Pet Shop Boys Community

Dog wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 6:21 pm

leesmapman wrote:

rashomon wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 2:55 pm

Don't think Es Devlin is involved in the Dreamworld Tour. At least that's whatI remember reading somewhere way back when.

No, during the Dreamworld/Hotspot promoting Neil mentioned she was working on a big play at that moment. A Mary Poppins stage play?

I think it was Cirque Du Soleil.

It was Cirque du Soleil. They are bankrupt now.

sonicbleep wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 6:51 pm
Has there been a poll yet about everyone's favourite It's a Sin performance???

Nickname!, don't make another poll.

Dog wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 6:21 pm I think it was Cirque Du Soleil.

That was it!

Rumour has it Neil and Chris wanted Henk van Daam to appear on stage but BBC said no. Big row followed and PSB walked out.

Suburban_Boy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 5:05 pmThe rumour on the night was that the whole thing had fallen through because the acts couldn't agree on the order in which they should be credited.

That would do it.

TallThinMan wrote:

Suburban_Boy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 5:05 pmThe rumour on the night was that the whole thing had fallen through because the acts couldn't agree on the order in which they should be credited.

That would do it.

If that's the case, what a bunch of assholes lol

Here’s what they should do:

1) Sort out the “contractual issues”
2) Reinstate Neil’s vocal
3) Get Stuart to do a killer 12” mix
4) Put out a physical release

Or, failing that

Just record an even better version with Springsteen.

Suburban_Boy wrote: Thu 13 May 2021, 5:05 pm The rumour on the night was that the whole thing had fallen through because the acts couldn't agree on the order in which they should be credited.[/I]

“Rumour on the night” lol, it was a prerecorded video that was shown on the night… I’m not even sure there would have been backstage gossip as it was socially distanced backstage with hardly anyone backstage.. the audience wasn’t socially distance but the cast and crew were… if there were any grumpy outbursts (which I doubt there were) then poor Pete G as he was doing the live mix/ programming and he would have been caught in the middle of it.

It surely has to be a "Brits" contract problem? I don't buy into this stuff about the performance being too gay, or not gay enough though.

I'd also like to think that despite the number of possible divas in the room, everyone would be grown up enough to give credit in the order it required on the track, so I don't but that reason much either. All four of them have been in the music business long enough to figure that piece out in a collaboration - FFS, at one point "Dreamland" was a Years & Years song....until it wasn't.

This is the correct order to credit the artists

1. Pet Shop Boys
2. Years and Years
3. Elton John

Can’t see Elton accepting that .... hence #ContractGate

rashomon wrote:This is the correct order to credit the artists

1. Pet Shop Boys
2. Years and Years
3. Elton John

Can’t see Elton accepting that .... hence #ContractGate

Assuming Neil was also going to sing on the track you could reasonably use the balance of vocals to decide the order.

Or...

PSB could well have been keen on Pet Shop Boys with Years & Years and Elton John, following the format they used with Dusty and Robbie. Or you could relegate them to third place and still make them look prominent in the mix by using Years & Years and Elton John (or the reverse) produced by Pet Shop Boys, which was the format they used with Bowie.

You could make a decent argument that Years & Years should take first credit given Elton is first and foremost playing on his version, before giving way to the PSB version.

And highly likely Elton would see himself as the bigger name, particularly given the project was aligned to his foundation.

But maybe whatever logic and goodwill that was or wasn’t applied there was a legal issue that couldn’t be bypassed.

Dog wrote: Fri 14 May 2021, 2:26 pm Assuming Neil was also going to sing on the track you could reasonably use the balance of vocals to decide the order.

It seems quite odd for an artist to release/perform a cover version of their own song together with someone else. Where it takes place, it would feel even more odd to put that artist not the first on the list.

PSB performed It's a sin together with Brandon Flowers. It was regarded as them performing their own song, not as them helping Brandon Flowers to perform a cover.

Guess the same would not have worked with Elton & Olly. What they wanted to perform was definitely a cover. What place would the original artist have in it?

Why on earth anyone would believe "insiders" and "rumours on the night" is beyond me.

PSB have said it was contracts related and they've said they agreed with the staging. Whatever contract it was, it couldn't be sorted by Friday so they couldn't take part in the performance.

End of story really.

hotspotnot wrote: Fri 14 May 2021, 3:08 pm Why on earth anyone would believe "insiders" and "rumours on the night" is beyond me.

PSB have said it was contracts related and they've said they agreed with the staging. Whatever contract it was, it couldn't be sorted by Friday so they couldn't take part in the performance.

End of story really.

Tell me when the space ship has landed.... what planet do you live on. Of course we don't believe a no comment press release at face value. Of course we try to seek other sources. Of course everything at this stage and in this kind of business is labeled as "rumours". Somewhere along the line is the truth but you won't find it in a nonsensical message about "contractual differences".

They've not released a "no comment" press release.

They've said they agreed on the staging with Elton and Olly, which the "insider" claims they didn't agree with.

Contractual issues are not the same as contractual differences.