|
Post by kds on Jul 2, 2020 12:10:53 GMT
I think the chart positions are misleading, though, because, while something like Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper, Band on the Run or Venus and Mars topped the charts and then lingered in the upper half of the top 200 for a long time, the recent stuff hasn't had that kind of staying power. How many casual fans could name even one song off the albums since Flowers in the Dirt? Basically, what we are seeing here is the same thing we see with Dylan - lots of pre-orders add up to a strong first week, then the albums quickly drop off the charts. Another difference is, Dylan does a lot of his recent material in his shows; with Paul, there might be 2 or 3 songs in his setlist from the current album, but by the next tour, those songs are all gone. Wonder when he last played My Brave Face? Hope of Deliverance? Fine Line? All true. Since Paul embraced his roots around 1990, he knows what puts the butts in the seats.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 2, 2020 13:43:17 GMT
I think the chart positions are misleading, though, because, while something like Abbey Road, Sgt. Pepper, Band on the Run or Venus and Mars topped the charts and then lingered in the upper half of the top 200 for a long time, the recent stuff hasn't had that kind of staying power. How many casual fans could name even one song off the albums since Flowers in the Dirt? Basically, what we are seeing here is the same thing we see with Dylan - lots of pre-orders add up to a strong first week, then the albums quickly drop off the charts. Another difference is, Dylan does a lot of his recent material in his shows; with Paul, there might be 2 or 3 songs in his setlist from the current album, but by the next tour, those songs are all gone. Wonder when he last played My Brave Face? Hope of Deliverance? Fine Line? Chart positions can certainly be misleading due to the relative staying power of a record, but that's true across all eras/decades. I think the more misleading issue now is that you can chart higher selling 50,000 albums than you could selling 500,000 in the past. And, in some instances, I suspect it's even more drastic than that. Still, it's of value. Paul and Bob typically peak in the top 10, Brian Wilson top 40, Ringo top 100, Mike Love doesn't chart, etc. I'm not sure what the set lists have to do with it. I suspect Dylan's hardcore fans pre-order the album, and casual fans stick to the classic albums and greatest hits. It's also worth pointing out that while Dylan's album's have performed well on the charts, comparable to Paul's, that is not the case on the singles chart. Dylan's got 5 top 10 hits, 12 top 40 hits (in total). Paul's got 22 top 10 hits, 36 top 40 (in total) in his solo career alone. Factor in the Beatles and he's got 50-ish top 10 hits and 90-ish top 40 hits. How many of those can he ditch for the likes of "Despite Repeated Warnings"? Since Paul embraced his roots around 1990, he knows what puts the butts in the seats. Speaking of butts in the seats, doesn't McCartney play much larger venues?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 2, 2020 13:47:57 GMT
Usually it's stadiums to theaters, yes.
It makes sense: McCartney's music is just much more accessible. More musical, if you will. Dylan is a genius and his band is great, but people love to sing along. That's what McCartney has always delivered.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 2, 2020 14:37:19 GMT
Usually it's stadiums to theaters, yes.
It makes sense: McCartney's music is just much more accessible. More musical, if you will. Dylan is a genius and his band is great, but people love to sing along. That's what McCartney has always delivered.
Plus, there's that Beatle thing. Paul's the most prolific living member of history's greatest band, and half of his setlist is typically made up of Beatles songs, so that'll get some folks in those stadiums and arenas.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 2, 2020 14:42:31 GMT
Usually it's stadiums to theaters, yes.
It makes sense: McCartney's music is just much more accessible. More musical, if you will. Dylan is a genius and his band is great, but people love to sing along. That's what McCartney has always delivered.
Plus, there's that Beatle thing. Paul's the most prolific living member of history's greatest band, and half of his setlist is typically made up of Beatles songs, so that'll get some folks in those stadiums and arenas. Oh for sure, but why does that matter? Because Beatles music was more that kind of "musical," sing-along music that people love.
Dylan is arguably as big a legend as the Beatles. But not the kind of legend who brings 20,000 people into an arena to sing along to every song.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 2, 2020 14:49:37 GMT
Plus, there's that Beatle thing. Paul's the most prolific living member of history's greatest band, and half of his setlist is typically made up of Beatles songs, so that'll get some folks in those stadiums and arenas. Oh for sure, but why does that matter? Because Beatles music was more that kind of "musical," sing-along music that people love.
Dylan is arguably as big a legend as the Beatles. But not the kind of legend who brings 20,000 people into an arena to sing along to every song.
Dylan, the man and songwriter, is probably as legendary. But, I think his overall catalog pales in comparison. And I think it's more than just the ability to sing along that brings people out. Pink Floyd played stadiums and big arenas, and they don't have much of a sing along chorus catalog.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 6, 2020 5:17:18 GMT
I think you guys are missing my point. If Dylan did a show of nothing but classics night after night, few people would complain. Blowin' in the Wind, Don't Think Twice It's All Right, A Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, the Times They Are A-Changin', It Ain't Me Babe, All I Really Want to Do, My Back Pages, Mr. Tambourine Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Maggie's Farm, Like a Rolling Stone, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues, Just Like A Woman, I Want You, All Along the Watchtower...but he chooses instead to still perform a lot of recent material. If Macca did that kind of show, he wouldn't be doing stadiums, either. As far as hit singles, it's been a very long time since Paul had one.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 6, 2020 11:53:39 GMT
I dunno, I think we get your point.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 6, 2020 12:13:51 GMT
I think you guys are missing my point. If Dylan did a show of nothing but classics night after night, few people would complain. Blowin' in the Wind, Don't Think Twice It's All Right, A Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, the Times They Are A-Changin', It Ain't Me Babe, All I Really Want to Do, My Back Pages, Mr. Tambourine Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Maggie's Farm, Like a Rolling Stone, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues, Just Like A Woman, I Want You, All Along the Watchtower...but he chooses instead to still perform a lot of recent material. If Macca did that kind of show, he wouldn't be doing stadiums, either. As far as hit singles, it's been a very long time since Paul had one. I got your point, but Dylan also plays far smaller venues, and to be honest, I'm not even sure if Dylan would be playing arenas and/or stadiums even if he stuck to classics.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 6, 2020 12:53:07 GMT
I think you guys are missing my point. If Dylan did a show of nothing but classics night after night, few people would complain. Blowin' in the Wind, Don't Think Twice It's All Right, A Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, the Times They Are A-Changin', It Ain't Me Babe, All I Really Want to Do, My Back Pages, Mr. Tambourine Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues, Maggie's Farm, Like a Rolling Stone, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues, Just Like A Woman, I Want You, All Along the Watchtower...but he chooses instead to still perform a lot of recent material. If Macca did that kind of show, he wouldn't be doing stadiums, either. As far as hit singles, it's been a very long time since Paul had one. I don't have anything to add regarding the Dylan vs. McCartney comparison(s), but your point about a POTENTIAL Dylan setlist is something I've thought about - and experienced - several times over the last decade or so.
I'm not exactly second-guessing Dylan's Neverending Tour and how he conducts it. He's apparently doing just fine, and more importantly, he's enjoying himself performing his art...his way. But, as a Dylan fan, and as a non-diehard fan, his concerts can be frustrating, filled with numerous what-ifs. I've seen Dylan in concert six or seven times over the last decade or so. Most of the shows were exciting and fulfilling, a few were boring, and all were frustrating. Half of, or maybe two-thirds of the songs performed were certified classics, not necessarily "greatest hits", but songs that were considered highlights of his albums. The other half to two-thirds of the songs were obviously Dylan-chosen songs that he simply wanted to perform - whether his fans wanted to hear them or not. I remember the second Dylan concert I attended and he performed "Lenny Bruce"; I had to ask the people sitting around me what the song was. They didn't know either.
Back to the frustrating part. I hung in there at every Dylan concert, trying "to get" what he wanted me to hear in the more obscure songs he was performing. I was surprised but not shocked to see several people leaving a few songs into the shows. Either they didn't care for or didn't expect Dylan to sound the way he did - which was NOT like his former self - or they were expecting more familiar songs. It was probably a combination of the two. And it always made me think. Dylan could've had ALL of those fans eating out of his hand. All he had to do was play (I don't want to say "the hits"; Dylan didn't have many "hits"), his most familiar songs and perform them according to the original arrangements, and those concerts would've been the greatest show on earth. One Dylan classic after another. Some of the greatest songs in the history of popular music. Think about it. I did. No, instead we got "Cats In The Well", "Tweedle Dee And Tweedle Dum", and "The Levee's Gonna Break", songs by the way that I like very much, but not "Knockin' On Heaven's Door", "Mr. Tambourine Man", or "Subterranean Homesick Blues".
Where am I going with this? I don't know! I guess I'm agreeing with lonelysummer that Dylan could fill stadiums if he wanted, but that's not his goal. I wish it would be, but then I guess he wouldn't be Bob Dylan. And, on the other side, it is Paul McCartney's goal, and that's OK, too.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 6, 2020 13:05:02 GMT
That's just it: he's not interested in that (obviously!), and really never has been someone to do what people wanted or expected. I think of that Joan Baez line in the No Direction Home documentary when she says that at protest after protest, people would ask her "is Bob coming?" And she says something like "No, you idiots, HE NEVER COMES."
His performances are--his whole career is--like that. He's going to do what he's going to do. Fans, critics, etc., can say "but if he did X, he could have Y or be like Z!" but that's all just kind of irrelevant.
But to bring back the McCartney comparison, the opposite seems also true. He does what he does, which is write and perform melodic music intended to be popular, to be loved, to be sung. Sure, he could do rarities every night. But let's be serious, he isn't someone with nuanced messages he's trying to get across, or trying to expose the obscure roots of musical forms, etc. He's a pop songwriter trying to get you to smile.
So he sings familiar, beloved, decades-old mega hits night after night to 20,000 people.
The problem with that is ... what?
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 8, 2020 21:39:38 GMT
That's just it: he's not interested in that (obviously!), and really never has been someone to do what people wanted or expected. I think of that Joan Baez line in the No Direction Home documentary when she says that at protest after protest, people would ask her "is Bob coming?" And she says something like "No, you idiots, HE NEVER COMES."
His performances are--his whole career is--like that. He's going to do what he's going to do. Fans, critics, etc., can say "but if he did X, he could have Y or be like Z!" but that's all just kind of irrelevant.
But to bring back the McCartney comparison, the opposite seems also true. He does what he does, which is write and perform melodic music intended to be popular, to be loved, to be sung. Sure, he could do rarities every night. But let's be serious, he isn't someone with nuanced messages he's trying to get across, or trying to expose the obscure roots of musical forms, etc. He's a pop songwriter trying to get you to smile.
So he sings familiar, beloved, decades-old mega hits night after night to 20,000 people.
The problem with that is ... what?
It's not really a problem except from the perspective of still wanting to see my childhood heroes be more than traveling jukeboxes. At some point on the journey, their new recordings become something strictly for the cultists; when you see them in concert, it's strictly a trip to the past for 2 hours. Obviously Paul enjoys doing that; but it does make me wonder what motivates him to continue recording, knowing there is absolutely zero chance of any of the new songs becoming a hit, a crowd favorite, a standard that he is expected to sing for the rest of his life. I would think it would get discouraging when you realize your new music doesn't matter; that you can never better what you did 50 years ago. It's like being a ballplayer that spends the rest of your life talking about the great plays you made when you were 20 years old. It's like your life has become one long Old Timers Game.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 8, 2020 22:11:40 GMT
Yeah, I get the argument/complaint. In the end--and believe me, considering I relate to the argument a lot, it is no criticism of you whatsoever--I just don't think it matters. You're one person, I'm one person. Most people (obviously) want the hits, as many as possible.
It would be weird to go through that artistic mid-life crisis and later admission of artistic senior citizenship. I know we have a thread dedicated to that somewhere. But the popular bands all eventually face those questions: keep doing what you're doing, reinvent yourself, follow your muse, follow the trends, follow the fans?
These are their decisions to make. They have their own motivations. (Why are you in it: to perform, to record, to create, to please yourself, to please others, to get rich[er], to spread some message, to collaborate?)
The long Old Timers Game? Nothing new about that. Some of those artists draw decent crowds at casinos and fairs, a few sell out stadiums.
I know I've referenced them a million times about it, but Prince and David Bowie were two artists who clearly struggled with this, especially in the '90s and early '00s. Both said at some point or another they were done playing certain old songs or albums. You can go any number of ways ... but those who can sell more tickets, usually do what it takes to sell more tickets. The Stones and McCartney are probably the most obvious examples.
Why does McCartney keep doing new albums? Who knows? Maybe because he thinks it's fun and he can do whatever he wants because he's filthy rich (thanks in part to touring on one of the greatest catalogues in history). Pretty good problem to have.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 8, 2020 23:35:08 GMT
That's just it: he's not interested in that (obviously!), and really never has been someone to do what people wanted or expected. I think of that Joan Baez line in the No Direction Home documentary when she says that at protest after protest, people would ask her "is Bob coming?" And she says something like "No, you idiots, HE NEVER COMES."
His performances are--his whole career is--like that. He's going to do what he's going to do. Fans, critics, etc., can say "but if he did X, he could have Y or be like Z!" but that's all just kind of irrelevant.
But to bring back the McCartney comparison, the opposite seems also true. He does what he does, which is write and perform melodic music intended to be popular, to be loved, to be sung. Sure, he could do rarities every night. But let's be serious, he isn't someone with nuanced messages he's trying to get across, or trying to expose the obscure roots of musical forms, etc. He's a pop songwriter trying to get you to smile.
So he sings familiar, beloved, decades-old mega hits night after night to 20,000 people.
The problem with that is ... what?
It's not really a problem except from the perspective of still wanting to see my childhood heroes be more than traveling jukeboxes. At some point on the journey, their new recordings become something strictly for the cultists; when you see them in concert, it's strictly a trip to the past for 2 hours. Obviously Paul enjoys doing that; but it does make me wonder what motivates him to continue recording, knowing there is absolutely zero chance of any of the new songs becoming a hit, a crowd favorite, a standard that he is expected to sing for the rest of his life. I would think it would get discouraging when you realize your new music doesn't matter; that you can never better what you did 50 years ago. It's like being a ballplayer that spends the rest of your life talking about the great plays you made when you were 20 years old. It's like your life has become one long Old Timers Game. I really believe that a part of these older artists - and obviously it varies from artist to artist - believes that their new work might "catch on", might luck into into a hit single, and might sit comfortably next to their...better (best?) work. Now, yes, another part of the older artists has to be realism, too. They've all had cold spells. But, remember, these are rock stars (emphasis on stars), and despite their sometimes humble and unassuming demeanor, they also have big egos, confidence, and high expectations for themselves. They don't need the money, they might not even need the applause, but I wonder if that need to do something great never disappears.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 9, 2020 0:49:56 GMT
I know there are all sorts of artists, but I tend to believe that while there might be a reasonably strong motivational link between writing and recording, I don't think the same is true of writing/recording and performing. Especially in regard to Paul McCartney. The early Beatles performed as a means to an end - getting a record deal (sure, they enjoyed it, but they were also just about ready to quit). Their live setlists during Beatlemania, and their BBC recordings, were hardly representative of their latest studio work. And, when the two were in serious conflict, they quit the road for good. Paul eventually rediscovered a love for performing, but writing (or, music, more generally) is who he is. And, recording is an expectation of his. I'm sure he recognizes that the audiences for his live show and his studio work are no longer one and the same (if they ever were), and approaches them accordingly. I think he genuinely loves writing, recording, and performing. I don't think he needs any other motivation (not that he doesn't have any - I'm sure he does, secondarily).
To SJS's point - I'm sure Paul, and many others, are still (occasionally) motivated to attempt to achieve greatness once again. And, I'm sure just about every last one of them thinks they've got a puncher's chance, too! (why not?)
As an aside, I think it's kind of ironic (considering our recent discussions) that it's Dylan (not Paul) who I've read sometimes gets dispirited and loses interest in studio work due to doubts of being able to reach former glory.
|
|