New in the Charts Thread
-
Hate to say it, but nobody gives a f-ck about Rolling Stone anymore. Even their brilliant, investigative-journalistic reports fall on deaf ears.
-
audi:
RMartinez:
I have already said it, but will say it again. Paul should have released NEW, announced a NEW WORLD TOUR of Europe and the Americas, then did the TV shows and surprise mini-concerts.
Admittedly, the announcement of the tour back in the spring, only to be followed up with no album or new songs on that tour, was very anticlimactic for me. It just seemed like much ado about nothing. However, the subsequent marketing -- once the "New" single was released -- couldn't have been better. They did everything right.
I have no problem with HOW it was promoted. But timing, as they say, is everything. And timing was off in many ways. Where are NEW tour dates? Announce them in February, and no one will give a crap about the CD then. It will be dead in the water. But I agree about naming the tour OUT THERE in the Spring, then having nothing new to promote until October.
-
Agree 100%.
-
RMartinez:
audi:
RMartinez:
I have already said it, but will say it again. Paul should have released NEW, announced a NEW WORLD TOUR of Europe and the Americas, then did the TV shows and surprise mini-concerts.
Admittedly, the announcement of the tour back in the spring, only to be followed up with no album or new songs on that tour, was very anticlimactic for me. It just seemed like much ado about nothing. However, the subsequent marketing -- once the "New" single was released -- couldn't have been better. They did everything right.
I have no problem with HOW it was promoted. But timing, as they say, is everything. And timing was off in many ways. Where are NEW tour dates? Announce them in February, and no one will give a crap about the CD then. It will be dead in the water. But I agree about naming the tour OUT THERE in the Spring, then having nothing new to promote until October.
There was a lot of excitement when all those concert-dates were being announced left n' right. Alas, instead of getting some long-overdue, brand-new Paul McCartney songs, we got "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" and several other old songs. Just didn't make sense to me.
-
I dont understand why the 'New' album wasnt released in the Spring to coincide with his tour - less competition for album sales, eligible for the Grammys, & the tour markets the new album naturally. What was the point in waiting 6 months??
-
He's fallen out of the Top 100 in the iTunes album chart. I imagine he must be resting and/or rehearsing for Japan right now, rather than barnstorming the States again. His success with that Line thing over there is quite incredible. I'd never heard of it before, but it's obviously huge. I think he's probably giving the Beatles BBC set a little promotional space right now. He does have a stake in not overshadowing that, I suppose. But we'll keep waiting and watching for new "New" news!
-
Also releasing an album with so much competition in the charts is fool hardy. And there was still no chance of reaching young fans, however the oldies may have reached into their pocketbooks for the cd if it was available during the tour, and if he did a few of the new songs. Doesn't make much sense at all to me.
-
favoritething:
He's fallen out of the Top 100 in the iTunes album chart. I imagine he must be resting and/or rehearsing for Japan right now, rather than barnstorming the States again. His success with that Line thing over there is quite incredible. I'd never heard of it before, but it's obviously huge. I think he's probably giving the Beatles BBC set a little promotional space right now. He does have a stake in not overshadowing that, I suppose. But we'll keep waiting and watching for new "New" news!
The Japanese leg of the two may revive global sales decently. Hoping for the best. Such a great album.
-
RMartinez:
audi:
RMartinez:
I have already said it, but will say it again. Paul should have released NEW, announced a NEW WORLD TOUR of Europe and the Americas, then did the TV shows and surprise mini-concerts.
Admittedly, the announcement of the tour back in the spring, only to be followed up with no album or new songs on that tour, was very anticlimactic for me. It just seemed like much ado about nothing. However, the subsequent marketing -- once the "New" single was released -- couldn't have been better. They did everything right.
I have no problem with HOW it was promoted. But timing, as they say, is everything. And timing was off in many ways. Where are NEW tour dates? Announce them in February, and no one will give a crap about the CD then. It will be dead in the water. But I agree about naming the tour OUT THERE in the Spring, then having nothing new to promote until October.
The initial round of publicity in the U.S. leading up to the release was brilliant. But he really should have skipped some of those summer U.S. tour dates and hit the road with the album NOW. Without a tour or anymore press or TV appearances, the thing is going to sink like a stone. Sigh...
-
Hindsight is 20/20, but I wonder what MPL was thinking? Of course if the album simply wasn't finished and couldn't be before/during the U.S. tour, what else could they do?
-
^^You'd think they could have concentrated on that! If not having the cds ready for sale at the events at least perform a couple of the songs to stir up some interest.
-
I live in Brazil and New is going out here today (I think in all South America). On his first week New sold 165,000 without being released worldwide. It´s not bad at all, doing better than Kisses on the bottom. But he has to aim on his main target, on TV shows (not teenagers one, that Graham Norton is f*** stupid, c´mon). Go on Ellen, Letterman etc. And go on tour Paul, is always top ranking.
-
oobu24:
^^You'd think they could have concentrated on that! If not having the cds ready for sale at the events at least perform a couple of the songs to stir up some interest.
Yep.
-
Official Billboard chart shows Paul at #11 this week. Still outselling Scotty McCreery, though; that'll be my bar for success.
-
I'll say it again: There is a God. Scott McCreery's "I Love You This Big" is hands-down the worst country song all of time. Garbage.
-
It's bizarre to even see Paul's name mentioned in a sentence with Scotty McCreery's. He's from Garner, N.C., I used to work there. I can't stand that deep, deep singing voice of his. He's a "professional hick" really laying the country boy persona on thick, but he really is that, LOL, even though Garner's a suburb of Raleigh.
-
At the end of the day everyone who wants to buy a copy of New will do so and all those who don't want to buy a copy, won't. New doesn't deserve to sell any more or less copies than it has done so. All things considered I think New has done pretty well in the charts.
-
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.
-
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.
Looking from the outside the IHeart Festival crowd were the most boring lot you'd ever see. I was surprised he did new songs to an audience that wasn't his own, but it makes a change for him to do that rather than the usual Beatles stuff. I agree though that anybody under 30 isn't really going to buy Paul's music no matter how good it is, it's not their bag.
-
audi:
Hate to say it, but nobody gives a f-ck about Rolling Stone anymore. Even their brilliant, investigative-journalistic reports fall on deaf ears.
Actually, the magazine's print circulation is 1.5 million. That's almost as many people as watch Late Night With Jimmy Fallon on any given night.