New in the Charts Thread
-
Macca should be even more revered than Johnny Cash and Jerry Lee Lewis, and for many, no doubt he is Even more than Elvis (he should). His new "New" album is fantastic! Harkens back to Electric Arguments, McCartney II and Ram among other masterpieces--nothing wrong with that Does "New" break new ground, revolutionize anything--even if this music doesn't, it's really, really good. Still digesting it and letting it jell. Right now feel crazy over "Everybody Out There" just crazy about it, and many more--almost the whole thing Actually Just about the whole enchilada. "Scared" is pretty, but as yet doesn't move me quite as much--that could change
-
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!
"But then (oh dear!) along came the indignities of "Silly Love Songs" and "Mull Of Kintyre" Kind of funny how things turn out. Rock critics bashed those two songs but they were huge commercial hits. Recently, the critics love McCartney's work but he can't do well commercially.
-
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
Beats me why having Linda in the band was uncool but Yoko playing with Lennon was hip - lol. Critics may have bashed the songs you mention but the general public did not, songs were a commercial hit. If I had to say anything that hurt McCartney in the 80's, it would be the flop movie. As for how "New" is doing in the charts, I just think it is the boomers are still stuck in the 60's and would not think of buying a recent McCartney CD.
-
Meanwhile, back in radioland: Queenie Eye finally makes an appearance on the Triple A airplay chart at #39 as of Sunday: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603 Not exactly hit territory, but at least some glimmers of life. The other downside is that if you look at the list of stations playing it, it's pretty much only stations that played New for a while, so it's not like he's finding new ground to conquer on the radio dial: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603
-
There is a bit of revisionism going on here. In the 70s, nobody thought John jamming with Yoko was cool. People felt (rightfully so) he was pushing her on the public. And that is what people thought about Paul having Linda in his band. Which was the truth on both counts. I am not sure Paul's public image today suffers from all that in the early 70s. Wings Over America tour got rave reviews, as do his live shows today. Maybe because in the main Paul is known for SILLY LOVE SONGS, LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAN SAID, etc. and not so much for HI HI HI or LETTING GO. Yes, he wrote HELTER SKELTER, but that is known as a BEATLE song, not a McCartney song. I wonder if Paul's amazing diversity works against him. David Bowie is known for David Bowie music. The Stones are known for Stones music. Johnny Cash for Johnny Cash music. But Paul wrote YESTERDAY, and HELTER SKELTER, and LET IT BE, and OH DARLING and YOU GAVE ME THE ANSWER and TOO MANY PEOPLE, etc. etc. etc. He has worked in so many genres and done all of them so well.
-
-
RMartinez:
There is a bit of revisionism going on here. In the 70s, nobody thought John jamming with Yoko was cool. People felt (rightfully so) he was pushing her on the public. And that is what people thought about Paul having Linda in his band. Which was the truth on both counts. I am not sure Paul's public image today suffers from all that in the early 70s. Wings Over America tour got rave reviews, as do his live shows today. Maybe because in the main Paul is known for SILLY LOVE SONGS, LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAN SAID, etc. and not so much for HI HI HI or LETTING GO. Yes, he wrote HELTER SKELTER, but that is known as a BEATLE song, not a McCartney song. I wonder if Paul's amazing diversity works against him. David Bowie is known for David Bowie music. The Stones are known for Stones music. Johnny Cash for Johnny Cash music. But Paul wrote YESTERDAY, and HELTER SKELTER, and LET IT BE, and OH DARLING and YOU GAVE ME THE ANSWER and TOO MANY PEOPLE, etc. etc. etc. He has worked in so many genres and done all of them so well.
"In the 70s, nobody thought John jamming with Yoko was cool. People felt (rightfully so) he was pushing her on the public. And that is what people thought about Paul having Linda in his band. Which was the truth on both counts." I disagree a bit. While maybe critics thought Lennon was pushing Yoko on people, they still considered her a "artist", Linda was openly mocked.
-
Bruce M.:
Meanwhile, back in radioland: Queenie Eye finally makes an appearance on the Triple A airplay chart at #39 as of Sunday: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603 Not exactly hit territory, but at least some glimmers of life. The other downside is that if you look at the list of stations playing it, it's pretty much only stations that played New for a while, so it's not like he's finding new ground to conquer on the radio dial: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603
Thanks for keeping up with this but I have given up hope of hearing McCartney on radio.
-
yankeefan7:
RMartinez:
There is a bit of revisionism going on here. In the 70s, nobody thought John jamming with Yoko was cool. People felt (rightfully so) he was pushing her on the public. And that is what people thought about Paul having Linda in his band. Which was the truth on both counts. I am not sure Paul's public image today suffers from all that in the early 70s. Wings Over America tour got rave reviews, as do his live shows today. Maybe because in the main Paul is known for SILLY LOVE SONGS, LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAN SAID, etc. and not so much for HI HI HI or LETTING GO. Yes, he wrote HELTER SKELTER, but that is known as a BEATLE song, not a McCartney song. I wonder if Paul's amazing diversity works against him. David Bowie is known for David Bowie music. The Stones are known for Stones music. Johnny Cash for Johnny Cash music. But Paul wrote YESTERDAY, and HELTER SKELTER, and LET IT BE, and OH DARLING and YOU GAVE ME THE ANSWER and TOO MANY PEOPLE, etc. etc. etc. He has worked in so many genres and done all of them so well.
"In the 70s, nobody thought John jamming with Yoko was cool. People felt (rightfully so) he was pushing her on the public. And that is what people thought about Paul having Linda in his band. Which was the truth on both counts." I disagree a bit. While maybe critics thought Lennon was pushing Yoko on people, they still considered her a "artist", Linda was openly mocked.
Critics? Maybe. Public? No way.
-
yankeefan7:
I disagree a bit. While maybe critics thought Lennon was pushing Yoko on people, they still considered her a "artist", Linda was openly mocked.
Disagreeing back. Yoko was intensely ridiculed for being with John, which is one reason he did not tour or play many concerts. Both Yoko and Linda were mocked and made fun of. Paul and John were both criticized for having their wives onstage. If you doubt it, read some of Lennon's interviews where he lashes out at critics and the public. He as much as said they left England because it was racist.
-
One Net smartypants wrong that "Wings" seemed like "The Partridge Family" to him, with Linda on the keyboards. Too wholesome to be cool, he implied. Was Yoko ridiculed, or John? Seems like it would have been John, as well, for messing around with Yoko, who was disliked and regarded as downright ugly by many? Yet Yoko experienced the brunt of the public's disapproval. The public was already pissed off by the Beatles breaking up. Maybe all this angst partially led to the frivolous dance party disco era, a reaction against the Beatles disbanding as well as trying to get over, be distracted from, the Vietnam war. Of course the Vietnam war was far, far worse. Immeasurably worse than the Beatles disbanding. Just some thoughts off the top of my head, obviously It's a bummer "New" isn't tearing up the charts, on fire. But listening to the New album is so much fun it makes me forget all that.
-
Frankly I'm amazed (no maybe about it!) that anyone here is surprised at 'New' not taking the charts by storm. As I've said before, releasing a Paul album at this time of year -- when other big guns are rolling out their latest efforts, Christmas-market compilations are coming thick and fast and (here in the UK) the dreaded X-Factor stocking-fillers are coming out -- shows either collossal naiveity or massive hubris on MPL's part. Did they learn nothing from the debacle of 'Driving Rain' (No.48 in the UK and, I think, No.27 in the US)? Considering Paul's limited (compared to the 80s) publicity push, I think it's done extremely well to chart as high as it has. If they had waited until March or April, it would've garnered more attention, hung around the charts for longer and - shock -- sold more. As it is, it's just getting lost in the Christmas rush. Anyone thinking Paul would storm to number 1 (particularly with such an uncommercial album) must be living on another planet. As for why all the people who go to his concerts aren't buying 'New', well, I'm afraid Paul has been hoisted on his own petard here. In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. How times have changed. This year, he's already been playing shows for months without ANY new songs (and the tour's called 'Out There', for heaven's sake!!!), and by the time he gets round to playing any more shows (outside of Japan) any hot word of mouth about the album will have evaporated. And no doubt there will be just 3 or 4 'New' songs slotted in apologetically early on in the set. And please, let's stop blaming this on Paul's alleged mid-80s 'slump'. That was a lifetime ago, and doesn't preclude people from buying his music now if it is (a) good enough, and (b) gets enough promotion. Lots of other artists have had commercial downturns -- Bob Dylan and Elton John included -- but they are still able to turn out big sellers. Maybe Paul isn't interested in No.1s or selling loads of albums anymore, but I doubt it. I just think that, over the past 10-15 years, he, MPL and successive record companies have lost the plot about how to go about doing it.
-
Mumbojunk:
Frankly I'm amazed (no maybe about it!) that anyone here is surprised at 'New' not taking the charts by storm. As I've said before, releasing a Paul album at this time of year -- when other big guns are rolling out their latest efforts, Christmas-market compilations are coming thick and fast and (here in the UK) the dreaded X-Factor stocking-fillers are coming out -- shows either collossal naiveity or massive hubris on MPL's part. Did they learn nothing from the debacle of 'Driving Rain' (No.48 in the UK and, I think, No.27 in the US)? Considering Paul's limited (compared to the 80s) publicity push, I think it's done extremely well to chart as high as it has. If they had waited until March or April, it would've garnered more attention, hung around the charts for longer and - shock -- sold more. As it is, it's just getting lost in the Christmas rush. Anyone thinking Paul would storm to number 1 (particularly with such an uncommercial album) must be living on another planet. As for why all the people who go to his concerts aren't buying 'New', well, I'm afraid Paul has been hoisted on his own petard here. In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. How times have changed. This year, he's already been playing shows for months without ANY new songs (and the tour's called 'Out There', for heaven's sake!!!), and by the time he gets round to playing any more shows (outside of Japan) any hot word of mouth about the album will have evaporated. And no doubt there will be just 3 or 4 'New' songs slotted in apologetically early on in the set. And please, let's stop blaming this on Paul's alleged mid-80s 'slump'. That was a lifetime ago, and doesn't preclude people from buying his music now if it is (a) good enough, and (b) gets enough promotion. Lots of other artists have had commercial downturns -- Bob Dylan and Elton John included -- but they are still able to turn out big sellers. Maybe Paul isn't interested in No.1s or selling loads of albums anymore, but I doubt it. I just think that, over the past 10-15 years, he, MPL and successive record companies have lost the plot about how to go about doing it.
Exactly. Love or hate OFF THE GROUND, McCartney did a proper world tour to promote that CD, and also TV (SNL in the USA). I am shocked a NEW tour has not been announced.
-
Here in the UK this evening, 'New' (the album) has dropped from 14 down to 41 whilst 'Queenie Eye' has failed to enter the top 100 singles.
-
Mumbojunk:
Frankly I'm amazed (no maybe about it!) that anyone here is surprised at 'New' not taking the charts by storm. As I've said before, releasing a Paul album at this time of year -- when other big guns are rolling out their latest efforts, Christmas-market compilations are coming thick and fast and (here in the UK) the dreaded X-Factor stocking-fillers are coming out -- shows either collossal naiveity or massive hubris on MPL's part. Did they learn nothing from the debacle of 'Driving Rain' (No.48 in the UK and, I think, No.27 in the US)? Considering Paul's limited (compared to the 80s) publicity push, I think it's done extremely well to chart as high as it has. If they had waited until March or April, it would've garnered more attention, hung around the charts for longer and - shock -- sold more. As it is, it's just getting lost in the Christmas rush. Anyone thinking Paul would storm to number 1 (particularly with such an uncommercial album) must be living on another planet. As for why all the people who go to his concerts aren't buying 'New', well, I'm afraid Paul has been hoisted on his own petard here. In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. How times have changed. This year, he's already been playing shows for months without ANY new songs (and the tour's called 'Out There', for heaven's sake!!!), and by the time he gets round to playing any more shows (outside of Japan) any hot word of mouth about the album will have evaporated. And no doubt there will be just 3 or 4 'New' songs slotted in apologetically early on in the set. And please, let's stop blaming this on Paul's alleged mid-80s 'slump'. That was a lifetime ago, and doesn't preclude people from buying his music now if it is (a) good enough, and (b) gets enough promotion. Lots of other artists have had commercial downturns -- Bob Dylan and Elton John included -- but they are still able to turn out big sellers. Maybe Paul isn't interested in No.1s or selling loads of albums anymore, but I doubt it. I just think that, over the past 10-15 years, he, MPL and successive record companies have lost the plot about how to go about doing it.
In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. " While I loved what McCartney played on the 1989 tour in support of FITD, it still peaked at #21 in US charts.
-
Maybe MPL thought, "Loads of people will buy 'New' to give for Chrissy pressies," and that's it. That's all the thought that was put into releasing "New" at this time! Look on the Bright side--we didn't have to wait "until March or April" for a proper new Paul album "Flowers in the Dirt" should have done way better-- that might be ascribed to Karma (?). But what had Paul done that was so bad? He does call himself a "sinner" in some "New" album lyrics--but his words refreshingly humble and down to earth, from the supposedly "egomaniac, arrogant" Paul. Not that I ever thought he's that big on egotism. I ascribed any such tendency to his artistic temperament
-
Kestrel:
Here in the UK this evening, 'New' (the album) has dropped from 14 down to 41 whilst 'Queenie Eye' has failed to enter the top 100 singles.
And CHER who charted one chart position behind Paul is still in the top 10 with a single in the top 40 too . NEW may crab another week in the top 75 but it's looking like a four week chart run here in the UK for his album .
-
yankeefan7:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
Beats me why having Linda in the band was uncool but Yoko playing with Lennon was hip - lol. Critics may have bashed the songs you mention but the general public did not, songs were a commercial hit. If I had to say anything that hurt McCartney in the 80's, it would be the flop movie. As for how "New" is doing in the charts, I just think it is the boomers are still stuck in the 60's and would not think of buying a recent McCartney CD.
Maybe you could qualify your answer by saying most or some boomers, okay? Thanks.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
yankeefan7:
I disagree a bit. While maybe critics thought Lennon was pushing Yoko on people, they still considered her a "artist", Linda was openly mocked.
Disagreeing back. Yoko was intensely ridiculed for being with John, which is one reason he did not tour or play many concerts. Both Yoko and Linda were mocked and made fun of. Paul and John were both criticized for having their wives onstage. If you doubt it, read some of Lennon's interviews where he lashes out at critics and the public. He as much as said they left England because it was racist.