Paul McCartney enters with his new album in the uk charts at no.10. Springsteen entered with his new solo album(released in april) in the uk charts at no.1. Hmmmmm. McCartney, the great musical genius, cant even out - sell a solo acoustic springsteen album. Perhaps it is because mccartney is simply sub - standard and no - one is particularly interested in much of his post - beatles work.
or maybe the charts are more an indicator of fashion than they are quality? I've not heard either Springsteen or McCartney's latest albums so don't have a particular axe to grind, but just because something gets higher in the charts doesn't mean it's better. Jeffrey Archer's novels tend to go to No.1 for example.
It was in response to the constant ramming down your throat of how great mccartney is, and how you arent truelly british if you dont love him or the beatles attitude currently in this country. See radio 2 yesterday
RE: or maybe the charts are more an indicator of fashion than they are quality? Yes, an excellent point..it is always bemusing when people say the spice girls were great because of the number of records they sold. My point was that for such a commercial artist as mccartney is, he doesnt sell that much anymore, whereas the people who seemingly arent as highly regarding in this country such as springsteen still does.
Steps must be a quality band All them records they've sold. And Mr Blobby and The Birdie song. Absolute classics. We all like who we like. I wish people would stop trying to justify their taste. Some of my favourite songs were only bought by 3 people and a dog. Who cares, I like 'em and that's all that counts.
RE: or maybe the charts are more an indicator of fashion than they are quality? Well said, the charts are nothing but a snapshot of a particular week anyway. Not saying this is or is not the case as I don't know the sales figures but, for example, Springsteen went straight in at number one because the hard core fans all bought it on release, another album could sell more than that album over the course of a month or 2 but never get higher than number 10. That's if sales mean anything which, to a music fan, they don't, if you like something you buy it and listen to it and don't care whether it reached number 1 or number 100 in the charts. The only people bothered about sales figures are the record companies.
Exactly Music and tastes in music are very personal things, and it annoys me when people suggest that unless you like summat cool and trendy, you have no taste. And if you like summat from before 1980 you aren't human.</p> This is why we will never agree on a club theme tune for example - leave it out for chuff's sake!</p> Reight - now where's that new Sandie Shaw boxed set gone?</p>
..and how quick did Springsteen's album disappear from the chart? Loyal fans bought the album, that's all. Pet Sounds - the greatest album of all time only peaked at around number 8 and was derided as a flop. Look at it now. Genius lives on. McCartney has absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. If you don't like McCartney, don't buy the album. I can't understand your jealous critique. I notice you haven't mentioned Dylans latest album position.
Dylan's album sales never match his undeniable genius, but my original point was in answer to your point several weeks ago as to how nobody would remember springsteen. So, even if his loyal fan base were the only ones who bought his album....where's mccartney's loyal fanbase...or is it simply not as big as springsteen's? The truth is mccartney had commercial success with the beatles, and is of very little interest to anyone outside of that. Plus, this is England....mccartney's home country....springsteen went to number one in 19 different countries with devils and dust....even you must admit he has a very wide fan base. In the states, he is huge....alongside the greats, people like sinatra and dylan in terms of prowess in the music industry.
Aye alright. Whatever you say. Doubt Springsteen will go do down in the annals of rock history, as good as he is.
Your continual attempt to contrast Springsteen with McCartney misses, with respect, the point. Whether one has sold more records than the other surely makes no difference. The fact is that they will be debating McCartney's music in 200 years time (as an equal partner in the greatest songwriting partnership of the 20th century) but this does not detract from anything that Springsteen has done, or your right to enjoy it (or to rate it more highly). After all, music is highly personal, usually reflecting individual emotional states. It's just that The Beatles (and McCartney) are considered by many people, the world over, to be in an entirely different context to the Springsteens of this world. Probably because they changed just about everything. They showed what was possible. They led, the others followed. Doesn't stop me appreciating 'Born in the USA' etc though, and accepting it as the work of a very fine artist.
Never makes.... Poor albums although Macca has made a few stinkers in his time. I'm sure he would agree as well.
RE: Never makes.... Yep, and so do I. What Macca and many have only just realised, is that, whilst being a part of the Beatles, he only had to contribute 4 or 5 songs per album. His quality control, up until his latest album, was thus very flawed.
RE: I like Macca. Not really bothered if no-one else does. Millions worldwide do. Don't be disuaded by the somewhat negative media campaign. They will change their tune when he passes on.
Do you actually follow those charts? I bet you have all the albums by Britney Spears, Boyzone, Robbie Williams and S Club 7 too...
RE: I like Macca. Not really bothered if no-one else does. I don't like most of Macca's early solo stuff, but "Off the Ground" was really good! Have you heard that one? I might have to get the new album then...