|
Post by kds on Dec 29, 2020 15:52:22 GMT
So, if you include The Beatles, Paul has now charted in seven decades. I take the charts with a huge grain of salt, but that's impressive (far more so than recent bullshit chart records set by the likes of Iggy Azalea).
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Dec 30, 2020 2:27:17 GMT
Ah, the strange world of charts. He's No. 1 ... in the Billboard Top Album Sales Chart, but not the Billboard 200 Album Chart (where he's No. 2). And the number that got him that position was 25k in sales in his first week.
The record is Adele's 25, with 3.34 million in its first week, or more than 133x as many units sold. In the SoundScan era (1991 onward), more than 20 albums have sold more than a million copies in their first week; another 10 or so did the same pre-SoundScan. A million units is 40x as many as III sold.
It's a number one, technically, but it's hard to consider it a real hit on a historical scale.
The 25k in sales were in the UK (where Adele's 25 sold 800k in the first week). In the US, McCartney III sold 104k. Apparently, the biggest sales week for a rock album by a solo artist since Egypt Station (147k, but included redemption offers/bundles). The breakdown is pretty interesting: 53,000 CDs, 32,000 LPs, 18,000 digital downloads, and 1,000 cassettes. Only Jack White's Lazaretto and Pearl Jam's Vitalogy sold more LPs in a week since Nielsen Music/MRC Data began electronically tracking music sales in 1991. It's also worth pointing out that McCartney III and Taylor Swift's Evermore (which was only in its 3rd week) smoked the rest of the top 10. Obviously, the industry has changed drastically and any historical comparisons should be made with extreme caution, but I think some people are far too quick to dismiss Paul's (and other artists) chart success. He's still competing with the most successful acts of the day (and in mid-December, no less). www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9504857/mccartney-iii-debuts-top-album-sales-chart/ I'll bet there will be a huge drop off in sales the second week, though. That's the way it is with older artists - huge pre-release build up, all for that first week. Then sales fall off a cliff the second week. Taylor's album will continue selling for months.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 30, 2020 14:00:14 GMT
I'm wrapping up listening to MIII right now. I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but it's pretty much in line with my feelings on his other 21st Century albums. It's only one listen, but I'm finding it a very dull listen, and feels long at 44 minutes. Kiss of Venus was really the only song that piqued my interest.
I've said this before when we were discussing Paul's later albums, but I feel like he's still got something to offer, but is in dire need of a collaborator.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 30, 2020 17:34:28 GMT
I'll bet there will be a huge drop off in sales the second week, though. That's the way it is with older artists - huge pre-release build up, all for that first week. Then sales fall off a cliff the second week. Taylor's album will continue selling for months. No doubt. Taylor Swift has wider appeal than 78-year-old Paul McCartney. But, that doesn't negate his (and other older artists') success. Also, I don't think "pre-release build up" is particularly relevant or consequential. What I mean by that is it has always been part of the equation, and for everyone. It's not unique to older artists. IIRC you've questioned in the past why artists still release singles - this is why. To generate buzz, to build up anticipation among fans...even if it has ZERO chance of charting. (Granted, Paul chose not to release a single for McCartney III. Nor did he for McCartney). Anyway, pre-orders are part of the build up, and a huge part of the first week sales, but I don't think they attribute to the drop off in subsequent weeks' sales. I think pre-orders are largely representative of the same group of loyal fans who'd otherwise purchase the album on release day. I'd even push back ( to an extent!) against those who'd argue that the chart positions are being cheapened by the increased number of variations/editions/formats of albums, as if only Paul McCartney had super fans and collectors buying multiple copies of albums, or that it was somehow a new phenomenon. All popular artists have those fans, and always have.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Dec 31, 2020 2:42:06 GMT
I'll bet there will be a huge drop off in sales the second week, though. That's the way it is with older artists - huge pre-release build up, all for that first week. Then sales fall off a cliff the second week. Taylor's album will continue selling for months. No doubt. Taylor Swift has wider appeal than 78-year-old Paul McCartney. But, that doesn't negate his (and other older artists') success. Also, I don't think "pre-release build up" is particularly relevant or consequential. What I mean by that is it has always been part of the equation, and for everyone. It's not unique to older artists. IIRC you've questioned in the past why artists still release singles - this is why. To generate buzz, to build up anticipation among fans...even if it has ZERO chance of charting. (Granted, Paul chose not to release a single for McCartney III. Nor did he for McCartney). Anyway, pre-orders are part of the build up, and a huge part of the first week sales, but I don't think they attribute to the drop off in subsequent weeks' sales. I think pre-orders are largely representative of the same group of loyal fans who'd otherwise purchase the album on release day. I'd even push back ( to an extent!) against those who'd argue that the chart positions are being cheapened by the increased number of variations/editions/formats of albums, as if only Paul McCartney had super fans and collectors buying multiple copies of albums, or that it was somehow a new phenomenon. All popular artists have those fans, and always have. I'm probably a lot older than you, because I can remember when an album would be released, and gradually climb the charts. An album debuting at #1 or #2 was almost unheard of. IIRC, Elton John had two albums that did just that in 1975- Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and Rock of the Westies. That was considered a major achievement. A high debut back then was when a new Bob Dylan album was in the top 20 it's first week; that still allowed for a quick climb up to the top. Now everything is geared around that first week; online orders play into that, but I am guessing the internet and social media plays into it, too. Back in the 60s and 70s, I would guess that people did not always know in advance that a new album was coming out, unless they subscribed to Billboard. More likely was that the songs started getting played on radio, and as people heard the songs repeatedly, they decided "I like that song, I want to get that record". I wonder if any of the current pop or rock stations are playing McCartney III songs? I can still remember the first time I heard "Coming Up" on the radio. I might have known that McCartney II was coming out...coming up...lol...but this didn't seem to have anything to do with that. It was a Wings recording, not a solo track, and it was obviously live. Of course, when the album came out a few weeks later, I heard the solo version of "Coming Up" as the album opener; didn't like it much. But included with the album was a 7 inch record with the live Wings version of "Coming Up" - as I heard, at the record company's insistence. They wanted it on the album, but Paul refused, saying "this is a solo album, not a Wings album". So they reached a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 31, 2020 13:12:55 GMT
No doubt. Taylor Swift has wider appeal than 78-year-old Paul McCartney. But, that doesn't negate his (and other older artists') success. Also, I don't think "pre-release build up" is particularly relevant or consequential. What I mean by that is it has always been part of the equation, and for everyone. It's not unique to older artists. IIRC you've questioned in the past why artists still release singles - this is why. To generate buzz, to build up anticipation among fans...even if it has ZERO chance of charting. (Granted, Paul chose not to release a single for McCartney III. Nor did he for McCartney). Anyway, pre-orders are part of the build up, and a huge part of the first week sales, but I don't think they attribute to the drop off in subsequent weeks' sales. I think pre-orders are largely representative of the same group of loyal fans who'd otherwise purchase the album on release day. I'd even push back ( to an extent!) against those who'd argue that the chart positions are being cheapened by the increased number of variations/editions/formats of albums, as if only Paul McCartney had super fans and collectors buying multiple copies of albums, or that it was somehow a new phenomenon. All popular artists have those fans, and always have. I'm probably a lot older than you, because I can remember when an album would be released, and gradually climb the charts. An album debuting at #1 or #2 was almost unheard of. IIRC, Elton John had two albums that did just that in 1975- Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and Rock of the Westies. That was considered a major achievement. A high debut back then was when a new Bob Dylan album was in the top 20 it's first week; that still allowed for a quick climb up to the top. Now everything is geared around that first week; online orders play into that, but I am guessing the internet and social media plays into it, too. Back in the 60s and 70s, I would guess that people did not always know in advance that a new album was coming out, unless they subscribed to Billboard. More likely was that the songs started getting played on radio, and as people heard the songs repeatedly, they decided "I like that song, I want to get that record". I wonder if any of the current pop or rock stations are playing McCartney III songs? I can still remember the first time I heard "Coming Up" on the radio. I might have known that McCartney II was coming out...coming up...lol...but this didn't seem to have anything to do with that. It was a Wings recording, not a solo track, and it was obviously live. Of course, when the album came out a few weeks later, I heard the solo version of "Coming Up" as the album opener; didn't like it much. But included with the album was a 7 inch record with the live Wings version of "Coming Up" - as I heard, at the record company's insistence. They wanted it on the album, but Paul refused, saying "this is a solo album, not a Wings album". So they reached a compromise. It's a little unrealistic to compare how an Elton John or Paul McCartney album would perform in the charts in the 70s or 80s to 2020. Paul could've realized a masterpiece last week (spoiler alert, he didn't), and modern pop radio wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole because Top 40 radio in 2020 just isn't interested in an almost 80 year old legend. At best, maybe a classic rock station gives one of the songs a spin or two, and it might get a bit of a push from The Beatles channel on XM Sirius.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 31, 2020 13:33:35 GMT
Yeah, that's what I was thinking about airplay: commercial modern-music stations aren't going to be interested regardless because of formatting. Classic rock stations are interested in McCartney, but it would take quite an album to have any chance of knocking (literal) classics off the air to make room.
The best chance of where a song of his could be played a lot, at least in my area, is on our public radio station. It doesn't fit any of the basic commercial formats, and you can get different genres and eras represented. But obviously that isn't the kind of airplay that people are talking about when they're talking about chart success, some little regional public radio station.
I do recall some slow-burn albums, though. They used to happen. Appetite For Destruction was released in July 1987. It debuted on the charts at #182 in late August 1987 and while it eventually reached number one (four separate times), it didn't do so until August 1988.
I'd guess there are still some examples like that--though obviously not as dramatic as that one--of slow-burn albums. Probably inclusion in a soundtrack, commercial, some placement in a TV show, or a performance at an awards show or something are the spurs.
*Best/worst example ever, the Natalie Portman movie "Garden State" from the mid-late '00s, when Portman said the indie band The Shins "would change your life." For that snobby world at that time, though, mainstream mention was the worst thing you could have happen, and that world turned on the Shins pretty hard, pretty immediately. "Ooh, this is changing my life," they'd snicker.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 31, 2020 14:10:18 GMT
I was actually trying to think of the last time a legacy artist got some major airplay for a new release. As I said on another thread, I really feel like that late 90s was kind of a cutoff for that, for artists from the 60s and 70s anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 31, 2020 14:27:03 GMT
I wondered whether there was anything official about most-played on the aforementioned public radio station, and it turns out a U of MN data guy analyzed its playlist since 2009 (through 2019). It's actually pretty interesting.
Going through different years, they do (as I suspected) have some examples of older artists' new releases among their top 100, 150, 200 songs of various years. Johnny Marr, Wilco, The Replacements, Beck, David Bowie (including pre-death), Mavis Staples, Nine Inch Nails, Elvis Costello, Bob Mould, Robert Plant, Prince... It's definitely far more modern artists than older ones (and actually a lot right in between), but they aren't ignoring the older ones.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 31, 2020 14:30:14 GMT
I wondered whether there was anything official about most-played on the aforementioned public radio station, and it turns out a U of MN data guy analyzed its playlist since 2009 (through 2019). It's actually pretty interesting.
Going through different years, they do (as I suspected) have some examples of older artists' new releases among their top 100, 150, 200 songs of various years. Johnny Marr, Wilco, The Replacements, Beck, David Bowie (including pre-death), Mavis Staples, Nine Inch Nails, Elvis Costello, Bob Mould, Robert Plant, Prince... It's definitely far more modern artists than older ones (and actually a lot right in between), but they aren't ignoring the older ones.
That makes sense on a station like that. We have a few stations here with more daring playlists than the standard Top 40, Classic Rock, and Active Rock stations. Although, I was surprised that our Active Rock station did play a couple of Ozzy Osbourne's new songs fairly regularly. Although, I suspect with Ozzy, his presence on reality television in the 21st Century has helped him remain relevant.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 31, 2020 16:27:52 GMT
I'm probably a lot older than you, because I can remember when an album would be released, and gradually climb the charts. Yeah, I realize that. I'm not disputing it. An album debuting at #1 or #2 was almost unheard of. IIRC, Elton John had two albums that did just that in 1975- Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and Rock of the Westies. That was considered a major achievement. A high debut back then was when a new Bob Dylan album was in the top 20 it's first week; that still allowed for a quick climb up to the top. Now everything is geared around that first week; online orders play into that, but I am guessing the internet and social media plays into it, too. Back in the 60s and 70s, I would guess that people did not always know in advance that a new album was coming out, unless they subscribed to Billboard. More likely was that the songs started getting played on radio, and as people heard the songs repeatedly, they decided "I like that song, I want to get that record". I wonder if any of the current pop or rock stations are playing McCartney III songs? I wouldn't use the word "geared" because I don't think there's anything intentional (or nefarious) about it. In addition to the points we've already made, it's probably just down to less album sales. So, when a big name releases an album (wide appeal or not, but especially a mainstream artist like Taylor Swift) they debut highly - often peaking in the first week. I wouldn't think that less album sales would necessarily result in less competition but that does seem to be the case ( not that I watch these things closely, I could definitely be wrong!). In the age of (single) downloads, while the volume of sales is there, the revenue isn't (I found some cool graphs that I think you guys would appreciate. I'll post them, too). So, less money, less competition? I don't know. Moving on. I agree with KDS and Kapitan about radio. Legacy artists had their time in the sun - now, it's Swift's turn. That's just the way it is (and it should be, really). More airplay would result in more sales and staying power on the charts, but only so much. Same is true of Dylan, Elton John, you name it. (Imagine if radio had forced our parents and grandparents music on us growing up?) I can still remember the first time I heard "Coming Up" on the radio. I might have known that McCartney II was coming out...coming up...lol...but this didn't seem to have anything to do with that. It was a Wings recording, not a solo track, and it was obviously live. Of course, when the album came out a few weeks later, I heard the solo version of "Coming Up" as the album opener; didn't like it much. But included with the album was a 7 inch record with the live Wings version of "Coming Up" - as I heard, at the record company's insistence. They wanted it on the album, but Paul refused, saying "this is a solo album, not a Wings album". So they reached a compromise. That's an interesting tidbit. I agree with Paul. Including a Wings live recording on a solo studio album? No-go! (But, very cool that they included a 7'' of the live version with the album.) It's also interesting to me when the US and UK approach/reception differ. I believe the studio version was the hit in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 31, 2020 16:44:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jan 2, 2021 1:18:05 GMT
I'm probably a lot older than you, because I can remember when an album would be released, and gradually climb the charts. Yeah, I realize that. I'm not disputing it. An album debuting at #1 or #2 was almost unheard of. IIRC, Elton John had two albums that did just that in 1975- Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, and Rock of the Westies. That was considered a major achievement. A high debut back then was when a new Bob Dylan album was in the top 20 it's first week; that still allowed for a quick climb up to the top. Now everything is geared around that first week; online orders play into that, but I am guessing the internet and social media plays into it, too. Back in the 60s and 70s, I would guess that people did not always know in advance that a new album was coming out, unless they subscribed to Billboard. More likely was that the songs started getting played on radio, and as people heard the songs repeatedly, they decided "I like that song, I want to get that record". I wonder if any of the current pop or rock stations are playing McCartney III songs? I wouldn't use the word "geared" because I don't think there's anything intentional (or nefarious) about it. In addition to the points we've already made, it's probably just down to less album sales. So, when a big name releases an album (wide appeal or not, but especially a mainstream artist like Taylor Swift) they debut highly - often peaking in the first week. I wouldn't think that less album sales would necessarily result in less competition but that does seem to be the case ( not that I watch these things closely, I could definitely be wrong!). In the age of (single) downloads, while the volume of sales is there, the revenue isn't (I found some cool graphs that I think you guys would appreciate. I'll post them, too). So, less money, less competition? I don't know. Moving on. I agree with KDS and Kapitan about radio. Legacy artists had their time in the sun - now, it's Swift's turn. That's just the way it is (and it should be, really). More airplay would result in more sales and staying power on the charts, but only so much. Same is true of Dylan, Elton John, you name it. (Imagine if radio had forced our parents and grandparents music on us growing up?) I can still remember the first time I heard "Coming Up" on the radio. I might have known that McCartney II was coming out...coming up...lol...but this didn't seem to have anything to do with that. It was a Wings recording, not a solo track, and it was obviously live. Of course, when the album came out a few weeks later, I heard the solo version of "Coming Up" as the album opener; didn't like it much. But included with the album was a 7 inch record with the live Wings version of "Coming Up" - as I heard, at the record company's insistence. They wanted it on the album, but Paul refused, saying "this is a solo album, not a Wings album". So they reached a compromise. That's an interesting tidbit. I agree with Paul. Including a Wings live recording on a solo studio album? No-go! (But, very cool that they included a 7'' of the live version with the album.) It's also interesting to me when the US and UK approach/reception differ. I believe the studio version was the hit in the UK. Yes it was. I thought it was very principaled (is that a word?) of Paul to stand up to the record company about keeping it a solo album. He seems to have changed his mind since then; there's been many reissues and comps mixing solo Paul stuff with Wings recordings.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Mar 11, 2021 12:30:33 GMT
www.nme.com/news/music/paul-mccartney-is-teasing-something-with-st-vincent-beck-josh-homme-and-more-2897797It seems a covers version of McCartney III is coming. Here is the potential tracklist: I can't say I'm too interested. I only recognize two of those artists. That said, I think it's a good (if not great) idea. We've had similar discussions surrounding Brian Wilson. Should he have transitioned to being a producer of younger acts? Should he bring in guest artists on his albums? Should he sing all the leads himself? Well, this is the best of both worlds. Fans can listen to whichever they prefer without compromise (or both, if interested).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 11, 2021 12:51:58 GMT
Are these pure covers, or is McCartney producing?
I'm familiar with--or aware of, anyway--about two thirds of these artists. And I like some of them well enough: I had everything of Beck's for the first decade or so of his career; I like St. Vincent; I've got a few Anderson .Paak albums; and I have at least something by Blood Orange, Phoebe Bridgers, and Josh Homme. Ed O'Brien is from Radiohead, whose albums I have a lot of.
Yet I'm not all that excited because I don't think the songs from III are very good. I'd say that I'd prefer just a career-spanning covers album, but those tend to be pretty hit-and-miss, too.
When it's out, I'll give it a listen. But I won't be counting the days.
|
|