New in the Charts Thread
-
walliebaby:
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I'm not sure why it matters so much if Paul sells a million albums or not, as he's been there, done that, while some of the other acts you've mentioned haven't had the sales Paul has had. Again, why worry how NEW sells, though? It's not like we're getting a cut of the sales. Enjoy the album and let the people Paul pays to worry about these things worry about them.
If you read my initial post it ends with : simply enjoy it. And i'm truly enjoying NEW. I Don' t worry about paul's sales. However there is a tendency to "Write up" New to a commercial success in this thread. I'm merely trying to put that straight. And sorry for repeating myself : what Else Are we supposed to discuss in a thread entitled " NEW in the charts"
-
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I don't know what you're definition of a hit album is. But Driving Rain, Chaos, Memory almost full all went gold, sold millions worldwide, and Back in the US went Platinum selling over a million copies in the USA Alone. I don't have worldwide numbers at my fingertips, but safe to say all those albums sold between 1.5-3 million copies worldwide. What do you mean the guy hasn't had a hit album since the 80's? Memory almost full sold 161 thousand copies in the USA alone it's first week. about 50% of those sales came from Starbucks outlets. 80K in sales the first week from Starbucks alone. Whatever goober made the decision not to feature McCartney in Starbucks the first week with NEW, should be fired, banned from the music biz. They were lucky enough to get the biggest artist in history on their label, but they didin't want to feature him in their stores. Bad form. Anyway so far as I know 1.5-3 million albums, being within the top five or top ten, is generally considered by most people to be a big hit. Exactly what criteria do you use, to call something a hit? Not trying to be offensive, but I am curious. As far as NEW dropping to number 40 in the USA in week four, while that's disappointing. I expect he will get a real bump in the huge Japanese market, and nearby countries, because he is touring there, apparently there was a little McCartney mania when Paul arrived at the airport in Japan.
-
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I'm not sure why it matters so much if Paul sells a million albums or not, as he's been there, done that, while some of the other acts you've mentioned haven't had the sales Paul has had. Again, why worry how NEW sells, though? It's not like we're getting a cut of the sales. Enjoy the album and let the people Paul pays to worry about these things worry about them.
If you read my initial post it ends with : simply enjoy it. And i'm truly enjoying NEW. I Don' t worry about paul's sales. However there is a tendency to "Write up" New to a commercial success in this thread. I'm merely trying to put that straight. And sorry for repeating myself : what Else Are we supposed to discuss in a thread entitled " NEW in the charts"
The posts after your initial one don't exactly read "simply enjoy it" if you know what I mean. I think 35 pages worth of posts on the chart position of NEW have pretty much beaten the topic into the ground, so I'm suggesting, now that the conversation has pretty much run its course (unless NEW moves back up the charts or sells a 1,000,000 copies this weekend), that folks move on and enjoy the album. Besides, isn't it okay to have a dissenting view in a chart discussion thread? I am suggesting that chart positions don't really matter, and this opinion seems to fit in a thread about chart positions.
-
Fine with me. As long as it is not regarded as heresy to simply state That New 's sales are underwhelming.
-
Frank:
Fine with me. As long as it is not regarded as heresy to simply state That New 's sales are underwhelming.
I don't think I ever suggested that it was. Anyone with eyes and basic math skills can see it's not burning up the charts. My point was, and has been, that I don't care because I like the album and what other people think of it, i.e. whether they buy it or not, doesn't really affect me one way or the other.
-
whobeatle:
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I don't know what you're definition of a hit album is. But Driving Rain, Chaos, Memory almost full all went gold, sold millions worldwide, and Back in the US went Platinum selling over a million copies in the USA Alone. I don't have worldwide numbers at my fingertips, but safe to say all those albums sold between 1.5-3 million copies worldwide. What do you mean the guy hasn't had a hit album since the 80's? Memory almost full sold 161 thousand copies in the USA alone it's first week. about 50% of those sales came from Starbucks outlets. 80K in sales the first week from Starbucks alone. Whatever goober made the decision not to feature McCartney in Starbucks the first week with NEW, should be fired, banned from the music biz. They were lucky enough to get the biggest artist in history on their label, but they didin't want to feature him in their stores. Bad form. Anyway so far as I know 1.5-3 million albums, being within the top five or top ten, is generally considered by most people to be a big hit. Exactly what criteria do you use, to call something a hit? Not trying to be offensive, but I am curious. As far as NEW dropping to number 40 in the USA in week four, while that's disappointing. I expect he will get a real bump in the huge Japanese market, and nearby countries, because he is touring there, apparently there was a little McCartney mania when Paul arrived at the airport in Japan.
Pipes of Peace (1983) was the Last Studio album Certified platinum in the US, by far the biggest market. All his post - Beatles albums up to that Date - with exceptions Wild Life, Red Rose and Mccartey 2 which were Certified Gold - reached at least single platinum status. Back in the US, apart from being a live album, did not sell 1 Million in the US . It reached platinum as a Double -CD : threshold 500.000. There is no Studio album with new material after Pipes selling more than 2 Million copies worldwide. Quite a few albums from the mid-eighties onwards sold well under 2 Million. But just to let you know that commercial success is not essential for making me happy : Driving Rain is probably my favourite from the past decade. And i'm pretty sure that it did not Even sell 1 million worldwide.
-
Frank:
whobeatle:
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I don't know what you're definition of a hit album is. But Driving Rain, Chaos, Memory almost full all went gold, sold millions worldwide, and Back in the US went Platinum selling over a million copies in the USA Alone. I don't have worldwide numbers at my fingertips, but safe to say all those albums sold between 1.5-3 million copies worldwide. What do you mean the guy hasn't had a hit album since the 80's? Memory almost full sold 161 thousand copies in the USA alone it's first week. about 50% of those sales came from Starbucks outlets. 80K in sales the first week from Starbucks alone. Whatever goober made the decision not to feature McCartney in Starbucks the first week with NEW, should be fired, banned from the music biz. They were lucky enough to get the biggest artist in history on their label, but they didin't want to feature him in their stores. Bad form. Anyway so far as I know 1.5-3 million albums, being within the top five or top ten, is generally considered by most people to be a big hit. Exactly what criteria do you use, to call something a hit? Not trying to be offensive, but I am curious. As far as NEW dropping to number 40 in the USA in week four, while that's disappointing. I expect he will get a real bump in the huge Japanese market, and nearby countries, because he is touring there, apparently there was a little McCartney mania when Paul arrived at the airport in Japan.
Pipes of Peace (1983) was the Last Studio album Certified platinum in the US, by far the biggest market. All his post - Beatles albums up to that Date - with exceptions Wild Life, Red Rose and Mccartey 2 which were Certified Gold - reached at least single platinum status. Back in the US, apart from being a live album, did not sell 1 Million in the US . It reached platinum as a Double -CD : threshold 500.000. There is no Studio album with new material after Pipes selling more than 2 Million copies worldwide. Quite a few albums from the mid-eighties onwards sold well under 2 Million. But just to let you know that commercial success is not essential for making me happy : Driving Rain is probably my favourite from the past decade. And i'm pretty sure that it did not Even sell 1 million worldwide.
I always found it funny that POP was such a "hit" when it's probably my least favorite Paul solo album. I have to agree about Driving Rain--it's one of my top 5 Paul albums, and I just adore it even though it was a flop going by sales figures and such. A real gem of an album.
-
I think Pipes benefited from Say,Say,Say which was a No.1 Single for several weeks. And in the UK the title track is paul's only solo No.1 single to this day ( and the Second post - Beatles No.1. First being..Mull of Kintyre) I agree that it's One of Paul's weaker albums. IMO it also started an artistic decline which lasted until Off the Ground. Anyway, I either listen to his 70s stuff up to Tug of War or the albums from Flaming Pie onwards. But obviously...that's just me wink
-
Frank:
I think Pipes benefited from Say,Say,Say which was a No.1 Single for several weeks. And in the UK the title track is paul's only solo No.1 single to this day ( and the Second post - Beatles No.1. First being..Mull of Kintyre) I agree that it's One of Paul's weaker albums. IMO it also started an artistic decline which lasted until Off the Ground. Anyway, I either listen to his 70s stuff up to Tug of War or the albums from Flaming Pie onwards. But obviously...that's just me
We have a very similar taste in Paul's solo albums. Good to know I'm not alone.
-
McCARTEY was a cool debut solo LP with a couple great songs that showed McCartney's solo potential. WILDLIFE wasn't a hit LP, but I really like some of the songs on it. RAM is awesome. BAND ON THE RUN is awesome. VENUS and MARS is great. WING AT THE SPEED OF SOUND is pretty good. LONDON TOWN was a great LP. In the 80s, McCartney's output changed, as did the quality of songs. TUG OF WAR was a good start to the decade. PIPES of PEACE, not so much. Really, it was leftovers from TUG OF WAR. GIVE MY REGARDS, well, sorry, but except for NO MORE LONELY NIGHTS, kind of meh. PRESS. Some good songs, but not a strong effort. FLOWERS IN THE DIRT was do or die for McCartney, who was almost a musical footnote by 1988. It worked. Some strong material, and a come back world tour with loads of Beatle songs which set the template for all successive McCartney tours up to this day. OFF THE GROUND was a solid effort. McCartney was clearly still reclaiming his Beatle legacy on the New World Tour of 1993, but also putting out new music and playing it live. A few good songs on that one. FLAMING PIE was an excellent album, but suffered for not having any touring behind it. I know I will twist some undergarments by saying this, but starting with DRIVING RAIN, the McCartney music of the 2000s has really not been a whole lot of anything compared with previous LPs. Yeah, I guess an argument can be made, subjectively, that DRIVING RAIN, or CHAOS, or MAF or ELECTRIC ARGUMENTS and even NEW are as good or better than McCartney's LPs from, say, TUG OF WAR on. But it is debatable. And I don't think they are. Paul McCartney is a musical legend who has been doing this for a LONG time. So, yeah, when he puts out a CD it is going to have interesting music that is played, sang, and recorded well. I suspect if you came on board the McCartney bus in 2002, then yeah, from an emotional stand point, the most recent CDs are going to resonate better. But I am not convinced that makes the CDs better. This is not a dig at McCartney. I keep reading that Elton John's latest CD is great. But greater than his 70s work? Or 80s? No way.
-
walliebaby:
Frank:
I think Pipes benefited from Say,Say,Say which was a No.1 Single for several weeks. And in the UK the title track is paul's only solo No.1 single to this day ( and the Second post - Beatles No.1. First being..Mull of Kintyre) I agree that it's One of Paul's weaker albums. IMO it also started an artistic decline which lasted until Off the Ground. Anyway, I either listen to his 70s stuff up to Tug of War or the albums from Flaming Pie onwards. But obviously...that's just me
We have a very similar taste in Paul's solo albums. Good to know I'm not alone.
I also do the same thing in terms of the albums that I listen to. However, I do listen to a few tracks off of FITD from time to time. It's understandable how that album reached #1 in the UK. In my opinion it should have been #1 in the US as well. I was hoping New would be Paul's first #1 album in the US. I have not been alive long enough to experience a #1 pop album from Paul in the US.
-
I'm not going to argue what albums are better, or what should have been done with the marketing. I'm just reporting the numbers now.
-
favoritething:
I'm not going to argue what albums are better, or what should have been done with the marketing. I'm just reporting the numbers now.
I appreciate those reports. It is interesting to see how NEW is doing.
-
Frank:
whobeatle:
Frank:
walliebaby:
Frank:
IN THE LAND OF MAKE BELIEVE.... Well i'm sorry the album is not doing well...not by any standard. The constant reference to Paul's age is irrelevant. 20 years ago Off The Ground did lousy too. Paul was 51. Elton John had Million sellers in the 90s, Dylan after his Renaissance in 97, Time Out of mind, modern Times etc. And if sales don't MEAN anything, because People are downloading illegally, i would have thought that Eminems audience would be ready and able to do so....instead he will end up selling millions worldwide The bitter truth is Paul has never recovered from his commercial slump in the mid-eighties. NEW is a great album, not a hit album. Simply enjoy it.
The only "standard" that really matters to me (and this applies to all of us, hopefully) is whether I like the album. I really don't care how many copies any album sells. If I like the album, I buy it and listen to it, and while listening to it, enjoy it. If Paul's new album does well, all the better. However, I've been keeping it on constant play and having a great time with it. I haven't checked its sales figures, and only know it's ranking because I subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's great that it charted so high when it was released, but I lost interest in sales and chart positions pretty quickly, to be honest, in favor of just pure enjoyment of the songs. And if you don't think age has something to do with record sales, I'd love to live in your land of make believe.
Well great i like the album too. Just thought that this is the thread about NEW in the charts, that' s why i gave a few examples of older artists doing Way better than Paul and adding that paul's sales did not drop with "Old Age" but that he ceased to be a commercial success in terms of album sales in the mid-eighties, when he was in his early forties. Obviously it's more difficult for someone in his sixties or seventies to be a huge seller in Pop Culture. Then again i find it striking that while other Pop legends have had their late Million sellers Paul WHO has continously released good to great albums from Fläming Pie onwards was not able to release a hit album in thirty years.
I don't know what you're definition of a hit album is. But Driving Rain, Chaos, Memory almost full all went gold, sold millions worldwide, and Back in the US went Platinum selling over a million copies in the USA Alone. I don't have worldwide numbers at my fingertips, but safe to say all those albums sold between 1.5-3 million copies worldwide. What do you mean the guy hasn't had a hit album since the 80's? Memory almost full sold 161 thousand copies in the USA alone it's first week. about 50% of those sales came from Starbucks outlets. 80K in sales the first week from Starbucks alone. Whatever goober made the decision not to feature McCartney in Starbucks the first week with NEW, should be fired, banned from the music biz. They were lucky enough to get the biggest artist in history on their label, but they didin't want to feature him in their stores. Bad form. Anyway so far as I know 1.5-3 million albums, being within the top five or top ten, is generally considered by most people to be a big hit. Exactly what criteria do you use, to call something a hit? Not trying to be offensive, but I am curious. As far as NEW dropping to number 40 in the USA in week four, while that's disappointing. I expect he will get a real bump in the huge Japanese market, and nearby countries, because he is touring there, apparently there was a little McCartney mania when Paul arrived at the airport in Japan.
Pipes of Peace (1983) was the Last Studio album Certified platinum in the US, by far the biggest market. All his post - Beatles albums up to that Date - with exceptions Wild Life, Red Rose and Mccartey 2 which were Certified Gold - reached at least single platinum status. Back in the US, apart from being a live album, did not sell 1 Million in the US . It reached platinum as a Double -CD : threshold 500.000. There is no Studio album with new material after Pipes selling more than 2 Million copies worldwide. Quite a few albums from the mid-eighties onwards sold well under 2 Million. But just to let you know that commercial success is not essential for making me happy : Driving Rain is probably my favourite from the past decade. And i'm pretty sure that it did not Even sell 1 million worldwide.
You and a couple other people keep saying albums that sold over a million copies by McCartney, in no sense to anybody, is over a million copies sold a flop. You said initially that he hasn't had a hit album since Pipes of Peace. I would submit to you the idea that, over a million units sold is not a flop but a success. I feel like you live in some kind of alternate Universe, you and the other fella or gal, saying this album is good, this album is bad, that's all just opinion. But his sales are facts, Fact is Back In The US went platinum with over one million units in the USA alone. You said he hasn't had a hit album since Pipes of Peace. The reason Back in the US counts as a double, is simply because people paid for two discs not one. Who are you to say that doesn't count as a legitimate platinum. The RIAA says it does, the record company, the public, but you disagree? based on what, a million units in the USA buddy MAF, CHAOS and Driving Rain all went gold in the USA certified sales of over 500,000 units in the USA Alone. Worldwide totals for those albums are all well over a million, perhaps as much as 3 million or 2.5 million for some of them. You keep calling them flops, then dismissing it saying you don't care you just like listening. Nobody thinks a million units or more is a flop except you and six other people on the planet. It's true McCartney's releases don't have the mass commercial appeal he had years and years ago, The Beatles, Band on the run etc. You can believe whatever you want, think whichever albums are best, even if most fans, critics, historians, the artist himself disagrees. But I can't allow you to dismiss albums by McCartney which sold well over a million units as flops. A million copies isin't a flop. Less than one album in a thousand ever comes close to ever going gold or platinum. These albums were nominated or even won a few grammy's, they sold millions of copies, they were written about and studied by historians, millions of people heard some of the songs live and loved them, several of the singles went top forty in Britain, Fine Line, Jenny Wren, and Dance Tonight hit #s 20, 22, 26 respectively. I happen to disagree with almost everything you an the other guy said about which albums are good, and that's ok, at least you listened to the music and have an opinion, gave it some thought. I happen to think Tug Of War was one of his great albums, and that Driving Rain sucks, but that's ok. But it's not ok to give younger or ill informed fans the idea everything has flopped since Pipes Of Peace, Chaos, MAF and Back In THe US all sold very big numbers. You have the false belief a million copies stinks. Many of his contemporaries are selling five or ten thousand copies when they try and make a new album. Sting and Elton John are selling much less with their new albums than McCartney for instance, and McCartney is older than both of them by far. A million or two million copies and breaking in the top five is not a flop in anyones estimation, except maybe six or eight ill informed people. How could you possibly say one or two million copies isin't a success, how could you say a non studio album doesn't count, how could you possibly say a double album where double price is charged for the product doesn't count? Should we cut the White albums sales in half because it was a double album. Simply ridiculous. McCartney is still a big recording artist, certainly in the top fifty in the world, maybe the top 25. That's pretty good, Lou Reed, Steve Stills, REO speedwagon, Alice Cooper, The Zombies Ray Davies, Dave Davies, or Pete Townshend would kill for McCartney's numbers.
-
Sorry whobeatle, but your posts are way too long for me to wade through. I'm with walliebaby. I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. I wish the mods would close this thread and only reopen it if Paul suddenly sells 1,000,000 copies of NEW. :
-
OK let me try it this way In an Interview in the early 80s Paul was reflecting on Wings success. He stated that their Tours always did well and that they "occasionally did well with albums". This was referring to 2 Studio albums going Gold and 5 that went platinum in the US. (BOTR triple platinum). I remember Back to the egg, despite going platinum and Even London Town (Paul complained Capitol had not really promoted the album) were seen at the time as commercial disappointments, not least by Paul himself. So THESE are the standards of the man himself, not mine. wink
-
To go Gold or Platinum is certainly success. But it is relative in the music biz. If you are a young, new act, those numbers are brilliant. But if I recall, Michael Jackson's THRILLER sold something like 25 million copies. I remember the press writing that BAD was a failure because it sold only 10 million or something like that, as a follow up. McCartney has himself to compete with. His LP and CD sales are respectable. But I am sure the man would still like to see his work sell like BOTR or WOA. NEW is a really good CD that is doing reasonably well. I am sure Macca can handle that!
-
Part of the reason for weak sales could be due to Walmart. New is not even in their Top 100. The record co. must not be doing any promo with Walmart. The new Beatles CD is also not in their Top 100 (as of today). Most music in the US is sold by just 5 companies: iTunes/Apple, Walmart, Amazon, BestBuy and Target.
-
Walmart has an outside company that actually merchandices and stocks their cds and dvds. At my walmart a lady comes twice a week to put out new promos or just stock the merchandice. I noticed this week walmart had New in the new release section and actually had quite a few in stock. On release day we only got a few in and they were stocked in the M's on thestheshelf. Hopefully having them promenetly displayed next to other new releases will help the sales.
-
Nancy R:
Sorry whobeatle, but your posts are way too long for me to wade through. I'm with walliebaby. I think we've beaten this dead horse long enough. I wish the mods would close this thread and only reopen it if Paul suddenly sells 1,000,000 copies of NEW. :
Well, yes, maybe there's been an excess of hand-wringing, but I see no reason to close the thread while the album is still in the charts.