New in the Charts Thread
-
Meanwhile, over in radioland, the single New continues to have a decent life on Adult Contemporary radio in the U.S., holding at #18 but edging close to the #17 spot, which would be the highest it's reached. http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255601 Interestingly, if one pokes through the numbers, there is a small handful of stations playing it pretty heavily (i.e. over 20 spins in the past 7 days), and another dozen or so who seem to be playing it about twice a day. But that leaves about half the reported spins unaccounted for. These must be stations either playing it more rarely, or who have just started playing it and haven't racked up enough spins in the past week to register on the publicly available charts. If the latter is true, it might still gain ground. Still, it's not getting enough play to be anything like a major radio hit, and is dying on Triple A, the other format where it got some attention. And Queenie Eye remains nowhere to be seen on any airplay chart.
-
jlw44:
I just heard from a 20 something today who was in Las Vegas for the iHeartradio show. Her assessment of Paul was that he was absolutely awful. He tried to shove 'new' songs down their throats (I only thought there were 2?, although I'm thinking she was also thinking that a song like Another Day and maybe others was new as well) and didn't enjoy his set at all. Now she only knew I was a Paul fan, and may have overstated the awful part, but it sounded more like anger that he wasted their time with his new songs. I would pretty much guess that would be the feeling for most 20, 30 and 40 year olds who wouldn't be interested in buying anything new by a 70 year old. It's just not something they would do and why the marketing tried to target those age groups is still mind boggling to me. And again why a Rolling Stone cover? People mag would have more of an impact. Are his marketing people really fooled by the younger audiences and think they would be interested in the new music? I think the whole marketing thing was misguided. His audience is the older set who may have been interested in something new if they were aware of it.
I've been wondering what would happen if Paul concentrated on being a songwriter/producer, wrote and produced some songs for some of the "younger" artists, and released them as singles. With no mention of "Paul McCartney" being involved. Would they become hits, just because of the artists singing them? Is it Paul's name that keeps many people from even giving a listen? (I know he tried being anonymous before.) I can't help but wonder...
-
Jeezus give it a rest! He's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need to be number one. The album stands on its own merit. He isn't competing with Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. That isn't his audience! :
-
NEW is a great CD and is doing well. It is unrealistic to expect McCartney to be no. 1 all the time. Rock and pop is a young person's game, and Paul is 71 years old. When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old? Young people want their own music and their own artists and heroes. And McCartney's fan base may be quite preoccupied with other things, being in their 50s and 60s.
-
"New" dropped to 17th place (last week was 4th) in the official italian chart.
-
It's still doing well in Denmark, down to #6 this week after it debuted at #2 last week.
-
RMartinez:
When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old?
No way, I was buying records (as a 13 year old) by a bunch of 30+ year olds called Wings and they seemed pretty old even then.
-
RMartinez:
NEW is a great CD and is doing well. It is unrealistic to expect McCartney to be no. 1 all the time. Rock and pop is a young person's game, and Paul is 71 years old. When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old? Young people want their own music and their own artists and heroes. And McCartney's fan base may be quite preoccupied with other things, being in their 50s and 60s.
Except artists like Dylan, Bowie, Springsteen and Leonard Cohen are more commercially successful than Paul these days so we can't use Paul's age as an excuse since they're all between 60 and 80 years old. And with the exception of Springsteen, none of these artists go out of their way to promote their albums like Paul does.
-
Ane:
RMartinez:
NEW is a great CD and is doing well. It is unrealistic to expect McCartney to be no. 1 all the time. Rock and pop is a young person's game, and Paul is 71 years old. When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old? Young people want their own music and their own artists and heroes. And McCartney's fan base may be quite preoccupied with other things, being in their 50s and 60s.
Except people like Dylan, Bowie, Springsteen and Leonard Cohen are more commercially successful than Paul these days so we can't use Paul's age as an excuse.
The test will be U2. A brilliant band, arguably the best since The Beatles, but haven't put out an album in years. I suspect they'll also be seen now as "old and irrelevant" by the Bieber-Cyrus-Kim Kardashian-fornicating generation. A sign of the times. I lift my head to the sky on many an occasion and thank God I am not of the present generation listening to rap, hip hop and mindless tunes that are so loved by so many that they download them illegally...(I might accidentally settle on a video clip of Katy Perry... but at least her Unplugged set showed she could be a good performer and a songwriter)... I miss the days of "learning" by saving money, buying albums, putting every song in context... Music ain't what it used to be for the kids... their loss.
-
NEW is a great CD and is doing well.
It is unrealistic to expect McCartney to be no. 1 all the time. Rock and pop is a young person's game, and Paul is 71 years old. When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old? Young people want their own music and their own artists and heroes. And McCartney's fan base may be quite preoccupied with other things, being in their 50s and 60s. Except artists like Dylan, Bowie, Springsteen and Leonard Cohen are more commercially successful than Paul these days so we can't use Paul's age as an excuse since they're all between 60 and 80 years old. And with the exception of Springsteen, none of these artists go out of their way to promote their albums like Paul does. EXACTLY. And Dylan in particular does not do any PR whatsoever. I´m not sure NEW would have made the Top 10 in its first week without the extensive PR campaign. And that is truly sad,because its a great album. I haven`t read any coherent explanation why Paul`s sales never recovered after the mid-80s slump. Dylan was more or less invisible in the charts through the eighties up to 97s Time out of mind. Since then he regularly tops the charts. That should have been Paul`s commercial renaissance too with Flaming Pie. But it simply didn`t happen.
-
Bruce M.:
Meanwhile, over in radioland, the single New continues to have a decent life on Adult Contemporary radio in the U.S., holding at #18 but edging close to the #17 spot, which would be the highest it's reached. http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255601 Interestingly, if one pokes through the numbers, there is a small handful of stations playing it pretty heavily (i.e. over 20 spins in the past 7 days), and another dozen or so who seem to be playing it about twice a day. But that leaves about half the reported spins unaccounted for. These must be stations either playing it more rarely, or who have just started playing it and haven't racked up enough spins in the past week to register on the publicly available charts. If the latter is true, it might still gain ground. Still, it's not getting enough play to be anything like a major radio hit, and is dying on Triple A, the other format where it got some attention. And Queenie Eye remains nowhere to be seen on any airplay chart.
My local Triple A WXPN is still playing Queenie Eye a couple of times a day, so that's something. I know, not enough for the charts!
-
toris:
Ane:
RMartinez:
NEW is a great CD and is doing well. It is unrealistic to expect McCartney to be no. 1 all the time. Rock and pop is a young person's game, and Paul is 71 years old. When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old? Young people want their own music and their own artists and heroes. And McCartney's fan base may be quite preoccupied with other things, being in their 50s and 60s.
Except people like Dylan, Bowie, Springsteen and Leonard Cohen are more commercially successful than Paul these days so we can't use Paul's age as an excuse.
The test will be U2. A brilliant band, arguably the best since The Beatles, but haven't put out an album in years. I suspect they'll also be seen now as "old and irrelevant" by the Bieber-Cyrus-Kim Kardashian-fornicating generation. A sign of the times. I lift my head to the sky on many an occasion and thank God I am not of the present generation listening to rap, hip hop and mindless tunes that are so loved by so many that they download them illegally...(I might accidentally settle on a video clip of Katy Perry... but at least her Unplugged set showed she could be a good performer and a songwriter)... I miss the days of "learning" by saving money, buying albums, putting every song in context... Music ain't what it used to be for the kids... their loss.
U2 is the band that I'm still wondering if they will ever have a flop album. We'll see eventually. Aerosmith's 2012 release was a Top 5 album, but it sold well under 100,000 units in its debut week.
-
U2 does seem to have the Midas touch. Not sure what to say about McCartney vs Bowie, Cohen, Springsteen. It could be that's just the way it is. Still, McCartney is a viable live act, which is impressive at his age.
-
Kestrel:
RMartinez:
When you were 15 or 20, were you buying music made by a 71 year old?
No way, I was buying records (as a 13 year old) by a bunch of 30+ year olds called Wings and they seemed pretty old even then.
Yeah, people in their 30s, not their 70s. That's a pretty big difference.
-
The album has climbed back into the iTunes top 100, for what it's worth! There has always been anti-Paul sentiment, which has cut against his more raucous or avant garde tendencies. With performances like "Till There Was You" and "And I Love Her," he was branded as the romantic balladeer, while people conveniently overlooked John's "All I've Got To Do" or George's "Do You Want To Know A Secret?" But, you know, Paul was just so darned cute, it was easy to pigeonhole him. : Later, he resisted things like "Michelle" becoming singles, just to avoid that stereotype, but he would also get attacked for bouncy, poppy things like "Hello Goodbye." He then hit new depths of "uncool" by collaborating with his wife (!) after the breakup, eventually redeeming himself with the undeniable rock credentials of Band On The Run and Venus And Mars. But then (oh dear!) along came the indignities of "Silly Love Songs" and "Mull Of Kintyre" and "Goodnight Tonight" and it was just more than the rock intelligentsia could take! Even though he simultaneously had songs like "Beware My Love" and "Girls School" and "So Glad To See You Here," he became irredeemably suspect. His Tug Of War tributes to John were a minor blip compared to his Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson collaborations (I won't get into the racial implications), and by then it was virtually all over: Paul was a slave to pop music, and there was no turning back. He could get critical plaudits for his later work, but they would always be regarded as a curiosity ("Who would have thought Paul was capable of something... worthy?"), over and over. Their minds were made up thirty years ago, and nothing's going to change it, ever. Yeah, I know, Paul hasn't helped his cause by playing Beatles-heavy concerts and being just a generally positive guy, but really: take all of Paul's recorded output (including Wings, Fireman, classical, etc.) and shuffle it on iPod and the breadth of it is astounding. He is far from the one-note concept that radio programmers and the general public seem to have of him, yet this is his legacy, and we'll just have to live with those consequences!
-
Well said favoritething!
-
NEW is down to # 6 on the Global chart with second week sales of 74.000 . Total Global sales after two weeks are 239.000
-
Sir Guy Grand:
Total Global sales after two weeks are 239.000
That's roughly about one in ten of the people who bought 'Mud On My Tyre' here in the UK?
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Jeezus give it a rest! He's been at this for 50 years. He doesn't need to be number one. The album stands on its own merit. He isn't competing with Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. That isn't his audience! :
-
favoritething:
The album has climbed back into the iTunes top 100, for what it's worth! There has always been anti-Paul sentiment, which has cut against his more raucous or avant garde tendencies. With performances like "Till There Was You" and "And I Love Her," he was branded as the romantic balladeer, while people conveniently overlooked John's "All I've Got To Do" or George's "Do You Want To Know A Secret?" But, you know, Paul was just so darned cute, it was easy to pigeonhole him. : Later, he resisted things like "Michelle" becoming singles, just to avoid that stereotype, but he would also get attacked for bouncy, poppy things like "Hello Goodbye." He then hit new depths of "uncool" by collaborating with his wife (!) after the breakup, eventually redeeming himself with the undeniable rock credentials of Band On The Run and Venus And Mars. But then (oh dear!) along came the indignities of "Silly Love Songs" and "Mull Of Kintyre" and "Goodnight Tonight" and it was just more than the rock intelligentsia could take! Even though he simultaneously had songs like "Beware My Love" and "Girls School" and "So Glad To See You Here," he became irredeemably suspect. His Tug Of War tributes to John were a minor blip compared to his Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson collaborations (I won't get into the racial implications), and by then it was virtually all over: Paul was a slave to pop music, and there was no turning back. He could get critical plaudits for his later work, but they would always be regarded as a curiosity ("Who would have thought Paul was capable of something... worthy?"), over and over. Their minds were made up thirty years ago, and nothing's going to change it, ever. Yeah, I know, Paul hasn't helped his cause by playing Beatles-heavy concerts and being just a generally positive guy, but really: take all of Paul's recorded output (including Wings, Fireman, classical, etc.) and shuffle it on iPod and the breadth of it is astounding. He is far from the one-note concept that radio programmers and the general public seem to have of him, yet this is his legacy, and we'll just have to live with those consequences!