New in the Charts Thread
-
Snorckle:
walliebaby:
I think that to a lot of people Paul will always be 1/4 of The Beatles versus 1 amazing composer, musician, and songwriter. To wit, how many articles about Paul DON'T mention, in the first few paragraphs (if not right off the bat) that Paul was a Beatle? WE know he's so much more than that, but the average person probably doesn't, unfortunately.
Very true. More people should explore his music
From your mouth to the buying public's ears...
-
walliebaby:
Part of the issue is that the bulk of questions he gets asked are about the 1960's. He needs to get better about steering the interview to his current work, though. He's obviously great, we all love him and his music, but we can't force people to buy his albums, much to our collective chagrin. The fact that he's over 70 and moved as many albums as he did is pretty impressive, as ageism exists so heavily in music and music sales. We revere the older artists, but as a buying public, ignore them when their albums hit the shelves, unless it's a collection of their greatest hits. :
Paul promotes The Beatles, in his concerts, in his interviews, anywhere he can. That's all there is to it. Enough said!
-
beatlesfanrandy:
walliebaby:
Part of the issue is that the bulk of questions he gets asked are about the 1960's. He needs to get better about steering the interview to his current work, though. He's obviously great, we all love him and his music, but we can't force people to buy his albums, much to our collective chagrin. The fact that he's over 70 and moved as many albums as he did is pretty impressive, as ageism exists so heavily in music and music sales. We revere the older artists, but as a buying public, ignore them when their albums hit the shelves, unless it's a collection of their greatest hits. :
Paul promotes The Beatles, in his concerts, in his interviews, anywhere he can. That's all there is to it. Enough said!
He doesn't shy away from them the way he once did, and often makes sure people don't forget he was in the group, correct. However, during interviews and articles, he gets asked about them. A lot. Anyone remember the Fresh Air interview conducted by a veteran interviewer, Terri Gross, where she spent a majority of the interview asking about The Beatles instead of Paul's poetry book that he was there to promote. He even (nicely) called her on it. It's not always his doing. Setlists? All his doing, yes. Interviews and articles? Not always in his control.
-
oobu24:
Nancy R:
walliebaby:
audi:
These are unscientific stats, but my observation is that when Paul went on Howard Stern, 90% of the discussion focused on topics other than the new album. When Paul sat to chat with Jimmy Kimmel, 80%-90% of the discussion was about topics other than the new album. The radio-interviews that Paul did a couple of days when the single, "New," was released, 95% of the discussion was about topics other than the new album.
Wait...let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that people want to talk about Paul's days as a Beatle rather than talk to a man over 70 years old about his new music? I am shocked! ETA: I hpe you know I'm not picking on you, Audi! I'm reacting to a lot of posts in this thread. For most people, Paul is interesting because of his past. It's really only his fans, or fans of the producers he's working with, that want to hear what he's up to next, as for many, Paul is and always will be a Beatle first, and a solo musician third or fourth. The fact that NEW hasn't done better in the charts is due to a lot of reasons, most of which have been stated repeatedly in this ever-continuing thread, so I won't rehash them. I'll just repeat my earlier statement: Does how NEW is faring in the charts harming your enjoyment of the album? If it does, I'm a bit worried! Just enjoy the music, as worrying or debating about its sales isn't going to change how it's selling, or not selling.
Amen Jen!
No, sorry but I disagree with Jen's point about Paul being interesting BECAUSE of his past. That's Ringo's description. (sorry) Yes, many go to see him because he (Paul) was a Beatle BUT (BIG BUT) he has continued to be creative & should be given more credit in that Beatle fans can & should move on & discover his solo talents. He & his team should market it to some of the older generations too.
I guess I should have just quoted Jen's last paragraph as that was what I was really agreeing with.
-
Nancy R:
oobu24:
Nancy R:
walliebaby:
audi:
These are unscientific stats, but my observation is that when Paul went on Howard Stern, 90% of the discussion focused on topics other than the new album. When Paul sat to chat with Jimmy Kimmel, 80%-90% of the discussion was about topics other than the new album. The radio-interviews that Paul did a couple of days when the single, "New," was released, 95% of the discussion was about topics other than the new album.
Wait...let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that people want to talk about Paul's days as a Beatle rather than talk to a man over 70 years old about his new music? I am shocked! ETA: I hpe you know I'm not picking on you, Audi! I'm reacting to a lot of posts in this thread. For most people, Paul is interesting because of his past. It's really only his fans, or fans of the producers he's working with, that want to hear what he's up to next, as for many, Paul is and always will be a Beatle first, and a solo musician third or fourth. The fact that NEW hasn't done better in the charts is due to a lot of reasons, most of which have been stated repeatedly in this ever-continuing thread, so I won't rehash them. I'll just repeat my earlier statement: Does how NEW is faring in the charts harming your enjoyment of the album? If it does, I'm a bit worried! Just enjoy the music, as worrying or debating about its sales isn't going to change how it's selling, or not selling.
Amen Jen!
No, sorry but I disagree with Jen's point about Paul being interesting BECAUSE of his past. That's Ringo's description. (sorry) Yes, many go to see him because he (Paul) was a Beatle BUT (BIG BUT) he has continued to be creative & should be given more credit in that Beatle fans can & should move on & discover his solo talents. He & his team should market it to some of the older generations too.
I guess I should have just quoted Jen's last paragraph as that was what I was really agreeing with.
To clarify again, IIII don't think he's only interesting because of his past--for most people, though, that's it. Sad, but true. We know he's been solid for decades, but the average person probably couldn't name 5 of Paul's 20+ solo albums, forget his work with Wings. I hate that this is the case, but I think it is.
-
walliebaby:
beatlesfanrandy:
walliebaby:
Part of the issue is that the bulk of questions he gets asked are about the 1960's. He needs to get better about steering the interview to his current work, though. He's obviously great, we all love him and his music, but we can't force people to buy his albums, much to our collective chagrin. The fact that he's over 70 and moved as many albums as he did is pretty impressive, as ageism exists so heavily in music and music sales. We revere the older artists, but as a buying public, ignore them when their albums hit the shelves, unless it's a collection of their greatest hits. :
Paul promotes The Beatles, in his concerts, in his interviews, anywhere he can. That's all there is to it. Enough said!
He doesn't shy away from them the way he once did, and often makes sure people don't forget he was in the group, correct. However, during interviews and articles, he gets asked about them. A lot. Anyone remember the Fresh Air interview conducted by a veteran interviewer, Terri Gross, where she spent a majority of the interview asking about The Beatles instead of Paul's poetry book that he was there to promote. He even (nicely) called her on it. It's not always his doing. Setlists? All his doing, yes. Interviews and articles? Not always in his control.
But celebrities of Paul's stature always have stipulations of what journalists/interviewers may and may not discuss. Paul's peeps should convey: "Hey, Paul really appreciates your admiration for his legendary career, but he's here to promote his album, and the interview needs to focus mainly on that, OK?" But, then again, that would mean that these interviewers might actually have to do a little (wait for it) research.
-
audi:
walliebaby:
beatlesfanrandy:
walliebaby:
Part of the issue is that the bulk of questions he gets asked are about the 1960's. He needs to get better about steering the interview to his current work, though. He's obviously great, we all love him and his music, but we can't force people to buy his albums, much to our collective chagrin. The fact that he's over 70 and moved as many albums as he did is pretty impressive, as ageism exists so heavily in music and music sales. We revere the older artists, but as a buying public, ignore them when their albums hit the shelves, unless it's a collection of their greatest hits. :
Paul promotes The Beatles, in his concerts, in his interviews, anywhere he can. That's all there is to it. Enough said!
He doesn't shy away from them the way he once did, and often makes sure people don't forget he was in the group, correct. However, during interviews and articles, he gets asked about them. A lot. Anyone remember the Fresh Air interview conducted by a veteran interviewer, Terri Gross, where she spent a majority of the interview asking about The Beatles instead of Paul's poetry book that he was there to promote. He even (nicely) called her on it. It's not always his doing. Setlists? All his doing, yes. Interviews and articles? Not always in his control.
But all celebrities of Paul's stature always have stipulations of what journalists/interviewers may and may not discuss. Paul's peeps should convey: "Hey, Paul really appreciates your admiration for his legendary career, but he's really here to promote his album, and the interview needs to focus mainly on that, OK?" But, then again, that would mean that these interviewers might actually have to do a little (wait for it) research.
Yup. He does have some topics that are off limits, like She Who Must Not Be Named, for example, but even Paul knows that people like us will read articles about his solo work, but guess what sells/draws in the average reader? Paul's charity work? His ballet album? Paul's thoughts about MFM? Nope. Paul was always the PR-savvy Beatle, and he knows that an article that starts out with, "As Paul reflects on the climate changes our world is facing..." The Beatles sell, and they're a necessary evil to get Joe Schmo to care about Paul and his work. Remember Paul's Thanksgiving special a few years ago? How much would anyone like to bet that The Beatles' 50th anniversary of the Ed Sullivan Show appearance mops the floor with Paul's viewership numbers of...let's say Paul's last 3 TV specials, combined. I don't like that this is true, but it is.
-
Spot on again Jen.
-
Nancy R:
Spot on again Jen.
I'm on a roll.
-
walliebaby:
Nancy R:
Spot on again Jen.
I'm on a roll.
Is it a jam buttie?
-
Ok so contrary to an earlier posters gloom and doom that McCartney dropped of the global charts, after holding steady at 19 two weeks in a row, McCartney went up a notch and has the 18th most popular album on the planet earth. In terms of registered sales. Believe me when all is said and done, and you count the numbers 12-18 months from now, sharp saavy Paul McCartney will have a million units sold worldwide for NEW, which aren't Abbey Road or Band On The Run numbers, but a million is a million is a million. Here's a thought, you didin't hear it from me. A jaw dropping, a jaw dropping head turning, oh wow Beatles release to celebrate the fiftieth Beatle anniversary, will be coming in 2014, and, later we will find out, that behind the scenes, some of the best people were quietly organizing this monumental jaw dropping release, even McCartney himself was distracted, Electric Arguments only sold I dont know, around 400K total so ya know, NEW will do better. I hear, and I could be wrong, it could be some kind of elaborate drink the koolaid, farcical kind of practical joke, but I hear a jaw dropping release is coming from the Beatles pretty soon, and maybe some of the attention is focused there. I know I will record the CBS Beatles special if I am out, I don't wanna miss anything just in case. It's only normal and natural McCartney would lose some appeal with his new albums as he enters his seventies, but remember long after the man is gone, they will be studying and teaching his albums at the worlds leading universities, both Beatles and post Beatles. Who was greater Lennon or McCartney, I couldn't say, honestly I couldn't, but McCartney will go down as the greatest of his time, in history. Believe it, don't fret too much for Paul McCartney, he has a billion in the bank, five grown healthy happy children, a young daughter, he'll get through the day ok, worry about your own lives, he will do fine.
-
As much as it would make me happy, I seriously doubt that Electric Arguments sold anywhere near 400K units.
-
audi:
As much as it would make me happy, I seriously doubt that Electric Arguments sold anywhere near 400K units.
Agree with you on that one, unfortunately.
-
Apollo C. Vermouth:
Just to get something clear about chart positions and sales figures. Do they include downloads from iTunes or Amazon, etc. If someone downloads a few tracks or half or 10 of the 12 standard album tracks, etc., does it count as a portion of an album sale, ie: 6 tracks = 50% of a standard album. So do all the fraction of album sales get counted in sales figures. I was just looking at a global album chart and it has New at 18 up from 19 previous week. Not that bad globally. I think Paul should do a major world tour next year and maybe re-release it with more/different bonus tracks ( I am sure he has some tracks up his sleeve) and a DVD of his promotional videos & TV/pop up shows. In other words a special tour package.
iTunes and Amazon downloads most definitely do count for Billboard's singles and album charts, but they only count as an album if you purchase the album. Individual track purchases count on the charts as if they were singles, whether or not they were marketed that way (which has given artists like Taylor Swift and Lil Wayne and the Glee cast huge numbers of Hot 100 hits). I'm not sure what happens if you've bought one or more individual tracks from an album and then do a "Complete My Album" later?I can't imagine that scenario is too relevant in this case, though. I would almost bet money that you're right about a "tour edition" of the album next year!
-
He should re-release it in 2014 and call it OLD!
-
audi:
Bruce M.:
I think folks complaining about mistakes "Paul's people" have made are missing something. Some of the posts in this vein have made it sound like Paul has nothing to do with any of these decisions, which seems highly unlikely. If Paul had really wanted to do more promotion in the U.S. and Europe rather than playing in Japan, for example, it would have happened. And so would a proper video for "New" when it first came out as a single. Many of the decisions that were made puzzle me as much as others, but I think it's unfair to put all the blame on Paul's staff and/or Hear Music as if he was just a bystander. The fact is, we don't know who was responsible for which decisions or what the reasoning was behind them.
...said the guy who works in P.R.
Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it! But seriously, my PR background is part of how I think about this. While some legit mistakes have been cited by myself and others, those weren't the main problem. And, having had my wise PR advice ignored or circumvented by people who thought they knew better, I know how often that happens. We'd all do well to remember that hindsight is 20/20.
-
Bruce M.:
audi:
Bruce M.:
I think folks complaining about mistakes "Paul's people" have made are missing something. Some of the posts in this vein have made it sound like Paul has nothing to do with any of these decisions, which seems highly unlikely. If Paul had really wanted to do more promotion in the U.S. and Europe rather than playing in Japan, for example, it would have happened. And so would a proper video for "New" when it first came out as a single. Many of the decisions that were made puzzle me as much as others, but I think it's unfair to put all the blame on Paul's staff and/or Hear Music as if he was just a bystander. The fact is, we don't know who was responsible for which decisions or what the reasoning was behind them.
...said the guy who works in P.R. I can well see on the one hand, how McCartney is his own worst enemy, perhaps ignoring advice given by his promotion people. Maybe they did advise he do a proper video for the New single. Or maybe they didin't have enough lead time to prepare one by the time they were notified of the choice for a single. Maybe they should have worked 24/7 and they didin't The McCartney gig, as a music promotions specialist, has to be one of the most coveted gigs on earth for that field. Further McCartney has the pull of almost no one else, he can get booked onto all the major television stations in USA and UK with one phone call. He can do impromptu gigs in Hollywood Blvd, Times Square and Covent Garden with the snap of his fingers, take some other band off the street and see if the city planners and police department allow that! Maybe McCartney being an Icon in his 70's made some bad calls over the objections of his promo team, but it still doesn't explain the plethora of things undone and bad timing and no support from Starbucks, and everything else. They already knew Starbucks had a huge impact on first week sales of MAF, 80 thousand additional units the first week alone. You're telling me McCartney stopped his people from pressuring the label (Starbucks) from promoting their own artist? the biggest artist in history? No question heads should roll for that one alone. His people got lazy, complacent, took those fat paychecks and schmoozed about how they worked with Paul McCartney, meanwhile everybody dropped the ball. Sure McCartney probably made some blunders, but he is the boss, he made the album. That's his job, the other people are supposed to market it, jeez the guy flew half way around the world to Japan to play in concert, he did three live impromptu gigs, did that fabulous work in the studio, its insane to blame McCartney, his people sucked, bigtime, and he needs a new team, its a disgrace. One of his best solo albums ever, and his team stinks, they failed, McCartney didin't fail he made a good album, nobody knows about it, he needs some new people who don't take those fat paychecks for granted. We may never get another new rock album from McCartney because of this. Having said all that, I think he will rebound in the summer or sometime next year with a revamped campaign, and his touring will bump up sales numbers, even if he only hangs around in the lower half of the top forty for 12 additional weeks, that adds up, I think the Beatles may likely have a jaw dropping release or two to celebrate the 50th anniversary in the USA around Feb 2014. Maybe some of the better people have been focused on that program. Maybe McCartney already knows, his sales of NEW will skyrocket back into the charts in conjunction with this jaw dropping Beatle release, Beats me I am not a promo guy, but even I can see some of the bad mistakes made with NEW so far.
Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it! But seriously, my PR background is part of how I think about this. While some legit mistakes have been cited by myself and others, those weren't the main problem. And, having had my wise PR advice ignored or circumvented by people who thought they knew better, I know how often that happens. We'd all do well to remember that hindsight is 20/20.
-
Bruce M.:
audi:
Bruce M.:
I think folks complaining about mistakes "Paul's people" have made are missing something. Some of the posts in this vein have made it sound like Paul has nothing to do with any of these decisions, which seems highly unlikely. If Paul had really wanted to do more promotion in the U.S. and Europe rather than playing in Japan, for example, it would have happened. And so would a proper video for "New" when it first came out as a single. Many of the decisions that were made puzzle me as much as others, but I think it's unfair to put all the blame on Paul's staff and/or Hear Music as if he was just a bystander. The fact is, we don't know who was responsible for which decisions or what the reasoning was behind them.
...said the guy who works in P.R.
Hey, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it! But seriously, my PR background is part of how I think about this. While some legit mistakes have been cited by myself and others, those weren't the main problem. And, having had my wise PR advice ignored or circumvented by people who thought they knew better, I know how often that happens. We'd all do well to remember that hindsight is 20/20.
-
Paul has promoted NEW. Timing, however, has been strange. 1) Sheryl Crow is doing tons of live appearances on national TV shows, but her CD is AVAILABLE!! Paul did some live TV, but BEFORE his new CD was released. WTF????? 2) Paul should have released NEW last Spring, when he was touring in Brazil, then the USA and then Japan. Imagine if ALL those concerts had four NEW songs in the set. Now, there are NO SHOWS announced, while NEW is out and waiting to be promoted. 3) The festival appearances in the USA in 2013 were cool, but obviously did nothing to get younger fans to buy NEW. May as well have just done regular shows for Paul fans in Nashville, San Francisco and Las Vegas.
-
RMartinez:
He should re-release it in 2014 and call it OLD!
I was thinking this the other day... 'I wonder what Pauls next album would be....' !!!