New in the Charts Thread
-
B J Conlee:
I'm not concerned that Paul won't be #1 in US this coming Thursday. We know he can't catch Pearl Jam. But I will be thrilled if he comes in # 2 or even 3. Pearl Jam has a very strong legion of rabid fans (a la Springsteen) that are going to run out and buy the album in the first week. Obviously, Paul has many fans but not as many of the fanatical variety (like we are on this site) as Pearl Jam. What I will be very interested to see is how well "NEW" does in the 2nd and 3rd week and through 2013. In the last couple of decades, Paul's albums do well in the 1st couple of weeks and then drift rather quickly out of the Top 200. "NEW" has a chance I think to be different and stay on the charts much longer. I say that because of all the 'buzz" it is going and all the great reviews. I do think that Paul needs to get back in the States and do some high level shows quickly in order to keep the momentum. It will also be helpful if he can get some radio airplay. If "Queenie Eye" doesn't work as a single (I think the video is coming out this week) I am hoping that "Save Us" becomes the next single. I don't have SIRIUS, but I wonder if Paul's team is trying to arrange a "month long" All Paul station focusing a lot on "NEW". I think that would also help tremendously. "NEW" is so good quality wise, but people need to hear the songs before they would go out of their way to purchase.
I agree with you, will be very happy at #2 or #3. I think you also made good point about McCartney's records doing well the first two weeks and then falling out of charts quickly. I am hoping maybe holiday season will help him in that maybe people will buy them for someone as a Christmas gift. Actually, I may do that for my sister-in law who is one of those who has seem McCartney 6-7 times in concert but never buys his lastest CD's.
-
Last album that went to number 1 in the uk was flowers and not tug. Even broad street went to number one in the uk. In the 90's the only worldwide hit he had was hope of deliverance. It was a massive hit in many European countries and huge in Latin America. I really thought that this time around we would finally have a n.1, New was better promoted than any of his previous 5 albums. Unfortunately the marketing campaign wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement from previous albums. The failure to have a video when a single came out, still don't get it. Didn't Paul tell Michael Jackson that videos are important ? Let's not use age as am excuse, Dylan, springsteen, the stones , rod stweart , Bowie, all had number 1 s in recent years.....and let s face it, U2 are in their 50's too, the red hot chili peppers are in their 50's too..... So age is not a factor. Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us.... So it's not even about the current market. My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! He just refuses to stay relevant.... He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! To me this feels like an election or something, I feel exactly the same way as when I voted for Romney, I was so sad he came in second despite a great campaign and great debates. Same thing for Paul, so sad that he failed to beat out pearl jam despite all these surprise gigs and tv shows..... Maybe it s because of not having a hit single? But again , rod did it without a hit single... Etc.....
-
Wingsla:
Last album that went to number 1 in the uk was flowers and not tug. Even broad street went to number one in the uk. In the 90's the only worldwide hit he had was hope of deliverance. It was a massive hit in many European countries and huge in Latin America. I really thought that this time around we would finally have a n.1, New was better promoted than any of his previous 5 albums. Unfortunately the marketing campaign wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement from previous albums. The failure to have a video when a single came out, still don't get it. Didn't Paul tell Michael Jackson that videos are important ? Let's not use age as am excuse, Dylan, springsteen, the stones , rod stweart , Bowie, all had number 1 s in recent years.....and let s face it, U2 are in their 50's too, the red hot chili peppers are in their 50's too..... So age is not a factor. Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us.... So it's not even about the current market. My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! He just refuses to stay relevant.... He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! To me this feels like an election or something, I feel exactly the same way as when I voted for Romney, I was so sad he came in second despite a great campaign and great debates. Same thing for Paul, so sad that he failed to beat out pearl jam despite all these surprise gigs and tv shows..... Maybe it s because of not having a hit single? But again , rod did it without a hit single... Etc.....
"My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! " Check the setlist of his tours in 1989 and 1993 and I believe McCartney did 5-6 songs from FITD during 1989 tour and the same was true with OTG in 1993. These tours are not even close to being as Beatle heavy as the current tour. I am not a expert on his setlist with all of his tours but I am pretty sure he played at least four songs from CHAOS live (Jenny Wren, Fine Line, English Tea, FollowMe). Playing these songs live to did not make any of those records a huge hit in the US. "He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! " Part of this is due to the people interviewing McCartney ask at least 75% of the questions about the Beatles/John. I forget what show it was recently but McCartney was asked "What was the first song he wrote with John?" Kind of tough to stay relevant if they ask you mostly about what happened 50 years ago.
-
I can't really be sad for him because of the number 1 lack, look at all his other tremendous blessings which he "appreciates"
-
New is currently No. 2 in the Amazon Most Wished For CD chart.
-
I think we all are very disappointed that the album failed to reach n 1 in the uk and us. I am sure that Macca himself and his team really wanted to win this time around.... That s why they waited to select the release date. They thought that the easiest competitor to beat was pearl jam.....they knew they d sell around 170k.. So Macca was hoping to mirror maf sales to have a chance..... Turned out that the sales were soft.... Even giles Martin tweeted " let s try to do everything we can to make new n.1" So that tells me that Macca and company really wanted this one just as bad as some of us ... I think he should have released NEW during the summer to coincide with the tour.....especially around the time he played bonaroo and osl.... I think at least 50 percent of those people who were at roo and osl would have bought the album.
-
New has debuted at number 3 in the official UK album charts, which is okay, but with all the publicity it's a little disappointing. I think unless Paul has a top ten hit again he'll never get to number one in the album chart again.
-
BOYCIE:
New has debuted at number 3 in the official UK album charts, which is okay, but with all the publicity it's a little disappointing. I think unless Paul has a top ten hit again he'll never get to number one in the album chart again.
Sad but true. This is about as good a job marketing I have seen his team do and they have also received very nice critical reviews. With all that, still could not make it happen. Oh well, guess we all will just have to go back and just enjoy "New".
-
Hopefully his next album will get to n 1. But he needs to change few things up, like having a video, choosing the right single, coincide with a tour with at least 10 songs from new album in the set list etc.....
-
NEW is #3 in the UK Album charts!! http://www.officialcharts.com/albums-chart/
-
yankeefan7:
BOYCIE:
New has debuted at number 3 in the official UK album charts, which is okay, but with all the publicity it's a little disappointing. I think unless Paul has a top ten hit again he'll never get to number one in the album chart again.
Sad but true. This is about as good a job marketing I have seen his team do and they have also received very nice critical reviews. With all that, still could not make it happen. Oh well, guess we all will just have to go back and just enjoy "New".
After debuting at 3 in the chart it'll start to plummet and he'll be lucky if it stays in the chart for a month unfortunately. I know great albums shouldn't be about sales and chart positions, but it would have been marvelous to see Paul have a decent seller and an album with some chart longevity. I know it's only one week, but this has a familiar ring like Chaos and MAF, a top ten first week entry and then a fast descent.
-
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
-
BOYCIE:
yankeefan7:
BOYCIE:
New has debuted at number 3 in the official UK album charts, which is okay, but with all the publicity it's a little disappointing. I think unless Paul has a top ten hit again he'll never get to number one in the album chart again.
Sad but true. This is about as good a job marketing I have seen his team do and they have also received very nice critical reviews. With all that, still could not make it happen. Oh well, guess we all will just have to go back and just enjoy "New".
After debuting at 3 in the chart it'll start to plummet and he'll be lucky if it stays in the chart for a month unfortunately. I know great albums shouldn't be about sales and chart positions, but it would have been marvelous to see Paul have a decent seller and an album with some chart longevity. I know it's only one week, but this has a familiar ring like Chaos and MAF, a top ten first week entry and then a fast descent.
CHAOS even had major Grammy nominations and McCartney played at the awards and still did not really help revive CHAOS in the charts. (US)
-
yankeefan7:
Wingsla:
Last album that went to number 1 in the uk was flowers and not tug. Even broad street went to number one in the uk. In the 90's the only worldwide hit he had was hope of deliverance. It was a massive hit in many European countries and huge in Latin America. I really thought that this time around we would finally have a n.1, New was better promoted than any of his previous 5 albums. Unfortunately the marketing campaign wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement from previous albums. The failure to have a video when a single came out, still don't get it. Didn't Paul tell Michael Jackson that videos are important ? Let's not use age as am excuse, Dylan, springsteen, the stones , rod stweart , Bowie, all had number 1 s in recent years.....and let s face it, U2 are in their 50's too, the red hot chili peppers are in their 50's too..... So age is not a factor. Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us.... So it's not even about the current market. My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! He just refuses to stay relevant.... He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! To me this feels like an election or something, I feel exactly the same way as when I voted for Romney, I was so sad he came in second despite a great campaign and great debates. Same thing for Paul, so sad that he failed to beat out pearl jam despite all these surprise gigs and tv shows..... Maybe it s because of not having a hit single? But again , rod did it without a hit single... Etc.....
"My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! " Check the setlist of his tours in 1989 and 1993 and I believe McCartney did 5-6 songs from FITD during 1989 tour and the same was true with OTG in 1993. These tours are not even close to being as Beatle heavy as the current tour. I am not a expert on his setlist with all of his tours but I am pretty sure he played at least four songs from CHAOS live (Jenny Wren, Fine Line, English Tea, FollowMe). Playing these songs live to did not make any of those records a huge hit in the US. "He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! " Part of this is due to the people interviewing McCartney ask at least 75% of the questions about the Beatles/John. I forget what show it was recently but McCartney was asked "What was the first song he wrote with John?" Kind of tough to stay relevant if they ask you mostly about what happened 50 years ago.
You're correct that playing the tunes from Chaos didn't make the album a huge hit, but it did keep the album steadily on the charts for the length of the tour. I think it's safe to say (I was watching this very closely at the time) that each concert probably resulted in one or two thousand sales (bear in mind that he was playing 15,000 seat arenas, not baseball stadiums). Touring alone won't make you #1, but it keeps sales humming along at a solid pace.
-
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)
-
He's a 71 year-old ex-Beatle with an album of all new material. And it appears to be a hit! He's all over the media right now. So what if he isn't number one? He's been there so many times it doesn't even matter. To even be in the top 10 with a new album of original songs after 50 years is an amazing achievement! To be up there in 2013 with Pearl Jam, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga is outstanding! Most of his comrades from the 60's are not even performing anymore, let alone having hit albums. I would love to see him perform the entire album live. Now that would be something!
-
Bruce M.:
yankeefan7:
Wingsla:
Last album that went to number 1 in the uk was flowers and not tug. Even broad street went to number one in the uk. In the 90's the only worldwide hit he had was hope of deliverance. It was a massive hit in many European countries and huge in Latin America. I really thought that this time around we would finally have a n.1, New was better promoted than any of his previous 5 albums. Unfortunately the marketing campaign wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement from previous albums. The failure to have a video when a single came out, still don't get it. Didn't Paul tell Michael Jackson that videos are important ? Let's not use age as am excuse, Dylan, springsteen, the stones , rod stweart , Bowie, all had number 1 s in recent years.....and let s face it, U2 are in their 50's too, the red hot chili peppers are in their 50's too..... So age is not a factor. Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us.... So it's not even about the current market. My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! He just refuses to stay relevant.... He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! To me this feels like an election or something, I feel exactly the same way as when I voted for Romney, I was so sad he came in second despite a great campaign and great debates. Same thing for Paul, so sad that he failed to beat out pearl jam despite all these surprise gigs and tv shows..... Maybe it s because of not having a hit single? But again , rod did it without a hit single... Etc.....
"My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! " Check the setlist of his tours in 1989 and 1993 and I believe McCartney did 5-6 songs from FITD during 1989 tour and the same was true with OTG in 1993. These tours are not even close to being as Beatle heavy as the current tour. I am not a expert on his setlist with all of his tours but I am pretty sure he played at least four songs from CHAOS live (Jenny Wren, Fine Line, English Tea, FollowMe). Playing these songs live to did not make any of those records a huge hit in the US. "He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! " Part of this is due to the people interviewing McCartney ask at least 75% of the questions about the Beatles/John. I forget what show it was recently but McCartney was asked "What was the first song he wrote with John?" Kind of tough to stay relevant if they ask you mostly about what happened 50 years ago.
You're correct that playing the tunes from Chaos didn't make the album a huge hit, but it did keep the album steadily on the charts for the length of the tour. I think it's safe to say (I was watching this very closely at the time) that each concert probably resulted in one or two thousand sales (bear in mind that he was playing 15,000 seat arenas, not baseball stadiums). Touring alone won't make you #1, but it keeps sales humming along at a solid pace.
True. Personally, I think Chaos is one of his best late-career albums and was brilliantly produced. That said, it could have done much better than it did. Let's not forget how badly EMI really dropped the ball in promoting it... How is Paul supposed to to get an album that fantastic to go top 5 when his own label of 45 years was giving him second-rate promotion in favor of younger artists? He was right to leave them. Had they put their full force behind that album, it would have definitely made it to the top 5, possibly top 3. That kind of publicity might have even gotten him the Album of the Year it was nominated for. (Lets be serious: its often a popularity contest and he was likely the first crossed off the list when they began their rounds of voting)
-
Mr. Spock:
Bruce M.:
yankeefan7:
Wingsla:
Last album that went to number 1 in the uk was flowers and not tug. Even broad street went to number one in the uk. In the 90's the only worldwide hit he had was hope of deliverance. It was a massive hit in many European countries and huge in Latin America. I really thought that this time around we would finally have a n.1, New was better promoted than any of his previous 5 albums. Unfortunately the marketing campaign wasn't perfect, but it was an improvement from previous albums. The failure to have a video when a single came out, still don't get it. Didn't Paul tell Michael Jackson that videos are important ? Let's not use age as am excuse, Dylan, springsteen, the stones , rod stweart , Bowie, all had number 1 s in recent years.....and let s face it, U2 are in their 50's too, the red hot chili peppers are in their 50's too..... So age is not a factor. Even during wings and in the 80's Macca never sold over 150k in the us.... So it's not even about the current market. My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! He just refuses to stay relevant.... He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! To me this feels like an election or something, I feel exactly the same way as when I voted for Romney, I was so sad he came in second despite a great campaign and great debates. Same thing for Paul, so sad that he failed to beat out pearl jam despite all these surprise gigs and tv shows..... Maybe it s because of not having a hit single? But again , rod did it without a hit single... Etc.....
"My theory is this, since the 80's, he s been taking real fans for granted. Just look at his set list.... No new songs ????!!! What the heck??!!! " Check the setlist of his tours in 1989 and 1993 and I believe McCartney did 5-6 songs from FITD during 1989 tour and the same was true with OTG in 1993. These tours are not even close to being as Beatle heavy as the current tour. I am not a expert on his setlist with all of his tours but I am pretty sure he played at least four songs from CHAOS live (Jenny Wren, Fine Line, English Tea, FollowMe). Playing these songs live to did not make any of those records a huge hit in the US. "He s creativity is stronger than ever, but during interviews he keeps telling about what he and john did, and he should get more credit with the Beatles..... How could he stay relevant he is worried about his past???!!!!! " Part of this is due to the people interviewing McCartney ask at least 75% of the questions about the Beatles/John. I forget what show it was recently but McCartney was asked "What was the first song he wrote with John?" Kind of tough to stay relevant if they ask you mostly about what happened 50 years ago.
You're correct that playing the tunes from Chaos didn't make the album a huge hit, but it did keep the album steadily on the charts for the length of the tour. I think it's safe to say (I was watching this very closely at the time) that each concert probably resulted in one or two thousand sales (bear in mind that he was playing 15,000 seat arenas, not baseball stadiums). Touring alone won't make you #1, but it keeps sales humming along at a solid pace.
True. Personally, I think Chaos is one of his best late-career albums and was brilliantly produced. That said, it could have done much better than it did. Let's not forget how badly EMI really dropped the ball in promoting it... How is Paul supposed to to get an album that fantastic to go top 5 when his own label of 45 years was giving him second-rate promotion in favor of younger artists? He was right to leave them. Had they put their full force behind that album, it would have definitely made it to the top 5, possibly top 3. That kind of publicity might have even gotten him the Album of the Year it was nominated for. (Lets be serious: its often a popularity contest and he was likely the first crossed off the list when they began their rounds of voting)
Sales of CHAOS disappointed me, it was absolutely fantastic CD. I wonder if he had the team he has now how much better CHAOS would have done.
-
-
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...