It's Possible
-
This week, for the first time in his 40+ year career, James Taylor landed the first #1 album of his career. USA Today wrote an article about it: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2015/06/24/james-taylor-number-one-album-before-this-world/29212513/ There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Paul has another chart-topper in him. When you look at what it took to get there, it's clear that this is very doable. Just something to keep in mind... (As a side-note, Mr. Taylor got his start on Apple Records.)
-
as big a star as paul is, timing and promotion is rarely at the right time, intensity and widespreadedness befitting of this music legend and his still very good compositions
-
For the life of me, I don't get the "Paul needs a number 1 album" brigade.
-
moptops:
For the life of me, I don't get the "Paul needs a number 1 album" brigade.
-
What about a #47? How's that for an ambition... You sit down to write 10 songs and you want to conceive a whole that sells just enough to reach #47 on the Billboard Charts. Everything else is a failure...
: -
I'm happy for JT
-
I was in that #1 must-have brigade. I think it's the psychological motivator the man needs which could make make "studio-Paul" and "concert-Paul" the same dude again. Plus, what's wrong with a last hoorah?
-
If McCartney fans was a bit more like Springsteen's, Pearl Jam... and run to the store on the day/week of release, then every New McCartney album would automatically be number one instead of three. "New" was #1 in Norway... so don't blame me for his failures.
-
audi:
I was in that #1 must-have brigade. I think it's the psychological motivator the man needs which could make make "studio-Paul" and "concert-Paul" the same dude again. Plus, what's wrong with a last hoorah?
I agree Audi. On a more personal note, though, I completely understand and relate to Paul's recent ambitious and even quixotic (to some) approach as of late to remain "relevant" in today's music. Of course, at this point his legacy is unshakable, but that doesn't mean there are no obstacles to face. The great thing about Paul is his magical mix of unconquerable optimistic outlook and relatable common-man personality. This powerful combination makes his enormous success seem attainable, especially to his fans. When we see him shine, it helps us feel like we can achieve our own dreams and have fun doing it or bounce back from hard times. Unfortunately, however, we live in a society with an unhealthy cannibalistic obsession with youth which the youth itself inevitably buys into. This leads to unavoidable obstacles that all of us are either facing now or will face one day. Paul is facing them now, and has been for some time. People his age get zero mainstream radio coverage, rarely get to discus current or future projects in media appearances, and are subjected to a widely-held myth that they are less talented than they used to be and have no place modern pop culture. This myth is often supported with the notion that if they were still good, they'd still be popular; in essence, it's a vicious cycle whereas the only way out is to use gimmicks to get any kind of significant success to speak of. Even then, it's almost always concentrated and short-lived rather than sustained and building. Before going into a decade-long retirement, David Bowie once said that he can't get acknowledged by pop culture and major media, so he has to rely on "word of mouth" like a newcomer. Of course, he would later brilliantly execute one of these gimmicks of his own in the form of a highly successful surprise comeback; though this still wasn't enough to hit #1 in the US and therefore, unless he pulls a James Taylor, he will likely die without ever reaching the peak of the most prized music market in the world. Does Paul *need* to have an number one album? Of course not. But it's a huge symbolic achievement for someone his age in this century, and it's one we could all join him in pursing and hopefully celebrating rather than criticizing and demeaning. Well, that's my take anyway
-
Well said! -
Nancy R:
Well said!Thanks Nancy!
-
wingsdgm:
moptops:
For the life of me, I don't get the "Paul needs a number 1 album" brigade.
For me it doesn't matter. But I guess McCartney had liked a Billboard # 1.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
If McCartney fans was a bit more like Springsteen's, Pearl Jam... and run to the store on the day/week of release, then every New McCartney album would automatically be number one instead of three. "New" was #1 in Norway... so don't blame me for his failures.
Are you going to see him in Oslo? -
No, not this time. I saw him in 2004, and also in 1989 and 1993 (two shows). I was too young to see him in 1972, so let's say that I'm now too old.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
No, not this time. I saw him in 2004, and also in 1989 and 1993 (two shows). I was too young to see him in 1972, so let's say that I'm now too old.
Nah! You're never too old to see Paul! (well unless it's General Admission--forget that!)
-
Let's hope his next album is called "General Admission". It would change everything.
-
Its the same old story with chart positions. Paul's next album could sell a billion copies but if another hundred albums that week sell more than a billion then Paul's album won't make the top 100. But selling a billion copies of his latest album is hardly a failure, even if it didn't make the top 100. There's nothing Paul (or we ) can do to secure a #1 record.........its all down to what other artists / records are selling too.
-
I looked at other stadium acts on wikipedia; Bruce Springsteen, U2, Madonna, Pearl Jam... and when these release new records its' mostly straight to #1, or # 2-3 at its worst, depending on who else is out with new albums. That McCartney don't do the same I believe is perhaps because his Beatles past makes more noise than new releases.
-
Paul's own fans disagree wildly about which albums and songs are great and which make them "cringe". If there are no obvious #1s among his fans, can he really have any with the general public?
-
Well, people say that "Ram" is a disaster one year and a masterpiece the next. The human brain aren't exactly made of glue... I only trust my own #1 opinion when it comes to music. It might vary a bit in the long run. For me the thing is to hear a record at the right moment. My favorite records of the 80s aren't necesarilly exactly the same now as in the 80s. Some records I thought was great then maybe faded a bit as I've discovered music I didn't notice back then. This is also one of the reasons I think McCartney should play more non-hits in concert.
