Disco 4 OS news & tracklisting & NO Integral single

Message

Native · #286 Post by **Native** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 8:33 am

Seems the The Sun story is rubbish - surprise surprise!
From the official site -

Not true, Victoria! We had a drink with Damon just a few weeks ago after seeing his "Monkey" opera in Manchester...(And we didn't request permission to put "Boys and Girls" on Disco 4.)

shamelessboyuk · #287 Post by **shamelessboyuk** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 9:57 am

Native wrote:Seems the The Sun story is rubbish - surprise surprise!
From the official site -

Not true, Victoria! We had a drink with Damon just a few weeks ago after seeing his "Monkey" opera in Manchester...(And we didn't request permission to put "Boys and Girls" on Disco 4.)

A more plausible reason as to why 'Girls and Boys' is not on D4 is due to the previously mentioned fact that 'Girls and Boys (Live in Rio)' is already featured on the Very Further Listening CD, which is effectively near enough the same track, except with Neil's vocals.
Presumably, they felt that ground had already been covered on that previous compilation.

One of the crowd · Fri 10 Aug 2007, 10:08 am

Yeah, they probably didnt want us to part with out hard earned cash for the same track.

daveid · #289 Post by **daveid** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 11:22 am

[quote="shamelessboyuk"][quote="Native"]Seems the The Sun story is rubbish - surprise surprise!
From the official site -

Not true, Victoria! We had a drink with Damon just a few weeks ago after seeing his "Monkey" opera in Manchester...(And we didn't request permission to put "Boys and Girls" on Disco 4.)[/quote]

A more plausible reason as to why 'Girls and Boys' is not on D4 is due to the previously mentioned fact that 'Girls and Boys (Live in Rio)' is already featured on the Very Further Listening CD, which is effectively near enough the same track, except with Neil's vocals.
Presumably, they felt that ground had already been covered on that previous compilation.[/quote]

Yes, I think it's largely a case (conspiracy theories aside) that there is limited space (79:59) on a CD and therefore one has to prioritise. As you say, Girls and Boys has appeared as a track in a version BASED on that same remix. Why put it on D4 if that means losing something less available?

Frequency · #290 Post by **Frequency** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 11:28 am

I think its omission comes down to the fact that they wanted to try and make it work as an album rather than a collection.

leesmapman · #291 Post by **leesmapman** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 12:16 pm

joncool5 wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007360952,00.html

According to The Sun, Damon didn't give PSB permission to use Girls and Boys.

"A source said: “Damon complained that they had made the song sound like their own."

That is the point of a remix, innit?

Oznerol · #292 Post by **Oznerol** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 2:06 pm

leesmapman wrote:
joncool5 wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007360952,00.html

According to The Sun, Damon didn't give PSB permission to use Girls and Boys.
"A source said: “Damon complained that they had made the song sound like their own."

That is the point of a remix, innit?

Sadly yes, on this days. The remixers (whoever they were) are so egocentric most of the times that they make their own music on a remix, instead of re-modeling a song respecting the original soul of it (sometimes this results in a good thing anyway..but sometimes are pathetic...). The 80's was a different story...you can recognise diffrent remixing styles on the mixes, but the star was always the song, not the remixers (and then, you were always sure that if you like the original, you´ll like the extended and remix too...).
PSB are just in the middle of this two schools: the star is still the song, melody, structure and original elements are always there, but you can clearly recognise (despite Neil´s voice) the PSB touch on them...not an easy thing...

leesmapman · #293 Post by **leesmapman** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 4:37 pm

Oznerol wrote: Sadly yes, on this days. The remixers (whoever they were) are so egocentric most of the times that they make their own music on a remix, instead of re-modeling a song respecting the original soul of it (sometimes this results in a good thing anyway..but sometimes are pathetic...). The 80's was a different story...you can recognise diffrent remixing styles on the mixes, but the star was always the song, not the remixers (and then, you were always sure that if you like the original, you´ll like the extended and remix too...).

To quote Gary Oldman in the movie Leon: "Bingo!"

I have put the Blur, Madonna, Killers, etc Singles with the Pet Shop Boys in my collection, not with the artist who released the single.

kdx125 · #294 Post by **kdx125** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 6:42 pm

Dipso wrote:I think The Sun's story is probably deliberate mischief making. It's very pro-psb and anti-Damon. Having said that, I think it is probably very likely that the Pets did ask to include Girls & Boys on Disco 4 and were rejected, for whatever reason. Given that Blur are on Parlophone, we can probably rule out it being a record company issue.

From what I can guess, maybe it's not all Damon at all.
We seem to forget that Blur have now split and that one of the songwriters (Coxon) has pretty much disowned himself from the rest of the group.
As he has musical credit to the songwriting, maybe he had something to do with the block!
It certainly wouldn't be Parlophone.

As for Jack & Jill Party - Technically it ain't a remix, it's a collaboration.
Therefore it would make no sense on this compilation, nor Kiki Kokova's Love to love you baby!

Margalit · #295 Post by **Margalit** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 7:36 pm

same story somewhere else.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a7084 ... remix.html

Regards;
Clau =)

DJAMIX · #296 Post by **DJAMIX** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 7:46 pm

Oznerol wrote:Sadly yes, on this days. The remixers (whoever they were) are so egocentric most of the times that they make their own music on a remix, instead of re-modeling a song respecting the original soul of it (sometimes this results in a good thing anyway..but sometimes are pathetic...). The 80's was a different story...you can recognise diffrent remixing styles on the mixes, but the star was always the song, not the remixers (and then, you were always sure that if you like the original, you´ll like the extended and remix too...).
PSB are just in the middle of this two schools: the star is still the song, melody, structure and original elements are always there, but you can clearly recognise (despite Neil´s voice) the PSB touch on them...not an easy thing...

I couldn't agree more!

Pet Shop Girl · #297 Post by **Pet Shop Girl** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 8:30 pm

Its all a marketing strategy to not release Integral as a single because of its content. I guess Parlophone has its good reasons.

themgnt · #298 Post by **themgnt** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 10:13 pm

DJ Pat wrote:I posted that first!

Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Actually, DJ Pat, someone posted something similar as an April Fools joke!!

viewtopic.php?t=16177

Personally, I have no problem with Disco 4 being as it is. Some of the mixes I've never bought. In fact, I've just come across Read My Mind (stars are blazing) and have been listening to it so much I was about to order the single. Now I don't have to! Sure I'd rather have new PSB music, but the Disco Series is almost like an alternate universe (to use comic book terminology) and not part of the proper canon of work. They can do what they want with the Disco series.

-paul

Danger · #299 Post by **Danger** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 10:21 pm

Pet Shop Girl wrote:Its all a marketing strategy to not release Integral as a single because of its content.

It could be if we think that EMI stopped the release of the single that could sign the come back of PSB in the UK top5 (Sodom)...

Blogo · #300 Post by **Blogo** » Fri 10 Aug 2007, 10:50 pm

I'm just soo annoyed that Integral isnt being released as a single, It's too good of a song not to be released? Why do you think they didn't release it?