Kestrel:

Jeff Lynne's Beard:

I agree, Randy. The chart positions of the album don't lie!

They might not lie but they can certainly distort the view on how successful the album has been. For example......if New had gone straight to #1 in the charts everyone would have been over the moon for Paul. But then, again as an example, if it was revealed that the #2 album had sold 147 copies that week, and that the #3 album had sold 138 copies etc etc and that Paul's album had in fact sold 150 copies to make it to #1. would we then still be over the moon for Paul? Or would we be lamenting the fact that New had only sold a miserable 150 copies, despite getting to #1? In other words, chart positions are only useful in comparing relative sales figures between albums and that the position itself is no guide as to how commercially successful the album has been.

If it had only sold 147 copies, then you may have a point, but it didn't so... Physical sales of albums have nosedived. Artists now have to have a different measure of what makes an album a success. I'd have preferred Paul, for example, to have sold more albums than the most successful new release that week, Pearl Jam's "Lightning Bolt", but they sold more than 100,000 copies than "New". Fans have to accept that Pearl Jam (and many other artists who can't hold a candle to Paul, creatively) are just more popular these days than Macca. I think Pearl Jam's album is really very good, but it's not as good as "New". I disagree with the original premise of this thread as well. Nearly every Paul McCartney fan I know has been eagerly awaiting a new "proper" studio album. Other albums are almost like supporting features, whereas a new, self-penned album really is the main feature for us. I doubt if "saturation" of the market with Paul McCartney albums is the reason for "poor sales", if, indeed, these sales are, comparatively or realistically poor. In today's music industry, I don't think they are.

I agree, Randy. The chart positions of the album don't lie!

Tomorrow I'm off to see Billy Joel, then other concerts coming up in November include KT Tunstall, My Life Story, The Kast-Off Kinks (with a chance that Ray may turn up), Hugh Cornwell, David Ford and The Fratellis.

"Alligator" is a sheer delight. I wasn't sure about the lyrics at first, but I have come to love an alligator in the way I love my salamander. It's a brilliantly creative song with a touch of the Wings-era about it. Having a rather catchy chorus also helps its cause! "New" really is wonderful, isn't it?

I think we have to accept that the prospect of a new Paul McCartney album doesn't actually mean a great deal to the vast majority of people out there. Even people who will enthusiastically say that they love The Beatles will turn their nose up (ignorantly) about Paul's solo material. Combine that with the rapid decline in people buying physical CDs in favour of downloading (legal or otherwise) and also those who subscribe to online streaming services such as Spotify means that the sales also don't necessarily reflect the amount of people who have heard it. Only selling 100,000 CDs (for example, I haven't researched the true international figure) in 2013 isn't the same as selling 100,000 in 1993. It's not necessarily a poor figure, a failure or a flop. The critical response has been fantastic and I think this will sell well for years to come. The music business has changed immensely. Paul has embraced some of those changes and I don't think he will necessarily be downhearted about the physical sales of "New", especially given the world's largely enthusiastic response to it. I must admit that I have really enjoyed the good old fashioned promotional techniques that Paul has employed getting the album "out there". He's a true professional and has really shown other bands of today how it's done, even if he hasn't been shifting millions of units. When it comes down to it, even though this is Paul McCartney we're talking about, we have to accept that he is no longer a mainstream artist. We, as fans, happen to be one of the biggest underground movements in the world. I'm cool with that. Are you?

Anyone would think the Beatles were American, the way some claim them as their own! I honestly don't think that any band, American or otherwise, have come close. There have been some bands with massive followings, but it's evident that The Beatles are unique in terms of talent and universal popularity. Bands who have come closest, however, are probably The Beach Boys (in terms of creativity) and The Eagles (in terms of sales and universal international popularity). If there was any other band close, in terms of talent and popularity, it would be other UK bands, either The Rolling Stones or Queen. It's clear, though, that The Beatles really were a one off.

Excellent, I like your voice and your music a lot.

Thanks Rahil, no, they're programmed drums, as I don't own a kit. I've tried to get them to sound as fresh and live as possible, but you can't really better the real thing.

Bruce M.:

My feelings are still tentative, but so far this is by far the weakest track on the album for me, a sort of cross between "See Your Sunshine" and some of the cheesier Wings tracks.

I agree, to me, it's a disappointingly flat, ordinary song on an otherwise superb album. My least favourite track on MAF was also "See Your Sunshine", together with "Gratitude".

I've always loved "Keep Under Cover". The 80s production and drum sound makes it sound a little weaker than it could have otherwise been, but it's a great song and one of my favourites on the underrated "Pipes Of Peace".