New in the Charts Thread
-
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
Beats me why having Linda in the band was uncool but Yoko playing with Lennon was hip - lol. Critics may have bashed the songs you mention but the general public did not, songs were a commercial hit. If I had to say anything that hurt McCartney in the 80's, it would be the flop movie. As for how "New" is doing in the charts, I just think it is the boomers are still stuck in the 60's and would not think of buying a recent McCartney CD.
Maybe you could qualify your answer by saying most or some boomers, okay? Thanks.
Ok, I think most people understood the comment did not mean 100%.
-
yankeefan7:
In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. " While I loved what McCartney played on the 1989 tour in support of FITD, it still peaked at #21 in US charts.
A fair point, but I think that was largely due to the fact that Paul didn't start touring the US until several months after that album was released. He continued to re-visit the States on and off over the next nine months or so, which helped keep the album in the Top 100 (albeit in the lower reaches). That being the case -- and when you also factor in the fact that album sales were a lot healthier back then -- I'm sure the final sales tally for 'New', it's higher chart placing notwithstanding, will be much lower than 'FITD'. Which is sad, because there is no reason Paul should not be matching up to Dylan's sales -- or, in the UK, Cher's. But he no longer has the courage of his convictions with new material. Of course, I would also say 'FITD' was a vastly superior album to 'New', but that's just my opinion. And, regardless, 'New' is still good enough to sell on its own merit. I just think Paul/MPL/Hear Music don't understand the audience, or how to reach it. Or perhaps, sadly, there is no longer a mass audience for Paul's brand of songwriting these days. More a depressing reflection of today's world than on Paul's abilities. But my point is, he really doesn't help himself. He used to be so good at marketing and promotion. A pity.
-
My point of view is that both Linda and Yoko were openly mocked in the '70s. Even a book as intelligently written as Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever completely dismissed Yoko's music, just as a given, as if it would be laughable to consider taking her seriously. I wasn't blaming his current commercial disappointments on his mid-'80s creative slump. I was saying that the kinds of huge pop successes he had from the late '70s through to, say, "Spies Like Us," damaged his critical reputation and his rock credentials, such that any good work would now be seen as an anomaly and rock radio programmers grew to automatically assume that his music wouldn't be accepted by their audience. At the same time, as his music shifted to styles that were clearly not in tune with prevailing popular music styles ("My Brave Face," etc., up to "New"), he had no place in Top 40 radio either. I'm thrilled with most of the music he's put out post-"Spies Like Us," but his insistence on being so musically diverse and adventurous has caused radio programmers and the public to just throw up their hands and say, "I don't know what to do with this."
-
yankeefan7:
Bruce M.:
Meanwhile, back in radioland: Queenie Eye finally makes an appearance on the Triple A airplay chart at #39 as of Sunday: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603 Not exactly hit territory, but at least some glimmers of life. The other downside is that if you look at the list of stations playing it, it's pretty much only stations that played New for a while, so it's not like he's finding new ground to conquer on the radio dial: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=255603
Thanks for keeping up with this but I have given up hope of hearing McCartney on radio.
Well, Paul has become a niche artist on radio these days. But in some markets -- New York City, Portland, Baltimore/Washington D.C. -- it's gotten decent play. Not Katy Perry/Justin Timberlake levels, but respectable. Here in San Francisco, alas, it's gotten almost nothing.
-
Do people really still listen to the radio? I am not trying to be provocative, it just seems like the world has changed so much, to even consider radio airplay seems like vaudeville. But maybe touring to promote a CD is also like vaudeville. I just don't know anymore. What on earth is Elton John and Cher doing right that McCartney is not doing??
-
I haven't tuned in to the radio to listen to musak for over a decade! Actually probably closer to two decades. I tune into the Sports station on radio but never music anymore. I think I became personally affronted when all the stuff I grew up with ended up on the "golden oldies" chanel. If I want to listen to something, it's straight to the I-phone or car DVD or stereo system at home. Can't run the risk of being on the end of a Beiber or American Idol alumni's latest efforts. I hate the vast, vast majority of today's music.
-
yankeefan7:
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
Beats me why having Linda in the band was uncool but Yoko playing with Lennon was hip - lol. Critics may have bashed the songs you mention but the general public did not, songs were a commercial hit. If I had to say anything that hurt McCartney in the 80's, it would be the flop movie. As for how "New" is doing in the charts, I just think it is the boomers are still stuck in the 60's and would not think of buying a recent McCartney CD.
Maybe you could qualify your answer by saying most or some boomers, okay? Thanks.
Ok, I think most people understood the comment did not mean 100%.
I suppose, but we "boomers" get a bit tired of hearing that we're stuck in the '60's, etc., that's all.
-
I said when the date was announced it was an odd time to release the album,so many big names coming out at this time it should have been held back till the new year,simple as that it has sadly been an utter failure in the UK and thats a shame,while its not his best album it is a very good one and should have been much better sales wise. I cite again Rod Stewarts album Time,its been in the charts for months while it is,in my view a better album than NEW (again just my view) you have to ask yourself what did Decca and Stewart's team done so right where MPL have gone so utterly wrong with this album?,the mind boggles. I suppose Paul has it right after all,people go to the shows to hear the hits NOT the new stuff this failure seemingly proves him right sadly.
-
The whole Yoko and Linda thing - both Paul and John finding substitutes for one another in their wives - is one of the more fascinating asides of the break up of The Beatles. (Hollywood will make a movie of it at some stage.) I must admit there are times I wish Linda?s vocals were pushed a little further into the background. A fair bit, in some cases. But at least she wasn?t in-your-face like Yoko, who took herself way too seriously. I still cringe watching some of those concerts with John as she screams away as if she picked up a hot iron the wrong way and can?t shake it loose (even if, as John himself said, it was the forerunner to some of the B52?s stuff. A long bow, John, but I can?t help hearing or thinking it every time I listen to Rock Lobster.) Phil Spector, at least, found some sense in that demented mind of his, when he cut Yoko?s mic during the recording of Instant Karma. Thank God, because that is one of my fave John and post-Beatles songs. Imagine how she could?ve ruined it, in a manner far worse than any of Linda?s ?oohs and ahhs?. But Yoko, yeah, far more despised than Linda - by media and fan alike. As for dwindling sales of Paul?s records, I think that by the dawn of the 80?s, there was already a downturn in the sales of all the ex-Beatles? records. Even John?s Double Fantasy (from memory) was not selling as well as one would expect following his self-exile from the record business (unfortunately his death changed that) I never thought NEW would end up dominating the charts for twelve weeks on end. Disappointing that it is slipping so quickly, but it did reach #3 (I think that is right), which is still impressive. And it is a great album.
-
Sir Guy Grand:
Kestrel:
Here in the UK this evening, 'New' (the album) has dropped from 14 down to 41 whilst 'Queenie Eye' has failed to enter the top 100 singles.
And CHER who charted one chart position behind Paul is still in the top 10 with a single in the top 40 too . NEW may grab another week in the top 75 but it's looking like a four week chart run here in the UK for his album .
Yes, I suspect that by the end of November the whole campaign for New will be over and done with and the album will be consigned to the history books.
-
It certainly seems to me that Paul is now giving breathing room to the Beatles BBC collection, which, it should be noted, is the first collection of completely unreleased Beatles recordings since the '90s, so it's kind of a big deal (the other projects have been largely remixes and remasters). Maybe I'm wrong and Paul's got something up his sleeve this week, but I would think anything he does this week will be low-key, maybe just reminders of what's out there already and gearing up for Japan. I don't really see AC or Triple A radio as being all that significant to overall chart performance. Very few songs break out of those genres to become big hits these days, more likely r&b, hip-hop, dance, a bit of harder rock, or even country (Adele being a big exception, but Paul's a whole other vintage, shall we say). I love my Triple A station and a lot of the new music they play, but if I mention the artists to people outside my close friends, I get blank stares. Of course, it's nice to see Paul doing well SOMEWHERE, though, and I'm glad Bruce is documenting it.
-
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
Nancy R:
yankeefan7:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why wasn't it alright in the critics' minds back then for Macca music to display a variety of genres? Was it really so "uncool" to have his wife in his band, and why was that "uncool"? Why did just a few songs, "Silly Love Songs," "Mull of Kintyre," some say "Ebony and Ivory" for example lead to a sort of downward spiral culminating to today's showing of "New" in the charts? That, combined with having Linda in "Wings" and some thought Paul broke up the Beatles or had a big hand in the fiasco.
Beats me why having Linda in the band was uncool but Yoko playing with Lennon was hip - lol. Critics may have bashed the songs you mention but the general public did not, songs were a commercial hit. If I had to say anything that hurt McCartney in the 80's, it would be the flop movie. As for how "New" is doing in the charts, I just think it is the boomers are still stuck in the 60's and would not think of buying a recent McCartney CD.
Maybe you could qualify your answer by saying most or some boomers, okay? Thanks.
Ok, I think most people understood the comment did not mean 100%.
I suppose, but we "boomers" get a bit tired of hearing that we're stuck in the '60's, etc., that's all.
Gotcha, point noted - lol.
-
Mumbojunk:
yankeefan7:
In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. " While I loved what McCartney played on the 1989 tour in support of FITD, it still peaked at #21 in US charts.
A fair point, but I think that was largely due to the fact that Paul didn't start touring the US until several months after that album was released. He continued to re-visit the States on and off over the next nine months or so, which helped keep the album in the Top 100 (albeit in the lower reaches). That being the case -- and when you also factor in the fact that album sales were a lot healthier back then -- I'm sure the final sales tally for 'New', it's higher chart placing notwithstanding, will be much lower than 'FITD'. Which is sad, because there is no reason Paul should not be matching up to Dylan's sales -- or, in the UK, Cher's. But he no longer has the courage of his convictions with new material. Of course, I would also say 'FITD' was a vastly superior album to 'New', but that's just my opinion. And, regardless, 'New' is still good enough to sell on its own merit. I just think Paul/MPL/Hear Music don't understand the audience, or how to reach it. Or perhaps, sadly, there is no longer a mass audience for Paul's brand of songwriting these days. More a depressing reflection of today's world than on Paul's abilities. But my point is, he really doesn't help himself. He used to be so good at marketing and promotion. A pity.
"Or perhaps, sadly, there is no longer a mass audience for Paul's brand of songwriting these days. More a depressing reflection of today's world than on Paul's abilities. " I think you hit the nail on the head with this point. I agree with you, sad but probably true.
-
Not just Paul's brand of songwriting, but the fact that a man of his age is not "supposed" to be doing the kind of music he makes. He and Paul Simon are the only two I can think of with a history of pop hits in the sixties who are still exploring a variety of styles (and neither one has had a Top 40 hit since the eighties). Dylan makes music that sounds like what people expect a 70-year-old rocker to make. Big-selling albums by Neil Diamond and Johnny Cash and Ray Charles have all had that air of an old man looking back over a long career, settling in, imparting hard-earned wisdom. Paul might actually do better with a whole album like "Early Days" and maybe "Get Me Out Of Here," and this is why KOTB did fairly well for what it was.
-
favoritething:
... I love my Triple A station and a lot of the new music they play, but if I mention the artists to people outside my close friends, I get blank stares...
I love mine, too! I've discovered lots of great artists that I currently love: -Moon Taxi ("The New Black") -Grace Potter & The Nocturnals -Z.Z. Ward ("365 Days") -Leagues ("Spotlight") -Fitz & The Tantrums ("6 A.M.") -Gary Clark, Jr. ("Bright Lights") I just don't have the stomach for Top 40 these days. Small doses.
-
yankeefan7:
Mumbojunk:
yankeefan7:
In 1989/90, he played 6 songs from 'FITD', kicking off the show with one of them, and -- in his own words -- refused to "betray" his new material by launching immediately into a 60s nostalgia show. And that tour pushed 'FITD' back into the UK charts for a month, and kept it kicking around the US Hot 100 for about a year, if memory serves. " While I loved what McCartney played on the 1989 tour in support of FITD, it still peaked at #21 in US charts.
A fair point, but I think that was largely due to the fact that Paul didn't start touring the US until several months after that album was released. He continued to re-visit the States on and off over the next nine months or so, which helped keep the album in the Top 100 (albeit in the lower reaches). That being the case -- and when you also factor in the fact that album sales were a lot healthier back then -- I'm sure the final sales tally for 'New', it's higher chart placing notwithstanding, will be much lower than 'FITD'. Which is sad, because there is no reason Paul should not be matching up to Dylan's sales -- or, in the UK, Cher's. But he no longer has the courage of his convictions with new material. Of course, I would also say 'FITD' was a vastly superior album to 'New', but that's just my opinion. And, regardless, 'New' is still good enough to sell on its own merit. I just think Paul/MPL/Hear Music don't understand the audience, or how to reach it. Or perhaps, sadly, there is no longer a mass audience for Paul's brand of songwriting these days. More a depressing reflection of today's world than on Paul's abilities. But my point is, he really doesn't help himself. He used to be so good at marketing and promotion. A pity.
"Or perhaps, sadly, there is no longer a mass audience for Paul's brand of songwriting these days. More a depressing reflection of today's world than on Paul's abilities. " I think you hit the nail on the head with this point. I agree with you, sad but probably true.
NEW sounds as current as all of the artists that I've listed above. Without question.
-
I agree with you Audi but something has gone drastically wrong wrong somewhere though
-
New gets a second week at # 1 in Norway
-
hengirl:
I agree with you Audi but something has gone drastically wrong wrong somewhere though
Apparently, not in Norway.
-
toris:
I never thought NEW would end up dominating the charts for twelve weeks on end. Disappointing that it is slipping so quickly, but it did reach #3 (I think that is right), which is still impressive. And it is a great album.
Just about all albums start at their highest point and go down from there now. It used to be an album would enter the charts and very slowly climb from bottom to the top. It's completely the opposite now. New has done very respectably in 2013, even for an ex-Beatle.