Saturation point?
-
Nancy R:
audi:
Paul is too much of a force in my life. I couldn't imagine going six or seven years without hearing anything from him.
lisalou7:
audi:
Paul is too much of a force in my life. I couldn't imagine going six or seven years without hearing anything from him.
-
just another queston to add to this, if paul didnt release as much as he has over the last couple of years, would he have a bigger or smaller fanbase? because if he did release less, there is a chance that a lot of fans would get spiked about nothing happening which could possibly start a new group of paul fans who want something to happen... That's something else to consider as well
-
Ring064:
just another queston to add to this, if paul didnt release as much as he has over the last couple of years, would he have a bigger or smaller fanbase? because if he did release less, there is a chance that a lot of fans would get spiked about nothing happening which could possibly start a new group of paul fans who want something to happen... That's something else to consider as well
It's a waste of time to speculate because there is NO WAY Paul McCartney is going to ever "disappear" for 5 years (like John sort of did) and not produce any music. He will be writing, singing, recording, and appearing for as long as it is physically possible for him. End of story.
-
Nancy R:
Ring064:
just another queston to add to this, if paul didnt release as much as he has over the last couple of years, would he have a bigger or smaller fanbase? because if he did release less, there is a chance that a lot of fans would get spiked about nothing happening which could possibly start a new group of paul fans who want something to happen... That's something else to consider as well
It's a waste of time to speculate because there is NO WAY Paul McCartney is going to ever "disappear" for 5 years (like John sort of did) and not produce any music. He will be writing, singing, recording, and appearing for as long as it is physically possible for him. End of story.
I wont argue with that... very good point....
-
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.
wot B.J. said ?
-
audi:
Yes. Really.
Wow.
-
Ring064:
Nancy R:
Ring064:
just another queston to add to this, if paul didnt release as much as he has over the last couple of years, would he have a bigger or smaller fanbase? because if he did release less, there is a chance that a lot of fans would get spiked about nothing happening which could possibly start a new group of paul fans who want something to happen... That's something else to consider as well
It's a waste of time to speculate because there is NO WAY Paul McCartney is going to ever "disappear" for 5 years (like John sort of did) and not produce any music. He will be writing, singing, recording, and appearing for as long as it is physically possible for him. End of story.
I wont argue with that... very good point....
I'll second that.
-
McCartney is prolific, and there has been only rare periods where we didn't hear from him musically, but even then it was only a few years. Concerts are another story. Yes, he plays the USA quite a bit now, but he didn't between 1966 and 1976. Then he stayed away from 1976 to 1989. Then he did not perform here between 1993 and 2002. So there have been gaps. But we survived! But now that he is 71, he may feel it necessary to perform as much as possible, record as much as possible, etc. Who can blame him? It will all come to a stop at some point, why worry about that now? He should just record and perform as much as his heart desires.
-
But he kept making/releasing music. That's the point that I was trying to make. No need to be so dismissive.
-
audi:
But he kept making/releasing music. That's the point that I was trying to make. No need to be so dismissive.
Sometimes you can be very sensitive!
-
RMartinez:
audi:
But he kept making/releasing music. That's the point that I was trying to make. No need to be so dismissive.
Sometimes you can be very sensitive!
I can be too! Sure I think if Paul laid low and didn't do anything at all for 10 yrs, his comeback would go to #1, just based on build up and marketing the 'event'. but I'll take the saturation approach to output anyday.
-
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.
-
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.
What is interesting is he was actually quite clean cut on the 2002 tour. He then seemed to decide that was not a look he wanted, and grew his hair out. Even in 1989 and 1993 he was salt and pepper in some photos, and looked great, IMO.
-
-
This is a ridiculous thread. Being in the public eye constantly didn't hurt the Beatles in the 1960s or Miley Cyrus now. Besides, he's not all over the place. He is averaging an album every year and a half or so and touring every once in a while. Certainly not oversaturating the market. Keep it coming, Paul!
-
RMartinez:
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.
What is interesting is he was actually quite clean cut on the 2002 tour. He then seemed to decide that was not a look he wanted, and grew his hair out. Even in 1989 and 1993 he was salt and pepper in some photos, and looked great, IMO.
Don't you think perhaps HM had something to say about his haircut/dye job 2000-2006? Here's your 1989/good example--he looks great!
-
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.
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
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.
What is interesting is he was actually quite clean cut on the 2002 tour. He then seemed to decide that was not a look he wanted, and grew his hair out. Even in 1989 and 1993 he was salt and pepper in some photos, and looked great, IMO.
Don't you think perhaps HM had something to say about his haircut/dye job 2000-2006? Here's your 1989/good example--he looks great!
Yeah, HM might have had some influence. Still, Paul does get clean cut every now and then!
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
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.
What is interesting is he was actually quite clean cut on the 2002 tour. He then seemed to decide that was not a look he wanted, and grew his hair out. Even in 1989 and 1993 he was salt and pepper in some photos, and looked great, IMO.
Don't you think perhaps HM had something to say about his haircut/dye job 2000-2006?
I was gonna say the same thing. BUT his hair was shorter thus it actually looked better than now.
-
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!