unless Zeus is right now off-line toiling on his lengthy retort, it does seem that you have managed to exhaust him with your reasoning, dVTB. Well done!

[Zeus On The Loose]

Unless Zeus is right now off-line toiling on his lengthy retort, it does seem that you have managed to exhaust him with your reasoning, dVTB. Well done!

Nah, I went back to sleep after my breakfast.

[Zeus On The Loose]

I'm not denying that *any* person living in London is under danger of possible terrorist attacks by muslim fundamentalists. That's not something you need to convince me about. I ask you to explain what makes you so sure that it's perfectly safe for PSB to perform in Iran.

I never said it would be perfectly safe for them to play in Tehran but they'd be in bigger danger of being attacked by muslim fundamentalists because they're British than for being gay. However, their chances of being attacked for being British are bigger in London, where that sort of thing recently happened and there's a big possibility it might happen again, than there is in Tehran.

You also suggested that they might be prosecuted by the state, which is an oxymoron. In order for them to perform there, there would have to be an official invitation by the state itself, conducted via a complicated process of embassy and dimplomat discussions and agreements.

My Googling results:
The Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran enforces Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex: variously including hanging, stoning, beheading or dropping from a high place. According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. A later news story by Iran Focus, which claimed to be based on this original ISNA report, said the youths were executed for raping a 13 year old boy. But the ISNA report does not mention any rape or any 13 year old boy. - So far for my Googling.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/20 ... l_me_.html

It could be either way, there are conflicting reports. Even if gayers and dykes are indeed executed for being gay, as I initially said, it would be a major political statement if the PSB somehow got themselves invited by the state and performed there. Far bigger than doing Go West in Stonewall would have been so your main argument i.e that PSB should not play in a country that condemns 'their kind' is really quite irrelevant.

Not only did Neil say he would find it intriguing to perform in Iran, they also actively tried to arrange it. The following is a quote from Neil, taken from a BBC interview: "We have actually approached Iran, to perform in Tehran with this. Of course Tehran is nominally a revolutionary society - but they're not having it."

I doubt they went very far with their request, otherwise it would have been reported to the press. Also, I think Tehran's not hearing it because at the current climate between M.E and the West, they wouldn't welcome a live performance of *any* Western act in Tehran. They're not having it because PSB are British, not because they're gay. I doubt the likes of U2, Coldplay or whoever would be able to organise a live performance in Tehran at this stage.

Iran does not only condemn homosexuality, it also puts gays to death. In my initinal post, I wrote: This is probably the most insane thing Neil ever did in his life: asking to perform in a country that puts homosexuals (even teens, like recently happened) to death.

I stick with that opinion.

And I stick with my opinion that even if this is true, it would have been a major political statement to actually go through with it.

When I'm discussion with you, I have the feeling you avoid to answer lots of questions. Perhaps your dad has the same feeling when he talks to you.

Maybe you two should become mates then

I mentioned Neil and Chris in the 'good-looking' discussion, to make clear that *even* THEY thank a certain amount of their fans to their good looks. Of course there's more to PSB than that and of course the actual number of fans who like N&C for their looks, is very limited. But there *are* a bunch of female fans who adore N&C for it.

You mentioned them as being good-looking as a reply to my claiming the Beatles wouldn't have been as big if they were fat and ugly. Not being fat and ugly sells records providing you're portrayed as an object of sexual desire. The Beatles very much sold sex, whereas Neil and Chris were portrayed as totally asexual for years. How good looking they might have been in the early days -though not enough to appeal to Smash Hits readers and sell records on the back of it- has no relation to whether they sold sex or not, which of coure, they didn't.

I did NOT claim that PSB sold sex because they were good-looking! This is again twisting my words. I said PSB sold sex in a couple of videoclips, featuring almost naked men and another clip with lots of teens in a swimming pool.

That's not selling sex and that was *years* after PSB's commercial peak! Fact is, PSB were *asexual* when they were successful. All of the naked people came when PSB were already more or less finished commercially and even then, they didn't sell sex for the simple reason that they were detached from the whole thing and at best, it made them appear semi-creepy. I can't possibly believe you claim that e.g Neil and Chris aspired sexuality to their fanbase with the video of Se A Vida E the same way Kylie did with the video of Slow, which was quite similar.

*sigh* For how long do I need to continue here, to explain *once again* that the Beatles just had benefit from being good-looking? In what way did the Beatles sell sex? Tell me. Just by appearing on stage on in their videoclips? - Were they doing erotic dancing on stage, were they portrayed half-naked?

They sold sex by exploiting their image, clothes, hair etc. Their looks were always on the forefront. PSB's looks never were.

Yet you cleverly ignore all other comments about the Beatles:
- about the 214 songs they wrote, compared to a few 'zabadida' lyrics the Spice Girls contributed to their songs.
- about all the other artists that covered Beatles songs.
- about Beatles albums still selling 35 years after their split
- about most of the Spice Girls singles being totally forgotten already

So what? There are still more similarites between Beatles and Spice Girls as pop phenomena than there are between Beatles and PSB, which is what I've been trying to say all along. PSB albums also don't sell, most of their singles are also forgotten and their songs have only been covered by East 17 and a few ghastly Brazilian pop bands. The only similarity between PSB and Beatles is they both wrote their records, but even then, PSB hardly ever wrote generic fluff like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, She Loves You, Love Me Do, Hello Goodbye or indeed zigga-ziggah...

The comparison is just totally ridiculous. I'm not denying any contribution of the Beatles to pop or marketing, but most important is their immense contribution to and influence on music. This band ruled the most important musical decade with their own songs, the Spice Girls had 10 hit-singles in 4 years time, almost completely written and produced by hit factory production teams.

How in the world can a PSB fan in his late 20's claim that the 60's were the most important decade in music!? I think you should continue this discussion with my dad...and even he always found the Beatles too cheesy and far prefered the Stones

[Vince]

And Engelbert Humperdinck didn't.

I can't really say I'm a fan of his but there's something about him in my genes. Can't work it out

Well, Engelbert Humperdinck was born right here in Chennai... and he even gave a concert here a month back....

[tweety]

I can't really say I'm a fan of his but there's something about him in my genes. Can't work it out

Well, Engelbert Humperdinck was born right here in Chennai... and he even gave a concert here a month back....

That makes TTM Indian then. I love him even more now!

[Nightlife]

That makes TTM Indian then. I love him even more now!

Why do you think he's nicknamed the Turbanator....?

[dVTB]

I never said it would be perfectly safe for them to play in Tehran but they'd be in bigger danger of being attacked by muslim fundamentalists because they're British than for being gay. However, their chances of being attacked for being British are bigger in London, where that sort of thing recently happened and there's a big possibility it might happen again, than there is in Tehran.

But Pet Shop Boys can't help being British and they already lived in London before the terrorist attack took place. The reason for this attack has nothing to do with their presence in London, so the London-Teheran comparison is useless. This part of the discussion is totally irrelevant.

You also suggested that they might be prosecuted by the state, which is an oxymoron. In order for them to perform there, there would have to be an official invitation by the state itself, conducted via a complicated process of embassy and dimplomat discussions and agreements.

I did NOT suggest that they would be prosecute by the state! I wrote that their lives might be in danger there. It's pretty obvious that the extremist muslim regime wouldn't even grant them permission to perform in Iran. But even if this regime agreed, there might still be serious danger. Danger that doesn't come from the state, but from extremist muslims who are prepared and willing to kill gays. 'True' muslims believe that killing gays is allowed. The Koran tells them so.

It could be either way, there are conflicting reports. Even if gayers and dykes are indeed executed for being gay, as I initially said, it would be a major political statement if the PSB somehow got themselves invited by the state and performed there. Far bigger than doing Go West in Stonewall would have been so your main argument i.e that PSB should not play in a country that condemns 'their kind' is really quite irrelevant.

Yes, of course it would cause more commotion than performing on Stonewall. If PSB performed on the moon, it would also get more attention than their performace at the Brixton Academy. What's your point? - Did you ever think about human rights? (not only limited to gay rights). What kind of signal would it be, if PSB go and perform in a country that violates human rights every day? Why on earth would PSB want to do that? And the fact that gays can be put to death in Iran, just because they're gay, just makes it even more insane.

I doubt they went very far with their request, otherwise it would have been reported to the press. Also, I think Tehran's not hearing it because at the current climate between M.E and the West, they wouldn't welcome a live performance of *any* Western act in Tehran. They're not having it because PSB are British, not because they're gay. I doubt the likes of U2, Coldplay or whoever would be able to organise a live performance in Tehran at this stage.

Agreed. Yet another argument why Neil's request is totally insane.

When I'm discussion with you, I have the feeling you avoid to answer lots of questions. Perhaps your dad has the same feeling when he talks to you.

Maybe you two should become mates then

If all the people who have problems discussing with you, should become mates, we might as well start our own country.

You mentioned them as being good-looking as a reply to my claiming the Beatles wouldn't have been as big if they were fat and ugly.

Yes, I did. And I regret I did, since you're now drawing the attention away from what I actually said about it. I said: the Beatles can't help it that they were considered good-looking. - I can claim exactly the same about the Pet Shop Boys as what you claim about the Beatles. If Neil & Chris had been two fat ugly men, they would never have had more than 1 hit single. But please: let's just quit about PSB selling sex, it's now troubling the Beatles-Spice Girls discussion.

Every artist that breaks through, is in decent shape. You'll hardly find exceptions... Meatloaf, Rik Waller (look how the public responded to his weight).

Not being fat and ugly sells records providing you're portrayed as an object of sexual desire.

This is pure bullshit. Tell me how - for instance - Coldplay are portrayed as objects of sexual desire. They always appear in casual outfit, not one tiny bit of sex.

The Beatles very much sold sex.... They sold sex by exploiting their image, clothes, hair etc. Their looks were always on the forefront. PSB's looks never were.

This is very weak argumentation. I'm not denying that the Beatles were a bunch of good-looking young men, causing teenage girls to scream, but how do you explain the numerous MALE fans then? All gay? - Nonsense, just like the whole clothes/hair thing you talk about. Every artist has a certain image, modern clothing, decent haircut, etc. - If the Sgt Pepper outfits are 'selling sex', then the PSB 'Go West' outfits are selling sex too.

Yet you cleverly ignore all other comments about the Beatles:
- about the 214 songs they wrote, compared to a few 'zabadida' lyrics the Spice Girls contributed to their songs.
- about all the other artists that covered Beatles songs.
- about Beatles albums still selling 35 years after their split
- about most of the Spice Girls singles being totally forgotten already

So what?

So what? That's exactly why your Spice Girls - Beatles comparison was ridiculous in the first place. No matter how hard you try to find similarities.

There are still more similarites between Beatles and Spice Girls as pop phenomena than there are between Beatles and PSB, which is what I've been trying to say all along. PSB albums also don't sell, most of their singles are also forgotten and their songs have only been covered by East 17 and a few ghastly Brazilian pop bands. The only similarity between PSB and Beatles is they both wrote their records, but even then, PSB hardly ever wrote generic fluff like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, She Loves You, Love Me Do, Hello Goodbye or indeed zigga-ziggah...

I don't understand your anti PSB rant here. In fact I don't even understand why you're a fan of them at all, but that's a different issue. We were discussing how irrelevant the Spice Girls are (totally forgotten) compared to the Beatles, and then you bring up how forgotten PSB singles are. What's your point?

"PSB didn't write generic fluff like the Beatles". Yet, their singles are totally forgotten (as you claim), just like the Spice Girls singles. The Beatles singles, however, are still remembered. What is that supposed to tell? Proving that PSB are also a throwaway manufactured act, like the Spice Girls?

Yet you still didn't explain why so many other artists covered Beatles songs. You still didn't explain why Beatles albums still sell well, even now half the band is dead and the other half is old.

By the way: regular PSB albums DO sell. Their popularity slowly decreased over the years, but (just like the Beatles) they have a loyal fanbase. Their albums still reach the UK Top 10. The decrease in their sales can't be compared to the Spice Girls hype and the complete disappearance of sales. You don't seem to get that, never mind.

How in the world can a PSB fan in his late 20's claim that the 60's were the most important decade in music!? I think you should continue this discussion with my dad...and even he always found the Beatles too cheesy and far prefered the Stones

Because they were! Pop music as we know it now was first made in the 60s and then developed itself in the 70s and 80s. I did not say the 60s are the BEST decade, but they're obviously the most influential. But please enlighten me: which decade was in fact the most important decade for pop music? And the personal taste of your dad is not relevant to me.

[thomashenry]

That makes TTM Indian then. I love him even more now!

Why do you think he's nicknamed the Turbanator....?

Does he wear a turban?