The Pop Charts
-
Spies Like Us reached #7, and Press reached #21 on the singles chart in the US. I like Press better. I think The Backseat of My Car is one of very good McCartney songs. But it only peaked at #39 in the UK. The rankings of music are not always reasonable.What's your opinion of it? Many thanks, in advance.
-
Chart positions are influenced by so many factors.......how well other singles are selling during the same week, whether the single (song) has been previously available, was there a exclusive song on its b-side etc etc. 'Back Seat Of My Car' has already been available on Ram for three months by the time it was released as a single. And there was nothing new on its b-side either. Because single sales were greater in the 70's than they are these days, ironically if BSOMC was released today,and sold the same the amount of copies as it did back in 1971, it would probably make the top 10 now.
-
I'm not sure about the UK, but the US Billboard charts have changed so much over the years, it depends what time period you're looking at to decide if it's fair or not. For a while in the '90s, the major labels had a way of NOT releasing singles at all for certain artists, so people would have to buy the whole CD to get the song (this is before downloads), and Billboard didn't count radio airplay toward the Hot 100 rankings. So, many songs that got played to death on the radio just didn't make the charts (except the radio charts, which no one cares about). No Doubt's "Don't Speak," Natalie Imbruglia's "Torn," and Goo Goo Dolls' "Iris" were all huge #1 hits on the radio airplay chart, but they didn't chart on the Hot 100. (In late 1998, the chart rules changed again to include radio airplay, allowing the latter two songs to chart briefly on their way down.) Then along came downloads in the 2000s, and Billboard changed their rules again to allow individually downloaded songs, so now a big new album by someone like Taylor Swift can send every single song to the Hot 100 at once. And more recently, they've also allowed streaming songs from YouTube and Spotify and other outlets to impact the Hot 100. So, it's a complicated question!!
-
Many of my favorite McCartney songs have never been singles. And some of my favorite singles weren't big hits. To me it's just a majority popularity thing, like if you've ever been a DJ, you need to find the songs that work there and then, to make the party going and (most) people dancing, but it's not necesarraily the best songs in other circumstances, like if you sit down and listen to an album, then the radio hit is sometimes the least interesting piece of music on the record. Well... Some of my thoughts on it.
-
I am often puzzled by what Paul does with single releases. For instance why was original Maybe I'm Amazed never a single anywhere. Why was Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey not released as a UK single and TBSOMC 1st UK single off Ram released 3 months later than album. Isn't one reason a single is released from an album (usually just before) is to promote the album. Paul has actually acknowledged his difficulty in choosing the best singles option. Paul did quite often release non album singles, mostly chart successes. In these cases I guess his instincts as to what makes a hit single proved correct. The Seventies was an era when albums became the dominant format and actual singles sales success became secondary to the album but it's obvious that a huge selling single does wonders for the albums sales. But I did buy quite a few albums on the back of a great single only to find the album a real dud. I had no problem with this when buying Paul/Wings albums. Mostly they were a very high standard and still are.
-
In the 80s and 90s the pop charts meant a lot to music lovers. I would check them each week to see where my favourite artists featured, but I can honestly say that I haven't bothered with the charts for about the last 10 or 15 years, apart from an occasional glance at the album chart. The singles chart today in the UK (I just checked it) seems to be entirely populated by R&B rubbish with generic beats and adolescent lyrics. Not an original composition in site. This could be due to the fact that children are downloading and streaming (or whatever the terms are) and this now counts toward chart positions. It's a shame because it used to be such a large part of the music industry.
-
Engelbert Humperdinck's Release Me kept Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever from reaching #1. Is it a better song?
-
Humperdinck's "Release Me" is not a bad song to my ears, but it probably wasn't an innovative recording in 1967. It was just another smaltzy popular tune. The Beatles never made tailormade music for the pop charts.
-
Definitely not innovative. It was already 20 years old at the time.
-
I stopped caring or cared less about the pop charts in the mid-80s. I discovered R.E.M., the Paisley Underground scene and stuff like that. Music that wasn't on the charts but which I thought was cool music anyway. I love Springsteens' "Born in the USA", which I think sold 30 million copies or something. It's one of the most catchy albums ever made to my ears. But I also love Captain Beefheart's "Trout Mask Replica", which is one of the most experimental. I doubt that it has been near the pop charts. I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion. I'm a dedicated follower of music to my ears.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I stopped caring or cared less about the pop charts in the mid-80s. I discovered R.E.M., the Paisley Underground scene and stuff like that. Music that wasn't on the charts but which I thought was cool music anyway. I love Springsteens' "Born in the USA", which I think sold 30 million copies or something. It's one of the most catchy albums ever made to my ears. But I also love Captain Beefheart's "Trout Mask Replica", which is one of the most experimental. I doubt that it has been near the pop charts. I'm not a dedicated follower of fashion. I'm a dedicated follower of music to my ears.
Yes, "Trout Mask Replica" is a classic! I do follow the pop charts, just because it's fascinating to me what becomes popular and why, and who is able to make a career and who just has one or two hits and fades away. But the charts definitely do not have much influence on my music-buying. Yes, Hendrix, I'm also a fan of R.E.M., before they were popular, during their heyday, and after. I've got big collections of the Velvet Underground, Robyn Hitchcock, Guided By Voices, Wire, the Mekons, the Magnetic Fields, Of Montreal, all kinds of stuff. But I also like some of what's popular, including Mumford & Sons (but not the new one) and Adele, and also various songs that happen to be hits, and I don't care what genre it is. I don't own a lot of rap, but there's a lot of great stuff in that category, and yes, I did like certain Kanye West and Rihanna songs even before Paul worked with them. I think Paul has always done the kind of music that interests him, and he leaves it up to others to pick the singles for the most part. It just so happened that the public's taste was aligned with what he was doing from the '60s to the '80s, and it sadly just isn't anymore (except for the new collaborations). I think Paul does wish he was still on the charts with his own solo stuff (he expressed his disappointment that "Hope For The Future" went nowhere), but he still keeps rolling along no matter what. Maybe he takes solace in the one chart where he does still rule, more often than not: concert grosses. He has made his live show such an engaging, exciting, creative, and crowd-pleasing experience, and his concerts are now what qualifies as his "hits"!
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
Humperdinck's "Release Me" is not a bad song to my ears, but it probably wasn't an innovative recording in 1967. It was just another smaltzy popular tune. The Beatles never made tailormade music for the pop charts.
I don't agree that The Beatles never made tailormade music for charts when they actually dominated those charts in the 60's. What they did was make catchy pop/rock music that was also innovative. They never stopped developing their sound always trying to stay ahead of the pack.
-
Yeah, but making catchy music was/is their talent. It's not like their songs were based on analysis of what the market want. They just made the music they liked themselves and millions responded.
-
I think that is probably right but I think they did always consider if a track was hit single material but also represented where there music was at.
-
I don't know but sometimes I meet people who say that Take That and One Direction are exactly the same as The Beatles. Girls screaming... Fame and fortune. But I think if it was the same I would have probably been a fan of all three. And not just one.
-
Hendrix Ibsen:
I don't know but sometimes I meet people who say that Take That and One Direction are exactly the same as The Beatles. Girls screaming... Fame and fortune. But I think if it was the same I would have probably been a fan of all three. And not just one.
I hate The Beatles being mentioned in the same breath as Take Shat & No Direction.
-
Me too. I acccept that there is a generational thing to pop music. The kids listen to a new artist, the grown up say it's terrible and it's exactly how they want it. But that The Beatles and Take That has something in common, is just historically and musically wrong. Especially if you are interested in bands.
