Saturation point?
-
Paul's hair in 1976: http://www.bionicdisco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Paul_McCartney_And_Wings_Silly_Love_Songs_Rock_Show_1976-500x271.jpg http://cbskhitschicago.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/90308006-wings-1976-paul-mccartney-gettyimages.jpg?w=594 Paul's hair in 1978: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7HK0VG46zF0/0.jpg Paul after reading all this about his hair: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MCb-7IscIp0/T9-1szi-o4I/AAAAAAAAA0Q/xucQQq-flHs/s1600/paul-mccartney1-300x300.jpg
-
paulfan11:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
A year out of the public eye wouldn't hurt Paul but -- and I know certain people on this board don't want to hear this again -- there are only 2 things hurting his image and popularity nowadays: (1) his diminished voice, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about, and (2) his atrociously dyed, horribly cut hair, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about. It's a dead horse, I know, but I'm beating it again. I just saw yet another photo of him on Twitter posing with a couple fans and his hair looks dreadful, as usual. Meanwhile, Bowie is photographed in NYC yesterday looking immaculately coiffed, as usual. When it comes to aging pop star legends, such superficial crap matters. A decent hair cut -- one that actually looks flattering -- would make a world of difference, saturation or no saturation.
Really. Most reviews of his concerts say his voice is pretty good even at 71. At least you can understand McCartney, not like Mr. Dylan and even Mr. Springsteen seems to be mumbling as he gets older. McCartney is still selling out concerts and "New" hit #3 in the charts the first week, so he still must be fairly popular - lol. As for his hair color or cut, if his wife is ok with it then I am quite sure he does not care what media or fans think about it.
Agreed I highly doubt he sits at home crying about what some people think about his hair. And I'll ask again just as I did in another thread a few months ago where is the proof that Paul's hair has anything to do with his album sales? He's still selling out arenas and stadiums as well and I doubt people are showing up saying gee his hair looks bad I'm leaving!
I will also mention that there have been concert reviews that mention McCartney is trim and has incredible energy. I think that is more important than him coloring his hair or maybe at this moment in time it appears to some as too long and not coiffed.
-
Maccafan82:
This is a ridiculous thread. Being in the public eye constantly didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960s or Miley Cyrus now.
You write that it didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960's but they were selling less and less albums with each release although I think Abbey Road bucked the trend towards the end. Never heard of Miley Cyrus so I can't comment on them.
-
paulfan11:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
A year out of the public eye wouldn't hurt Paul but -- and I know certain people on this board don't want to hear this again -- there are only 2 things hurting his image and popularity nowadays: (1) his diminished voice, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about, and (2) his atrociously dyed, horribly cut hair, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about. It's a dead horse, I know, but I'm beating it again. I just saw yet another photo of him on Twitter posing with a couple fans and his hair looks dreadful, as usual. Meanwhile, Bowie is photographed in NYC yesterday looking immaculately coiffed, as usual. When it comes to aging pop star legends, such superficial crap matters. A decent hair cut -- one that actually looks flattering -- would make a world of difference, saturation or no saturation.
Really. Most reviews of his concerts say his voice is pretty good even at 71. At least you can understand McCartney, not like Mr. Dylan and even Mr. Springsteen seems to be mumbling as he gets older. McCartney is still selling out concerts and "New" hit #3 in the charts the first week, so he still must be fairly popular - lol. As for his hair color or cut, if his wife is ok with it then I am quite sure he does not care what media or fans think about it.
Agreed I highly doubt he sits at home crying about what some people think about his hair. And I'll ask again just as I did in another thread a few months ago where is the proof that Paul's hair has anything to do with his album sales? He's still selling out arenas and stadiums as well and I doubt people are showing up saying gee his hair looks bad I'm leaving!
I don't see where anyone said that he was crying. That's an odd statement to make.
-
Kestrel:
Maccafan82:
This is a ridiculous thread. Being in the public eye constantly didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960s or Miley Cyrus now.
You write that it didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960's but they were selling less and less albums with each release although I think Abbey Road bucked the trend towards the end. Never heard of Miley Cyrus so I can't comment on them.
How were they selling less and less albums as the 60s went on? Hey Jude (a single, I know) was massive and the White Album and Sgt. Pepper sold MILLIONS of records. It's not like they went from selling a million in '63 to selling 200,000 in '69. Going from 3 millions to 2.4 million is still a TON of records!
-
oobu24:
paulfan11:
yankeefan7:
Michelley:
A year out of the public eye wouldn't hurt Paul but -- and I know certain people on this board don't want to hear this again -- there are only 2 things hurting his image and popularity nowadays: (1) his diminished voice, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about, and (2) his atrociously dyed, horribly cut hair, which he doesn't seem to want to do anything about. It's a dead horse, I know, but I'm beating it again. I just saw yet another photo of him on Twitter posing with a couple fans and his hair looks dreadful, as usual. Meanwhile, Bowie is photographed in NYC yesterday looking immaculately coiffed, as usual. When it comes to aging pop star legends, such superficial crap matters. A decent hair cut -- one that actually looks flattering -- would make a world of difference, saturation or no saturation.
Really. Most reviews of his concerts say his voice is pretty good even at 71. At least you can understand McCartney, not like Mr. Dylan and even Mr. Springsteen seems to be mumbling as he gets older. McCartney is still selling out concerts and "New" hit #3 in the charts the first week, so he still must be fairly popular - lol. As for his hair color or cut, if his wife is ok with it then I am quite sure he does not care what media or fans think about it.
Agreed I highly doubt he sits at home crying about what some people think about his hair. And I'll ask again just as I did in another thread a few months ago where is the proof that Paul's hair has anything to do with his album sales? He's still selling out arenas and stadiums as well and I doubt people are showing up saying gee his hair looks bad I'm leaving!
I don't see where anyone said that he was crying. That's an odd statement to make.
I was making the statement to show that no matter how much people keep ragging on his hair he obviously doesn't care what they think. I think saying Paul's hair is the reason his album sales have dropped (which has been stated on this board before ) is more of an odd statement.
-
Kestrel:
Maccafan82:
This is a ridiculous thread. Being in the public eye constantly didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960s or Miley Cyrus now.
You write that it didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960's but they were selling less and less albums with each release although I think Abbey Road bucked the trend towards the end. Never heard of Miley Cyrus so I can't comment on them.
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter? http://www.bing.com/search?q=miley+cyrus+wrecking+ball&form=MSNH14&refig=15c62a2f67ed4e6e993eb9c8d2a36925&pq=miley&sc=8-5&sp=4&qs=AS&sk=AS3&ghc=1
-
DrBeatle:
Kestrel:
Maccafan82:
This is a ridiculous thread. Being in the public eye constantly didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960s or Miley Cyrus now.
You write that it didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960's but they were selling less and less albums with each release although I think Abbey Road bucked the trend towards the end. Never heard of Miley Cyrus so I can't comment on them.
How were they selling less and less albums as the 60s went on? Hey Jude (a single, I know) was massive and the White Album and Sgt. Pepper sold MILLIONS of records. It's not like they went from selling a million in '63 to selling 200,000 in '69. Going from 3 millions to 2.4 million is still a TON of records!
Abbey Road: over 9 million copies sold to date The White Album: over 20 million copies to date Sgt. Pepper: over 32 million
-
B J Conlee:
Guys and Ladies, Why all the doom and gloom? NEW has not been out a full month and many of the posts are saying that NEW has been a colossal failure relative to "Sales". A Music Catalog like Macca's will continue to sell for years and years to come. Whereas many artists' CD's will just disappear after a few months (headed for discount bins), Paul's CD's and their respective downloads will sell far into the future. I was a little surprised that Paul did not come back to the States (after his Britain promotions) to further promote NEW and appear on some big US TV Shows. The US after all is his biggest market. I'm sure it would have added to sales. But Paul must have his reasons for not doing it. Maybe he just felt he needed some rest before the Japan tour or he needed to spend time with his young daughter. We forget (including me) that he is 71 and has been on a grueling schedule. It shows that Paul isn't worried about staying on the top of the charts. He knows that his CD's and songs will always sell. And NEW entered the charts in the Top 5 in many countries around the world so it was hardly a failure. I believe that NEW will have a resurgence in sales in 2014 especially if he tours extensively in America. His name will be bigger than ever with all the publicity of the 50th Anniversary of the Beatles coming to America. His shows will be instant sellouts. If he plays 4 to 8 tracks from NEW at his live shows, it will create sales of NEW on its own. There are also other Marketing strategies they can employ (i.e. radio specials on Sirius, Pandora, I-Heart radio etc.). This album will continue to sell because of its quality. It will not, in all probability, hit best seller lists but NEW will be, in my opinion, a steady seller for years to come. And, as I said, I think NEW will have plenty of added Sales spike in 2014 if Paul chooses to tour. From all indications, I think he will. I continue to play NEW and the album just continues to amaze me. At first, I had no doubt about the first 7 tracks (up to the title track). In fact, I can't think of a Paul Solo album where the first 7 tracks are stronger. But now the 2nd half of NEW is really growing with me. Because of NEW'S quality and Paul's genius, kids in the future will discover it on their own when most of the "hot" artists of today will be yesterday's news. Cheer up, NEW is not "dead" by any means.
-
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
-
Kestrel:
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
Be thankful you haven't heard of either one!
-
Kestrel:
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
Where is this planet that you live? And is there room for ME????
-
audi:
Kestrel:
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
Where is this planet that you live? And is there room for ME????
-
Kestrel:
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
Yes (Achy Breaky Heart was his big hit record) Did you click on the link I posted up there?
-
Nancy R:
Yes (Achy Breaky Heart was his big hit record) Did you click on the link I posted up there?
Well i do recall hearing Achy Breaky Heart on the radio but I would never have known who it was by. Thanks for the link for Miley but I've just never heard of her or her music. I've no idea if she's popular in the UK or not as I don't follow the charts at all other than to see how Paul is currently doing.
-
audi:
Kestrel:
Nancy R:
Kestrel, for real? Miley Cyrus, Billy Ray Cyrus's daughter?
I guess I'm supposed to have heard of Billy Ray Cyrus too? ops:
Where is this planet that you live? And is there room for ME????
If you live in the UK and don't listen to the radio,watch tv or read the music mags / daily rags, its actually quite amazing just what you can avoid being aware of?
-
ok let me get this right miley is a girl singer who shook her arse on the telly? and this billy ray lets just call him bill is her dad is he a singer too?
-
There's a lot of Brit performers we've never heard of, too. Such as Jools Holland for instance. Billy Ray Cyrus is a very good looking buffoon. He had one good song I liked about going back to Tennessee. Miley Cyrus's singing voice is like the proverbial nails scratching on a blackboard. You've not missed anything. Getting back to saturation or over-exposure, no, I don't mind seeing Paul pop up a lot However, there's that postmodern contemporary failing of the short attention span. I'm already longing for another brand new album of more music from him!
-
You never heard of Jools? George was on one of his albums years ago with Horse to Water.
-
No I'd not heard of him. Just a vague realization he's got a Brit telly show. There's a real good picture of Paul posing with Jools on Paul's facebook page right now, near the top or there was the other night.