New in the Charts Thread
-
Wingsla:
Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us....
: Band On The Run alone went Platinum. That's 1,000,000 sold. Or do you mean in the first week? Sorry if that's what you meant!
-
Sir Guy Grand:
Very Pleased with # 3 position for New it's the first time he's hit # 3 on UK the album chart with an original studio album , Kisses On The Bottom got to # 3 but that was mostly a covers album . Its his 25th UK top 10 album since The Beatles broke up and his 51st top 10 album in the UK in total . His UK album career spans over 50 years from 6/4/1963 to 26/10/2013 To still be hitting the top 3 after fifty years is an incredible achievement
-
Mr. Spock:
oobu24:
Billboard is saying top 5... http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5763106/avett-brothers-paul-mccartney-heading-for-top-five-on-billboard
This really irks me. Notice that he and Miley Cyrus have the exact same prediction: 75k. Despite this, they are putting her ahead of him for #2. They never gave a reason to justify this, instead there's just a smug assumption that we will agree with them that she in her 2nd week will "obviously" outsell a 71-year old in his 1st week. This is just a quick snapshot of what we've seen all over. If you read further down, its even worse for Willie Nelson. As someone mentioned earlier: If Michael Buble's "Haven't Met You Yet" appealed to the radio and charts, then "New" definitely could. Paul has been playing a delicate balancing act of moving forward while being chained to the past for most of his career. He did phenomenal with Wings, which was the first time he truly liberated himself from the Beatles' shadow. Then in the 80s he was trying to survive without either - all while being a pop singer in his 40s. He did pretty well world wide at the start of the '80s with high-charting albums and several successful duets with younger artists, but I think he started to slump in the US with Broad street in '84. Considering that Broad Street did well in the UK and a year later he had immense success with "Spies Like Us," his last #1 single to date, I think he obviously could have survived that mild slump in the US that was largely associated with the flop film it was named for. But then that was followed up with Press to Play. Silly as it may seem, I think he was never been able to shake the impact of that period in the states, being a middle-aged rocker with a 5-year slump. In a subconscious way, I think that US media has consistently marketed him as "the former Beatle" from that point on since he had no solo success from the weight of his own name in recent memory. And here we are in 2013 with several successes since then that no one remembers, yet everyone knows the Beatles. You won't hear television hosts say "and now, the creator of the hit-album Flaming Pie... Paul McCartney!" (while on the subject, lets not forget that FP came fresh off the Anthology period, which might explain why it went #2) I'm curious as to how he would be seen by today's media if he had hit albums in the states during the '84-'89 period, rather than a lukewarm lull and silence. Anyway, he could still have a #1 today, but he has to be smart about it and, unfortunately, try harder than Dylan or Bowie have to...
No question that that period damaged his US reputation (and "We All Stand Together" wasn't even a hit over here!). And I agree, FP's success had a lot to do with the Anthology's success, just as "Tug of War"'s success had a lot to do with the fact that everyone was waiting for "Paul's statement" in the wake of John's death (in addition to Stevie Wonder and George Martin's involvement). And let's not forget Paul's "people-pleasing" persona, which certainly puts off a lot of people who praise Dylan and Bowie. There's very little "air of mystery" around Paul.
-
The thing is Bob Dylan has it easier in 2013 because although he is often overshadowed by his 1960's music, he was always a SOLO artist! When 99.5% of people think about Paul McCartney these days they think about him as an ex-member of a band thats been defunct for 43 years and has 1/2 of its line-up deceased. Bob Dylan is still the same legendary artist he was in 1965 whereas Paul is the same but he is missing 3/4's of the group of guys who he built his initial legacy with! In that respect a No. 3 placing is very good for an artist of Paul's age with no duet gimmicks or anything like that!
-
favoritething:
No question that that period damaged his US reputation (and "We All Stand Together" wasn't even a hit over here!). And I agree, FP's success had a lot to do with the Anthology's success, just as "Tug of War"'s success had a lot to do with the fact that everyone was waiting for "Paul's statement" in the wake of John's death (in addition to Stevie Wonder and George Martin's involvement). And let's not forget Paul's "people-pleasing" persona, which certainly puts off a lot of people who praise Dylan and Bowie. There's very little "air of mystery" around Paul.
Generally Paul comes across as too accessible and sensible compared to Dylan and Bowie and their ilk, being a nice guy is seen as wimpy and deeply uncool unfortunately. I think a lot of fans just got fed up with Paul's patchy output and then around the early '80's jumped ship never to return.
-
MaccaBeatles:
The thing is Bob Dylan has it easier in 2013 because although he is often overshadowed by his 1960's music, he was always a SOLO artist! When 99.5% of people think about Paul McCartney these days they think about him as an ex-member of a band thats been defunct for 43 years and has 1/2 of its line-up deceased. Bob Dylan is still the same legendary artist he was in 1965 whereas Paul is the same but he is missing 3/4's of the group of guys who he built his initial legacy with! In that respect a No. 3 placing is very good for an artist of Paul's age with no duet gimmicks or anything like that!
Very good point indeed. Although Paul's output since the Beatles has been inconsistent i do feel that even if it was the equal of the Fabs catalogue it would still be seen as inferior. Once you've been in he biggest band of all time there's only one way to go and that's down according to the majority, it's so myopic to me.
-
Wingsla:
How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!!
his 'ever present past' hehe of course though, he is not 'worried' about that, at least that's not what i've ever gathered from hearing him, but yes to the point that it's really the interviewers who prompt that era so often in interviews that he cannot always escape it and has to politely reply about it
-
Mr. Spock:
oobu24:
Billboard is saying top 5... http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/5763106/avett-brothers-paul-mccartney-heading-for-top-five-on-billboard
This really irks me. Notice that he and Miley Cyrus have the exact same prediction: 75k. Despite this, they are putting her ahead of him for #2. They never gave a reason to justify this, instead there's just a smug assumption that we will agree with them that she in her 2nd week will "obviously" outsell a 71-year old in his 1st week. This is just a quick snapshot of what we've seen all over. If you read further down, its even worse for Willie Nelson. As someone mentioned earlier: If Michael Buble's "Haven't Met You Yet" appealed to the radio and charts, then "New" definitely could. Paul has been playing a delicate balancing act of moving forward while being chained to the past for most of his career. He did phenomenal with Wings, which was the first time he truly liberated himself from the Beatles' shadow. Then in the 80s he was trying to survive without either - all while being a pop singer in his 40s. He did pretty well world wide at the start of the '80s with high-charting albums and several successful duets with younger artists, but I think he started to slump in the US with Broad street in '84. Considering that Broad Street did well in the UK and a year later he had immense success with "Spies Like Us," his last top 10 single to date, I think he obviously could have survived that mild slump in the US that was largely associated with the flop film it was named for. But then that was followed up with Press to Play. Silly as it may seem, I think he was never been able to shake the impact of that period in the states, being a middle-aged rocker with a 5-year slump. In a subconscious way, I think that US media has consistently marketed him as "the former Beatle" from that point on since he had no solo success from the weight of his own name in recent memory. And here we are in 2013 with several successes since then that no one remembers, yet everyone knows the Beatles. You won't hear television hosts say "and now, the creator of the hit-album Flaming Pie... Paul McCartney!" (while on the subject, lets not forget that FP came fresh off the Anthology period, which might explain why it went #2) I'm curious as to how he would be seen by today's media if he had hit albums in the states during the '84-'89 period, rather than a lukewarm lull and silence. Anyway, he could still have a #1 today, but he has to be smart about it and, unfortunately, try harder than Dylan or Bowie have to...
IMO - there is no way McCartney or any of the four would ever escape being marketed as ex- Beatles. It is the "blessing" and "curse" of being in the greatest band ever. McCartney may have had a 5 yr slump in mid 80's but FITD got pretty good critical reviews and the media liked McCartney's 1989 concert tour. Matter of fact, the media has always had high praise for McCartney as a live performer. Unfortunately, McCartney has not been able to produce a "killer" single and get radio play which back then would have really helped the albums. I thought "My Brave Face" was a pretty good single but others obviously did not and it was not a hit. Dylan gets mention a lot and really how many decades has it been since he had a top single or gets radio airplay for his new recordings. Bowie may have done well with his recent CD because he had not done anything in so many years so people were probably curious and gave it a shot. I think it all boils down to the fact that the baby boomers are mostly interested in him as "Beatle Paul" and has not bought a new CD from him since maybe BOTR - lol. If they are going to buy something, it will be one of his live CD's since it has plenty of Beatle songs. I think more people bought into Wings because McCartney not only did some excellent stuff like BOTR but he was writing songs that were commercial and made good singles. (My Love, Maybe I'm Amazed, BOTR, Jet, Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, Listen To What The Man Said etc) Remember TOW did well in 1982 which was shortly after Lennon's death which may have helped. TOW also had a huge single hit with "Ebony and Ivory" which also had a video that was played constantly on MTV. While people on this board may not have like "Ebony and Ivory", it still paired two superstars together and got great publicity for McCartney's TOW album. "Take It Away" was the next single and while not a #1 hit, I believe it was at least a top 20 song., plus it had Ringo in the video. I would have loved a #1 but it will not happen, #3 is still good. My hope now is that "New" has some legs and does not rapidly disappear from the charts. Finally, think about the fact that Miley Cyrus is probably going to be the #2 or #3 CD this week. I mean that says it all about the public's taste in music.
-
Nancy R:
Wingsla:
Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us....
: Band On The Run alone went Platinum. That's 1,000,000 sold. Or do you mean in the first week? Sorry if that's what you meant!
A handful of Wings albums went platinum, as I recall. But sales figures -- and especially weekly sales figures -- are far less precise for that period because it predates Neilsen SoundScan, which has been the standard metric since 1991. Also, gold and platinum certifications are based on shipments, not sales -- which is bizarre, but so is much about the recording industry.
-
Frank:
Let`s face it : Paul`s heading for another commercial disappointment. No way he`s going to overtake Pearl Jam on Billboard. It is a complete mystery why Paul`s sales don`t take off. He really has gone out of his way to promote NEW. Try finding the album on any charts in 4-5 weeks time...you`ll find it but you`ll have to scroll way down. And then you look at Dylan with albums coming out every other year, no promotion to speak of and they still enter at No. 1. I have Modern Times by Dylan which just sounds like Love and Theft its predecessor. I stopped buying then. (Though I love Time out of Mind) I DON`T GET IT ?!? Does it boil down to "image". Paul coming across as over-eager and forever tied to "Early Days" in interviews. Not cool like Bowie or Dylan. I kind of think there is a refusal to properly listen to his new music. It`s always Beatles this and Beatles that in reviews. For F***s sake this man has probably released a dozen truly fantastic albums after the Beatles split. He hasn`t put a foot wrong since Flaming Pie (YES I love Driving Rain). "Road" from NEW has nothing whatsoever reminding me of the Beatles, but it`s bloody brilliant! SO WHY DOESN`T HE SELL 4 MILLION COPIES WORLDWIDE ??? ( That`s the figure for Dylan`s Modern Times)
I can only speak /about the US market. No aging rocker sells in the millions hear anymore. Not Dylan, Springsteen, Bowie, Stones etc. While Dylan gets fantastic reviews, his album generally hit 600K tops. Elton only had about 40K in his first week here. It is only the younger artists that can sell past 1Million anymore. Why all the doom and gloom? Like I said in my past post, a #2 or #3 is great for someone who is 71. I do have hope for "New" however to have legs (more than MAF or Chaos). I think it is a great album and I don't recall as many reviews that were as glowing as New. And it has only been out barely a week at this point. There is still time for this album to grow. Hopefully, Paul will make more national US appearances in the next couple of weeks and 1 or 2 of the songs will get noticed one way or another. Hopefully, Paul and his Marketing team have not given up on NEW. I'm sure there are things being planned that haven't been announced yet.
-
Major disappointment that 'New' did not make #1. Even Flower made #1 & this is a much better album.
-
This is upsetting because we all wanted this #1 spot so bad. And it's not just few hardcore fans like myself, but Giles Martin, Macca himself , we were all in this together, unfortunately it wasn't enough, and we came up short. We lost out to Pearl Jam and this unknown kid that I never even heard of. MAcca himself cares, he even stated that he is a very competitive person, and that's why I like him so much, he is like me, I am competitive, so of course we want to be the best and beat everybody else. If macca didn't care, he wouldn't be rallying between LA, Vegas, NY and london, he could have just released the album quietly, and called it a day, instead he was rallying like no tomorrow, and that's a sign that he really wanted this #1. Please do not use age as an excuse, because Dylan, BOwie, Stone, Rod steart, even tony bennet had a #1 recently....... Was this marketing strategy this time around perfect, NO, but it was a vast improvement from the poor marketing he had with Driving, Chaos, and MAF. Macca was all over the news , MAgazines, all over, yet, we came up short. THis is what I think went wrong: TIming, he should have released NEW in JUN or AUG, around the time he played bonnaroo and OSL......I am 100 percent sure that at least 50 percent of those people who sae him , would have bought the album. Wrong Single: NEW nor Quennie are good enough to be radio friendly, they are certainly not the strongest songs on the album, doesn't appeal to anyone, young fans would have identified themselves more with Save US, everybody, or appreciate or even I can bet. A video and single should have come out 2 months before. 3: While Pearl Jam were selling their album on itunes for 9.99, macca was selling it at 14.99......... 4: Franz ferdinand did something I thought would have worked beautifully for Macca, He could have had promotional shows, but in order for people to be admitted to these shows, the requirement is that everybody had to pre order the album in order to be guaranteed entry.......if he would have had say, 4 shows like that in the US, and played in 4 stadiums to 60 000 people, 60 000 pre order times 4 would have been 240,000 copies already. You do that in the UK, and have 3 gigs at wembley stadium, 70 000 x 3 +210 000, that would have been a sure #1 hit. Because he wouldn't be giving away free albums, it would be counted for the album charts count. Anyway, maybe for the next album, he should do that....but for now, I am very very very disappointed and sad.
-
^ yes, perhaps he should have been performing 'everybody out there' during ALL concerts for 2013, leading up all the way from May 2013 (Brazil) to now (and he already had been using the 12-string live for 2013 throughout), so that the 'out there' tour would have had the leadup meaning actually fulfilled with the song 'everybody out there' (as he said previously during those times that a song on the upcoming album would fit the name of the tour) BUT EXECUTED AT THE RIGHT TIME, i.e. throughout the tour, which included from the start of the tour. i feel this would have lead to more of what most of us here were hoping for regarding charting, etc.
-
hey, New has sold more copies than the album at #4 but less copies than the album at #2........isn't it all exciting?
-
It's such a disappointment that Paul as only had 22 UK # 1 albums and 25 US # 1 albums in his 50 year career . Bob Dylan as had 7 UK # 1 albums and 5 US # 1 Albums , David Bowie as had 9 UK # 1 albums and hasn't had a US # 1 album . Yes Paul hasn't had a solo number 1 album for years like Dylan and Bowie have had recently but his combined Beatles/Solo record achievements are off the scale no one comes close to him in terms of album achievements in a matter of weeks he will become the first artist to spend 2000 weeks on the UK album chart that's over 38 years on the UK album chart . We should really be disappointed with his 50 year album career and that New only got to # 3 in the UK , cut the poor old guy some slack and praise him for his incredible achievements over the years . So he's a little uncool in the eyes of some but the record books show that his 50 year album career is second to none
-
.....and also spare a thought to the thousands of artists who have released albums that have never charted at all. A top 5 album from Paul is a great result but the real test now is seeing just how long its going to hang around the top 40.
-
I suspected it wouldnt get to number 1 to release it at this time of the year with the current "big guns" was always going to be a tall order to get to the top of the pile,never heard of the lad at Number 1 but and i say this as a Paul fan really happy that Pearl Jam's album has charted so highly it is a fine album from a great band. As i said in an earlier post the trick is will NEW have the legs for a long ish stay in the charts,i think if its still knocking round the top 30 in 6 months time Paul and his team will be more than happy with its performance but i have an uneasy feeling it'll disappear quicker than we hope once the hoopla dies down i really hope im wrong but we'll see.
-
There's a good chance that Paul's sales will be steady enough to hit No. 1 next week.
-
audi:
There's a good chance that Paul's sales will be steady enough to hit No. 1 next week.
Surely that's the winner of the: '2013 Maccaboards Most Optimistic Post Of The Year' award ?
-
audi:
There's a good chance that Paul's sales will be steady enough to hit No. 1 next week.
I doubt it in the UK,Katy Perry's new concept album,a magnum opus that spans 5 cds and in sung in martian and Venusian with solo's from Hendrix,Clapton ,with lyrics from all the greats of the last 40 years its bound to be a smash or she could release the usual forgetable pap she normally does and it'll still hit number 1. I wonder which version it will be