Paul's new album and promotion
-
nobodytoldme:
MetalGod:
There is no record buying demographic for Taylor Swift - barely anyone in that demographic will want to 'own' music - it's all streaming. Technically you have a bigger McCartney record buying demographic
Completely incorrect. Taylor Swift catalogue wasn't even available on streaming outlets until 2 months ago. That's almost 3 years after the release of her latest hit album, which sold almost 7 million copies worldwide at that point. Also, "Swift's first-week sales were about evenly split between digital downloads and physical CDs, though 1989 sold slightly more physical copies (647,000) than digital downloads (640,000). 1989 logs the largest week for a physical album since Swift's last album, Red, launched with 743,000 physical copies in 2012. " (http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6304557/taylor-swift-collects-fourth-no-1-album-now-52-debuts-at-no-2 'New' did 217,000 copies in total in the US...
I don't mean latest record sales - as time goes on younger demographic of a certain age groups won't be 'buying' - it will shift to streaming numbers. The target audience for McCarntey will surpass, in general, physical purchases at a certain point - but who cares - at this point in his career I don't think he cares about the record selling numbers game. He makes albums from the standpoint of keeping in the game as a craftsman.
-
MetalGod:
nobodytoldme:
MetalGod:
There is no record buying demographic for Taylor Swift - barely anyone in that demographic will want to 'own' music - it's all streaming. Technically you have a bigger McCartney record buying demographic
Completely incorrect. Taylor Swift catalogue wasn't even available on streaming outlets until 2 months ago. That's almost 3 years after the release of her latest hit album, which sold almost 7 million copies worldwide at that point. Also, "Swift's first-week sales were about evenly split between digital downloads and physical CDs, though 1989 sold slightly more physical copies (647,000) than digital downloads (640,000). 1989 logs the largest week for a physical album since Swift's last album, Red, launched with 743,000 physical copies in 2012. " (http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6304557/taylor-swift-collects-fourth-no-1-album-now-52-debuts-at-no-2 'New' did 217,000 copies in total in the US...
I don't mean latest record sales - as time goes on younger demographic of a certain age groups won't be 'buying' - it will shift to streaming numbers. The target audience for McCarntey will surpass, in general, physical purchases at a certain point - but who cares - at this point in his career I don't think he cares about the record selling numbers game. He makes albums from the standpoint of keeping in the game as a craftsman.
It won't, as shown above. By the time there's no physical product being made any more, McCartney's target audience isn't able to buy any more anyway. A McCartney release in 2017 is a blip on the radar in comparison with current popular artists, streaming or physical released.
-
The Eggman67:
Well, this is some kind of a release (but not the one we're waiting for): https://macca-news.blogspot.com/2017/08/new-concert-dvd-featuring-paul-ringo.html
Why did I hear Alec Guinness' voice when reading this? This is not the release you're waiting for.
-
I don't hate Taylor Swift, so I'm not complaining about her success, but this doesn't make any sense.
thenightfish:
Not necessarily
From Billboard: "1989" sold 1.287 million copies in its debut week in 2014, becoming the first album that wasn't a Swift album to reach a million in a week since Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" in 2011.1989 (a Swift album) was the first album that wasn't a Swift album to reach X since Y?
-
nobodytoldme:
Kestrel:
nobodytoldme:
'New' did 217,000 copies in total in the US...
I think you'll find that the actual figure is 1,217,000......which is slightly more !!
I don't take everything on wiki as gospel but I think,given the size of the US and its market, New did sell well over 1m copies. 
The album debuted at number 1 on both the Billboard 200 and Billboard Canadian Albums in North American charts, with first-week sales of 97,000 copies in the United States and 48,500 units in Canada, respectively.[41][42] The album has sold 1,217,000 copies in the United States as of May 2016.I'd wish, but the source is key on WikiPedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20160505233342/http://hitsdailydouble.com/new_album_releases As of June 2016, 'New' sold 217,000 copies. Sad but true. Almost half of the total copies done in the first week, having no long tail whatsoever, almost non-existent.
Just looked at that link you provided and the Paul McCartney entry is for the compilation album, 'Pure McCartney'. Am I supposed to be looking at something else? I can't see 'New' listed at all.
-
HaileyMcComet:
I don't hate Taylor Swift, so I'm not complaining about her success, but this doesn't make any sense.
thenightfish:
Not necessarily
From Billboard: "1989" sold 1.287 million copies in its debut week in 2014, becoming the first album that wasn't a Swift album to reach a million in a week since Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" in 2011.1989 (a Swift album) was the first album that wasn't a Swift album to reach X since Y?
See above, "1989 logs the largest week for a physical album since Swift's last album, Red, launched with 743,000 physical copies in 2012."
Kestrel:
nobodytoldme:
Kestrel:
nobodytoldme:
'New' did 217,000 copies in total in the US...
I think you'll find that the actual figure is 1,217,000......which is slightly more !!
I don't take everything on wiki as gospel but I think,given the size of the US and its market, New did sell well over 1m copies. The album debuted at number 1 on both the Billboard 200 and Billboard Canadian Albums in North American charts, with first-week sales of 97,000 copies in the United States and 48,500 units in Canada, respectively.[41][42] The album has sold 1,217,000 copies in the United States as of May 2016.I'd wish, but the source is key on WikiPedia: https://web.archive.org/web/20160505233342/http://hitsdailydouble.com/new_album_releases As of June 2016, 'New' sold 217,000 copies. Sad but true. Almost half of the total copies done in the first week, having no long tail whatsoever, almost non-existent.
Just looked at that link you provided and the Paul McCartney entry is for the compilation album, 'Pure McCartney'. Am I supposed to be looking at something else? I can't see 'New' listed at all.
It mentions the then current "previous release to date" figures. The most recent figure we have is a whopping 2000 copies more from 2 months later, through Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7469706/paul-mccartney-signs-worldwide-deal-with-capitol-records "McCartney released his next three studio albums through Hear/Concord: Memory Almost Full (2007, peaking at No. 3; 636,000 sold in the U.S. according to Nielsen Music), Kisses on the Bottom (2012, No. 5; 280,000 sold) and New (2013, No. 3; 219,000 sold). "
-
nobodytoldme:
"McCartney released his next three studio albums through Hear/Concord: Memory Almost Full (2007, peaking at No. 3; 636,000 sold in the U.S. according to Nielsen Music), Kisses on the Bottom (2012, No. 5; 280,000 sold) and New (2013, No. 3; 219,000 sold). "
Well,that's certainly clear enough. In 6 years Paul,in the US at least, lost nearly two-thirds of his album sales.
Maybe poor marketing was a big factor as (IMHO) New is a much better album than Memory Almost Full. Its going to be interesting to see what the sales figures of his forthcoming album are going to be. -
No Kestrel, New is not a much better album than Memory Almost Full. And the math sort of proves it. 636 to 219!
-
Memory Almost Full had tremendous promotion behind it as well. Besides "listening parties" held in numerous cities, Paul and the band played two "secret gigs" (New York City and Los Angeles) the month it came out in the U.S. IIRC, it was his first release on Hear / Concord.
-
I prefer the long wait to get a "classical" McCartney album. and a classical "McCartney" album means ... full of melodies that lats in our memory forever. in addition to a couple of hits . his last 2 albums MAF and New were not bad but are easily forgettable. that's why they did not last in charts (sold well) except from very loyal fans. It does not matter who produce the album. what matters is how much "Paul McCartney" you can find in the album.
-
Kestrel:
nobodytoldme:
"McCartney released his next three studio albums through Hear/Concord: Memory Almost Full (2007, peaking at No. 3; 636,000 sold in the U.S. according to Nielsen Music), Kisses on the Bottom (2012, No. 5; 280,000 sold) and New (2013, No. 3; 219,000 sold). "
Well,that's certainly clear enough. In 6 years Paul,in the US at least, lost nearly two-thirds of his album sales.
Maybe poor marketing was a big factor as (IMHO) New is a much better album than Memory Almost Full. Its going to be interesting to see what the sales figures of his forthcoming album are going to be.Not comparable. A total of 500.5 million albums were purchased in 2007 in the US, in 2013 total album sales slumped to 289.4 million. That's half of the reason, the other is that the release of 'Memory Almost Full' really was an event with the promo machine in full force with the above mentioned Starbucks campaign, and 'New' was like an afterthought. Not even McCartney himself believed in it, doing some generic promo gigs focused on the same old material he always plays during the lousy promo campaign. I have high hopes Capitol is shaking up MPL.
-
Let's hope that Capitol does a good promotion behind the new album when it comes out in 2018
-
wingsoverkc:
No Kestrel, New is not a much better album than Memory Almost Full. And the math sort of proves it. 636 to 219!
Math doesn't prove what's good or bad.
-
wingsoverkc:
No Kestrel, New is not a much better album than Memory Almost Full. And the math sort of proves it. 636 to 219!
Ah, so your saying that this song (link is below) is better than 'Juniors Farm' because,in the same year, it reached a much higher chart position and sold many more copies? Fortunately sales and quality are not linked.
-
wingsoverkc:
No Kestrel, New is not a much better album than Memory Almost Full. And the math sort of proves it. 636 to 219!
While popularity absolutely does not equal artistic greatness, MAF runs circles around New in terms of quality. Not even close.
-
Bruce M.:
wingsoverkc:
No Kestrel, New is not a much better album than Memory Almost Full. And the math sort of proves it. 636 to 219!
While popularity absolutely does not equal artistic greatness, MAF runs circles around New in terms of quality. Not even close.
-
As I've stated before, MAF will be regarded as Paul''s late era classic. It runs circles around New. Not even close...as others have said.
-
JoeySmith:
As I've stated before, MAF will be regarded as Paul''s late era classic. It runs circles around New. Not even close...as others have said.
Closer than you think. Check out the rateyourmusic site where over 1,000 people have rated both albums, and who have given New a rating of 3.41 out of 5.oo and Memory almost Full 3.34 out of 5.00. http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/paul-mccartney For anyone interested, here are the Top 10 Paul / Wings albums (with year of release),based on their avearge ratings of popularity and not by sales. 1. Ram (1971) 3.95 2. Band On The Run (1973) 3.91 3. Chaos and Creation in the Backyard (2005) 3.72 4. Flaming Pie (1997) 3.64 5. McCartney (1970) 3.52 6. Tug of War (1982) 3.47 7. New (2013) 3.41 8. Flowers in the Dirt (1989) 3.40 9. Memory Almost Full (2007) 3.34 10. Driving Rain (2001) 3.33 Hopefully the forthcoming album will make that top 10 in time.
. -
Kestrel:
JoeySmith:
As I've stated before, MAF will be regarded as Paul''s late era classic. It runs circles around New. Not even close...as others have said.
Closer than you think. Check out the rateyourmusic site where over 1,000 people have rated both albums, and who have given New a rating of 3.41 out of 5.oo and Memory almost Full 3.34 out of 5.00. http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/paul-mccartney For anyone interested, here are the Top 10 Paul / Wings albums (with year of release),based on their avearge ratings of popularity and not by sales. 1. Ram (1971) 3.95 2. Band On The Run (1973) 3.91 3. Chaos and Creation in the Backyard (2005) 3.72 4. Flaming Pie (1997) 3.64 5. McCartney (1970) 3.52 6. Tug of War (1982) 3.47 7. New (2013) 3.41 8. Flowers in the Dirt (1989) 3.40 9. Memory Almost Full (2007) 3.34 10. Driving Rain (2001) 3.33 Hopefully the forthcoming album will make that top 10 in time.
._________________________________________________ Thanks Kestrel. A very interesting rankings' list and better than most I have seen. A far as the a top 10 list of Paul's best Albums (not considering the actual "order" of the list) there is in my opinion one album that gets seriously shortchanged. Venus and Mars should definitely (again my opinion) should be on Paul's top 10. I would easily have V&M on the list and remove any one of these 3 - McCartney, New or Driving Rain. I like all 3 but V&M is much more consistent. Not a bad track on V&M in my humble opinion.
-
JoeySmith:
As I've stated before, MAF will be regarded as Paul''s late era classic. It runs circles around New. Not even close...as others have said.
___________________________________________________________ I agree 100% Joey. I think MAF is very underrated in general. Even on the list that Kestrel found, MAF is listed as #9. I personally would have MAF ahead of McCartney and New. I have stated numerous times along with others about the greatness of MAF. The CHAOS and MAF period for Paul was extremely fruitful relative to songwriting. I think what hurts MAF was the sound quality of the recording. The sound on some of the tracks was so poor. I know that Bruce and I (and a few others) have discussed how Chaos and Maf while so different were both great Paul Solo albums.
