Quote
RollingFreak
Just listened to the White Album tonight. @#$%&, its amazing that he wasn't even 27 when that album came out. He's my age and by The White Album he seems like he should be like 40! Thats nuts that at 26 he's writing that many incredible god damn songs. Seriously, what a talent they were. The fact that any of them are still going today is nuts. Would have been so easy for them to lose their heads at such a young age.

Well, not really.

By age 40, Lennon was singing about starting over and McCartney was looking back on his days of Ballroom Dancing.

By the time of the White Album, the rock music era didn't even have 15 years behind it.

Back in the rock era, things moved a lot faster.

Now it moves at around 14 cities a year -- if we're lucky.

No you're right, but what I mean is all those different styles. At 26 you're able to write a song like Honey Pie or Martha My Dear?! That blows my mind. They just seem so wise beyond their years. Same thing with John. Happiness Is A Warm Gun? They had so many different ways of writing and its all so memorable. Its astounding to me, just when I actually think of how young they were. Even something like Back In The USSR seems unthinkable for me to write at my age. I'm not a songwriter or musician so maybe thats why it all seems so incredible, and its not like I'm just discovering the Beatles or something. But I just have an image of them being like 32 during the White Album and they're still under 30. Still basically kids. In all honesty, it makes me think even more about them and George Martin. God, how they just all clicked with each other despite George seeming like a 60 year old in there.

@RollingFreak,

Sure, I see what you mean. One day, when I was 23, I get on a subway train for college classes, and I'm thinking, 'At 23 Paul McCartney was writing Yesterday, and here I am writing dumb little music/film reviews for the college newspaper.'

Honey Pie and Martha My Dear, Paul wrote stuff like that because musically he had old-fashioned sensibilities -- his father was a Big Band type of musician.

I believe When I'm 64 was one of his earliest songwriting efforts -- didn't he write that while still in Liverpool back in the late 50s?

I remember when I turned 27 and thought of all the greats that passed away at that age - Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin - and all they accomplished in a relatively short time period.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
stonehearted
@RollingFreak,

Sure, I see what you mean. One day, when I was 23, I get on a subway train for college classes, and I'm thinking, 'At 23 Paul McCartney was writing Yesterday, and here I am writing dumb little music/film reviews for the college newspaper.'

Honey Pie and Martha My Dear, Paul wrote stuff like that because musically he had old-fashioned sensibilities -- his father was a Big Band type of musician.

I believe When I'm 64 was one of his earliest songwriting efforts -- didn't he write that while still in Liverpool back in the late 50s?

Yeah, he wrote it when he was 16. And I know all these stories, just sometimes it really clicks with me how nuts that sensibility was. I'm listening to his Howard interview right now, talking about Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, and he literally just said "Sometimes I do think of a kid, a 24 year old kid, and think the kid is good!" Its just so incredible. I guess that in the same way the Stones didn't really hit their stride till Beggars. They had great stuff before that, and albums I love, but the Stones were just starting their "golden era" at the same time as the Beatles were finishing the White Album. Just boggles the mind that the Beatles seemed that far ahead. And obviously what the Stones created is nothing short of phenomenal. But it is truly miraculous what the Beatles did in such a short amount of time at such a ridiculously young age.

Yeah Hairball, there are many times when I think of all those people and think "I've accomplished nothing!" Morrison is another really good example of a guy who seemed like he aged like 10 years in a span of about 4. Its seriously nuts.

As Tears Go By, Lady Jane, Play With Fire, Paint It, Black, I Am Waiting, Back Street Girl, Ruby Tuesday and She’s A Rainbow are not part of their "golden era" when it comes to songwriting?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
As Tears Go By, Lady Jane, Play With Fire, Paint It, Black, I Am Waiting, Back Street Girl, Ruby Tuesday and She’s A Rainbow are not part of their "golden era" when it comes to songwriting?

You know what I mean. The general accepted "golden run" of albums from Beggars to Exile. Of course their pre-Beggars work is amazing. I have always adored Between The Buttons and think its criminally underrated.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
As Tears Go By, Lady Jane, Play With Fire, Paint It, Black, I Am Waiting, Back Street Girl, Ruby Tuesday and She’s A Rainbow are not part of their "golden era" when it comes to songwriting?

Not as reflected by their concert set lists the past 6 years.

I can’t seem to get the song “Doninoes” out of my head. Egypt Station has some really nice moments.

Quote
Ross
I can’t seem to get the song “Doninoes” out of my head. Egypt Station has some really nice moments.

Some of the songs are ethereal. This album is growing with every listen.

there are quite a few songs the stones, have never done live, jigsaw puzzle dandelion, etc. but the one song McCartney has never done is uncle albert, it would blow the roof off the place, if he just started the opening to that song one night.

Quote
Hairball
I remember when I turned 27 and thought of all the greats that passed away at that age - Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin - and all they accomplished in a relatively short time period.

Kurt Cobain (1994) and Amy Winehouse (2011) have joined the club since then...

Looks like McCartney’s Egypt Station will enter the charts in the United States at #1.
[m.hitsdailydouble.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-15 04:15 by James Kirk.

Wow, just wow!
#3 in the UK, #1 in Germany, #5 in Italy I think.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Not really "wow" when you put things in perspective.

The #1 US, #3 UK, etc., represents (mostly) physical sales -- that means aging Baby Boomer fans who still buy physical product, along with middle-aged 50ish consumers, are all buying it the same week. Chart figures will plummet from the second week on...

His previous album "New" also made #3 UK as well as #3 US -- but failed to receive any sales threshold certifications, meaning it didn't sell all that well in any international market.

His old-standards cover album "Kisses on the Bottom" from 2012 was his last release to receive a sales threshold certification -- just silver, after a #3 showing in the UK chart.

His last gold record was 2007's "Memory Almost Full" -- #5 US and #3 UK.

Having a #1 or #3 album just doesn't mean what it used to.

Macca's album has been promoted very well in the U.S, I'd say he's a lot 'cooler' now than he's been in a long time.

He also has a digital album bundle of sorts:

Tour Laminate + Digital Album Bundle - $8
- Ticket presale access code for 2019 N. American tour
- Commemorative Tour Laminate w/ Lanyard
- “Egypt Station” Digital Album

If the Stones' are releasing their next album before the tour next year, we'll see the same bundle strategy and about the same sales figures, about 130-150k sold during the first week just like most of the artists with bundle.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense that his album went to #1. He's always still gonna be a Beatle AND his audience is the one that buys albums. Its impressive, but I'd have been shocked that wasn't the case. Also, and he does it every album, but he goes so gung ho with the press. He will go EVERYWHERE. Its truly astounding. Cause he certainly doesn't have to, but I guess he really wants to. And I assume he is really proud of the albums he makes which is nice. When I saw a video of him doing an Autocorrect Interview I was like "jesus, they really had him do every bit of press they could find didn't they?" Whenever he comes out with an album its nice that for a week or two Paul McCartney is always THE buzz of the town. So heartwarming. I don't think there's really anyone else that its like that for. Every 5 years or so the person that is probably everyone's top person in pop culture to meet is the most visible person ever.

Paul McCartney Answers the Web's Most Searched Questions

[youtu.be]

Quote
RollingFreak
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that his album went to #1. He's always still gonna be a Beatle AND his audience is the one that buys albums. Its impressive, but I'd have been shocked that wasn't the case. Also, and he does it every album, but he goes so gung ho with the press. He will go EVERYWHERE. Its truly astounding. Cause he certainly doesn't have to, but I guess he really wants to. And I assume he is really proud of the albums he makes which is nice. When I saw a video of him doing an Autocorrect Interview I was like "jesus, they really had him do every bit of press they could find didn't they?" Whenever he comes out with an album its nice that for a week or two Paul McCartney is always THE buzz of the town. So heartwarming. I don't think there's really anyone else that its like that for. Every 5 years or so the person that is probably everyone's top person in pop culture to meet is the most visible person ever.

Very nicely stated.><

The real sign that McCartney's new album is truly making any impact of lasting significance is the singles charts.

So far, the double A-side of "I Don't Know"/"Come On to Me" has charted, but only in France, bubbling way under respectively at #164 and #147. "Fuh You" has not charted anywhere.

McCartney will shelve this new release after a while just like all the rest of his post-Wings output.

When was the last time he played live Hope For Deliverance, Biker Like An Icon, or Figure of Eight?

Quote
stonehearted
Not really "wow" when you put things in perspective.

The #1 US, #3 UK, etc., represents (mostly) physical sales -- that means aging Baby Boomer fans who still buy physical product, along with middle-aged 50ish consumers, are all buying it the same week. Chart figures will plummet from the second week on...

His previous album "New" also made #3 UK as well as #3 US -- but failed to receive any sales threshold certifications, meaning it didn't sell all that well in any international market.

His old-standards cover album "Kisses on the Bottom" from 2012 was his last release to receive a sales threshold certification -- just silver, after a #3 showing in the UK chart.

His last gold record was 2007's "Memory Almost Full" -- #5 US and #3 UK.

Having a #1 or #3 album just doesn't mean what it used to.

Whoa, a little negative...Either way you look at it, it’s amazing that a 76 year old man who had his first #1 album 55 years ago is currently sitting on top of the album charts in 2018. In an era where music (by young or old artists) simply does not sell his opening weeks numbers are impressive. Don’t be shocked if like Blue + Lonesome, Egypt Station has some staying power...Either way, hats off to an almost 80 year old Paul McCartney for having the #1 album.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-15 04:26 by James Kirk.

Quote
James Kirk
"...it’s amazing that a 76 year old man who had his first #1 album 55 years ago is currently sitting on top of the album charts in 2018. In an era where music (by young or old artists) simply does not sell his opening weeks numbers are impressive. Don’t be shocked if like Blue + Lonesome, Egypt Station has some staying power...Either way, hats off to an almost 80 year old Paul McCartney for having the #1 album".

Indeed, and while having a number #1 album might not mean the same as it used to, it's better than a poke in the eye or a kick in the teeth.

Hats off to Sir Paul!

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
James Kirk
Whoa, a little negative...Either way you look at it, it’s amazing that a 76 year old man who had his first #1 album 55 years ago is currently sitting on top of the album charts in 2018. In an era where music (by young or old artists) simply does not sell his opening weeks numbers are impressive. Don’t be shocked if like Blue + Lonesome, Egypt Station has some staying power...Either way, hats off to an almost 80 year old Paul McCartney for having the #1 album.

Not negative, just facts, statistics.

A more impressive thing would be a gold record -- which he hasn't managed in over a decade.

Despite charting at #3 US with "New", that album sold only around 217,000 copies in the US -- less than half what is needed for a gold record.

Quote
Hairball

Quote
James Kirk
"...it’s amazing that a 76 year old man who had his first #1 album 55 years ago is currently sitting on top of the album charts in 2018. In an era where music (by young or old artists) simply does not sell his opening weeks numbers are impressive. Don’t be shocked if like Blue + Lonesome, Egypt Station has some staying power...Either way, hats off to an almost 80 year old Paul McCartney for having the #1 album".

Indeed, and while having a number #1 album might not mean the same as it used to, it's better than a poke in the eye or a kick in the teeth.

Hats off to Sir Paul!

Not intended as a knock, I assure you.

It's just that, well... since 2001, McCartney has recorded and released 5 albums of original material.

He could easily create a 3-hour concert out of just of those albums.

So, if all these "new" releases are so worthwhile, would you pay $XXX just to hear him perform material from those 2001 to 2018 albums?

Why not? If you hold them in such high praise, then why not a 3-hour concert of just his latest releases?

Would you walk away from such an experience totally satisfied?

Or would you rather he play only Beatles classics and standout Wings hits?

If you had $XXX to spend as the audience of a legend, which would it be?

I thought so.

Like Egypt Station is going to make a difference, let alone a ripple, in the legacy of Paul McCartney.

Why is it amazing that a 76-year-old man has an album on the charts?

So does Tony Bennett.

Tony Bennett holds Guinness World Records for his album chart longevity.

That doesn't mean his work with "Lady Gaga" or "Diana Krall" made him more than he already was.

Here's the test of a classic: What was the last McCartney "new" song you played more than 10 times over 10 years?

I'll bet it was Coming Up -- his last, truly solo, number 1 song.

Buddy you seem a little angry. Just chill out. I don’t have the attention span to answer every one of your points, but your overall goal seems to be that you want to take a crap on the fact that McCartney has the #1 album.

Maybe Egypt Station will add to his legacy in the fact that the most commercially successful artist of all time is having #1 albums at almost 80 years old. It makes McCartney’s 27th #1 album in America counting Beatles releases. Is that something to be negative about in your mind? Seems to add a little something to his legacy to me, but what do I know?...Just relax. Everything is going to be ok.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-09-15 15:50 by James Kirk.

Quote
James Kirk
Buddy you seem a little angry. Just chill out. I don’t have the attention span to answer every one of your points, but your overall goal seems to be that you want to take a crap on the fact that McCartney has the #1 album.

Maybe Egypt Station will add to his legacy in the fact that the most commercially successful artist of all time is having #1 albums at almost 80 years old. It makes McCartney’s 27th #1 album in America counting Beatles releases. Is that something to be negative about in your mind? Seems to add a little something to his legacy to me, but what do I know?...Just relax. Everything is going to be ok.

He's using a variation of the fundamentally dishonest "Gish Gallop" debate technique to overwhelm you with questions.

My first reaction to Egypt Station was not very good with the exception of a few outstanding songs on side (second half of the album). I've persevered and after the 4th listen I reckon it's his best album since Tug Of War in 82. The singles are, weirdly, the weakest songs on it. But for a 76 year-old man to be making music like this is remarkable.

Quote
stonehearted
He could easily create a 3-hour concert out of just of those albums.

So, if all these "new" releases are so worthwhile, would you pay $XXX just to hear him perform material from those 2001 to 2018 albums?

Why not? If you hold them in such high praise, then why not a 3-hour concert of just his latest releases?

Would you walk away from such an experience totally satisfied?

Or would you rather he play only Beatles classics and standout Wings hits?

If you had $XXX to spend as the audience of a legend, which would it be?

I thought so.

If you're asking me, then you thought wrong. Having seen Paul several times play all the hits (Beatles, Wings, etc.), I'd happily welcome a unique experience of seeing a show of based solely around recent albums. It's not that I love those recent albums, but playing the same old standards wears thin after seeing him play them multiple times. Just like the Stones, if they were to play a show based solely on the latter era (along with tunes from the supposed new album), sign me up.

But if you're asking the general masses, you might be right.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

the masturbation stories re: Macca, Lennon and B Bardot probably aren't hurting promotion either....

Jeez, you try and have a thoughtful discussion to put things in perspective by pointing out sales figures and sales threshold certifications...

...and you get called negative and angry...

...and you're accused of having an agenda...

...because everyone's pulling this "great for an old man" bit because 120,000 fans went out and bought a new album in the same week.

His singles don't even chart and haven't in over a decade.

Everyone here is all excited about an album that'll barely top 200,000 in sales.

If you don't get on board with the "great for an 80 year old" fan-wank mantra, you get called negative and angry and accused of having an agenda.

Well, enjoy your "#1 album" hysteria -- for the week that it lasts.

I think I'll spend more time over in the vintage television fan forums, where it's a good deal more friendly and a lot less juvenile.