|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 20, 2016 22:21:06 GMT -5
#8 in Australia. That is actually better than in 1977. It went to #12 then. A worse showing in the UK and US though. #2 for the former and #1 for the latter in 1977. I had hoped for better with this re-release. For years I have seen Hollywood Bowl listed towards the top of various lists of peoples' choices of what albums they wanted to see finally released on CD. It has taken all these years and yet it doesn't go to number one. IMO this album should have been released on CD a long time ago, probably in the 1990s, or the early 2000s at the latest. We saw with the Anthology and 1 that Beatles' fans were still prepared to buy in big numbers then. That does not seem to be the case today. I know it is a reduced market for physical sales today, but I suspect more is going on. Barbara Streisand scored a US number one recently with about 150 000 sales in the first week. I know that was a new release, but still. In Australia there has been a lot of promotion of the movie on TV spots, but none that I have seen for the album. How about in your country? I have seen no television spots for Hollywood Bowl or for Eight Days A Week!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Sept 21, 2016 10:28:58 GMT -5
#8 in Australia. That is actually better than in 1977. It went to #12 then. A worse showing in the UK and US though. #2 for the former and #1 for the latter in 1977. I had hoped for better with this re-release. For years I have seen Hollywood Bowl listed towards the top of various lists of peoples' choices of what albums they wanted to see finally released on CD. It has taken all these years and yet it doesn't go to number one. IMO this album should have been released on CD a long time ago, probably in the 1990s, or the early 2000s at the latest. We saw with the Anthology and 1 that Beatles' fans were still prepared to buy in big numbers then. That does not seem to be the case today. I know it is a reduced market for physical sales today, but I suspect more is going on. Barbara Streisand scored a US number one recently with about 150 000 sales in the first week. I know that was a new release, but still. In Australia there has been a lot of promotion of the movie on TV spots, but none that I have seen for the album. How about in your country? I have seen no television spots for Hollywood Bowl or for Eight Days A Week! CBS Sunday Morning, one of the most watched television news programs in the USA/Canada did a really nice story this past week on the Ron Howard Documentary. Probably reached as many or more people than any TV commercial would have.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 21, 2016 14:26:20 GMT -5
#8 in Australia. That is actually better than in 1977. It went to #12 then. A worse showing in the UK and US though. #2 for the former and #1 for the latter in 1977. I had hoped for better with this re-release. For years I have seen Hollywood Bowl listed towards the top of various lists of peoples' choices of what albums they wanted to see finally released on CD. It has taken all these years and yet it doesn't go to number one. IMO this album should have been released on CD a long time ago, probably in the 1990s, or the early 2000s at the latest. We saw with the Anthology and 1 that Beatles' fans were still prepared to buy in big numbers then. That does not seem to be the case today. I know it is a reduced market for physical sales today, but I suspect more is going on. Barbara Streisand scored a US number one recently with about 150 000 sales in the first week. I know that was a new release, but still. In Australia there has been a lot of promotion of the movie on TV spots, but none that I have seen for the album. How about in your country? I am with you KC! I want every Beatles release, every Paul release and every Ringo release to be #1 and I hoped against hope that "Hollywood Bowl" would be a #1 on the Billboard Top 200. Hey, I tried, I bought 5 copies on the release day thinking I could give the other four out as gifts but no one wants CDs! No one in my life except me plays music that way anymore! It is pretty sad when you can't give a great CD away. I about cried when "Free As A Bird" failed to make #1 single in the U.S.! How did that new Beatles song not make it?! Thank God each Anthology album made #1! Another huge disappointment was George's Brainwashed not hitting #1! How many times do we see some washed-up, B-grade musician/artist die and their last album goes #1 and here is the majestic George Harrison and his posthumous album does not even get close to #1! Streisand gets a #1 and The Beatles and/or Paul McCartney can't?! It is a piss-poor world we live in!
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Sept 22, 2016 1:17:37 GMT -5
#8 in Australia. That is actually better than in 1977. It went to #12 then. A worse showing in the UK and US though. #2 for the former and #1 for the latter in 1977. I had hoped for better with this re-release. For years I have seen Hollywood Bowl listed towards the top of various lists of peoples' choices of what albums they wanted to see finally released on CD. It has taken all these years and yet it doesn't go to number one. IMO this album should have been released on CD a long time ago, probably in the 1990s, or the early 2000s at the latest. We saw with the Anthology and 1 that Beatles' fans were still prepared to buy in big numbers then. That does not seem to be the case today. I know it is a reduced market for physical sales today, but I suspect more is going on. Barbara Streisand scored a US number one recently with about 150 000 sales in the first week. I know that was a new release, but still. In Australia there has been a lot of promotion of the movie on TV spots, but none that I have seen for the album. How about in your country? I am with you KC! I want every Beatles release, every Paul release and every Ringo release to be #1 and I hoped against hope that "Hollywood Bowl" would be a #1 on the Billboard Top 200. Hey, I tried, I bought 5 copies on the release day thinking I could give the other four out as gifts but no one wants CDs! No one in my life except me plays music that way anymore! It is pretty sad when you can't give a great CD away. I about cried when "Free As A Bird" failed to make #1 single in the U.S.! How did that new Beatles song not make it?! Thank God each Anthology album made #1! Another huge disappointment was George's Brainwashed not hitting #1! How many times do we see some washed-up, B-grade musician/artist die and their last album goes #1 and here is the majestic George Harrison and his posthumous album does not even get close to #1! Streisand gets a #1 and The Beatles and/or Paul McCartney can't?! It is a piss-poor world we live in! The only chart position befitting a Beatles' related release really.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 22, 2016 5:52:41 GMT -5
I am with you KC! I want every Beatles release, every Paul release and every Ringo release to be #1 and I hoped against hope that "Hollywood Bowl" would be a #1 on the Billboard Top 200. Hey, I tried, I bought 5 copies on the release day thinking I could give the other four out as gifts but no one wants CDs! No one in my life except me plays music that way anymore! It is pretty sad when you can't give a great CD away. I about cried when "Free As A Bird" failed to make #1 single in the U.S.! How did that new Beatles song not make it?! Thank God each Anthology album made #1! Another huge disappointment was George's Brainwashed not hitting #1! How many times do we see some washed-up, B-grade musician/artist die and their last album goes #1 and here is the majestic George Harrison and his posthumous album does not even get close to #1! Streisand gets a #1 and The Beatles and/or Paul McCartney can't?! It is a piss-poor world we live in! It is perplexing that The Beatles and/0r Paul cannot get a #1 now when other older artists can, and I am still hoping it happens. But as I wrote in a recent post (if you read it), in 2016 it is great for LIVE AT THE HOLLYWOOD BOWL to reach #7 in the US (and #3 in UK, #8 in Australia) for a group that disbanded nearly 50 years ago, with a live album (they don't do as well as studio albums anyway) that was already issued for diehard fans in '77 . The Opie EIGHT DAYS A WEEK film is really getting raves currently, and it is actually doing so well that most theaters are holding it over for a second week. So maybe word of mouth will get people (including the diehard "fans" who puzzlingly opted to sit out picking up the 2016 HOLLYWOOD BOWL) to pick this up, and the CD may climb up a bit in this next week. Either way, it is amazing to get into the Top 10, really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 9:11:24 GMT -5
FWIW, I agree with JoeK (surprise!). They did a poll years ago which showed that >90% of journalists vote Democratic as a rule. But enough politics. Go Beatles! Talking Politics, lets hope Hillarry trumps that Don idiot !!!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 22, 2016 11:45:18 GMT -5
Let's not talk politics in this Thread. Steve has said to move on and this is a Hollywood Bowl album Thread.
JoeK, I read your post and agree that #7 is still amazing for a band that broke-up in 1970. I kind of understand where a live album with songs only up to 1965 might not have the appeal needed to push it to #1 but we can only hope!
I am still appalled that "Free As a Bird" did not shoot to the top of Billboard's Hot 100 and that Paul's Chaos And Creation In The Backyard did not own the Billboard's Top 200 album chart for like eight weeks at #1!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 16:56:21 GMT -5
If you have another listen to Free As A Bird you'll realise why it didn't get to #1.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 22, 2016 18:14:29 GMT -5
If you have another listen to Free As A Bird you'll realise why it didn't get to #1. Point taken. But "Real Love" could have had a better shot at #1.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Sept 22, 2016 19:14:58 GMT -5
They both might have been number ones if they had been first released as singles only, not included on the Anthology One and Anthology Two albums.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 23, 2016 3:26:51 GMT -5
Real Love, released a month or two before Anthology, would have been a number one.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Sept 23, 2016 16:08:09 GMT -5
Real Love, released a month or two before Anthology, would have been a number one. Depends on what else was out at the time. I mean, "Real Love" could have been jammed up behind the "Release Me" of its day... JcS
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Sept 27, 2016 8:20:24 GMT -5
Week 2 on US BILLBOARD 200:
#37 (down from #7 in Week 1) .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 27, 2016 9:27:43 GMT -5
Week 2 on US BILLBOARD 200: #37 (down from #7 in Week 1) . We have work to do Beatle People!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Sept 28, 2016 9:43:47 GMT -5
We have work to do Beatle People! I did my part--I told a guy that likes the Beatles about the new release, and he hadn't heard about it. Of course, I don't think he will buy it, because I told him how annoying the crowd noise was, but I thought that was part of full disclosure... JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 28, 2016 11:00:40 GMT -5
We have work to do Beatle People! I did my part--I told a guy that likes the Beatles about the new release, and he hadn't heard about it. Of course, I don't think he will buy it, because I told him how annoying the crowd noise was, but I thought that was part of full disclosure... JcS Well...that's a start I guess, Joey! I meant that we Beatle People need to go out and buy more copies. By Facebook postings, we Fab fans should target a specific week and if just 100,000 of us went out and re-bought the new HB album it would coast to #1 on Billboards Top 200! 50,000 people go to a single Paul McCartney concert. Paul could ask just two concert audiences to buy HB the same week and boom, The Beatles have another #1. The problem I see is that Paul may urge them to buy instead Pure McCartney, his Solo career spanning compilation with songs curated by Paul himself. That boat has sailed.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 29, 2016 3:16:57 GMT -5
I really don't need to go out and buy further copies, thanks. I've bought pretty nearly every new Beatles release (excluding compilations and re-releases of the same thing) when it came out, I really don't see buying duplicates in order to boost something to number one, which I couldn't care less about.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 29, 2016 8:20:30 GMT -5
I really don't need to go out and buy further copies, thanks. I've bought pretty nearly every new Beatles release (excluding compilations and re-releases of the same thing) when it came out, I really don't see buying duplicates in order to boost something to number one, which I couldn't care less about. That's the spirit, vectisfabber! I know that those of you in the Second World War generation are frugal from war-time deprivations but you might actually enjoy some of these releases even if things like HB have been released before but only on vinyl.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 30, 2016 3:14:00 GMT -5
I bought the Hollywood Bowl CD! But I don't intend to buy multiple copies.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Sept 30, 2016 17:40:19 GMT -5
I don't think I've actually bought any "new" Beatles releases since the 80s, with the exception of 'Let It Be... Naked' (which is far, far, better than the original 'Let It Be').
Who cares about album chart positions nowadays? Means nothing. The core music-consumption audience of millions and millions of teens/20/30-somethings purchases, collectively, about 23 CDs a year around the world. The real consumption comes though media streams like iPhones and via YouTube advertising, etc.
Having said that, the lowly chart placings and fast drop off of Beatle-related sales recently underscores the (obvious to everyone except Apple) point that the Beatles' mass audience is dying off. Apple should have released things like The Complete BBC recordings and so on about 15 years ago.
"The Beatles" as a media-hype and phenomenon will always be a big name and draw, but actual consumption of their music is dwindling.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Sept 30, 2016 19:50:04 GMT -5
the lowly chart placings and fast drop off of Beatle-related sales recently underscores the (obvious to everyone except Apple) point that the Beatles' mass audience is dying off. Apple should have released things like The Complete BBC recordings and so on about 15 years ago. "The Beatles" as a media-hype and phenomenon will always be a big name and draw, but actual consumption of their music is dwindling. Yes, I agree. I think I said more or less the same thing previously. Maybe Apple have been intentionally delaying releases in the expectation, or hope that there would be a new regeneration including younger consumers, as happened with Anthology, or 1? If so, it obviously has not worked. That ship has sailed. That just leaves the established living fans and clearly a lot of them are not buying either. I don't really see much scope for any further big selling Beatles' related album releases, not Anthology 4, the Christmas album, strong new McCartney studio album.... They might go to the top of the charts (or near the top) for a week or two, but that's it. Still, there might be a possibility that if the upcoming McCartney animated movie and soundtrack was exceptional it might capture the public's imagination. Another possibility would be a McCartney duet with a big contemporary star, like FourFiveSeconds, but I'm probably being overly optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 1, 2016 5:58:41 GMT -5
I don't think I've actually bought any "new" Beatles releases since the 80s, with the exception of 'Let It Be... Naked' (which is far, far, better than the original 'Let It Be'). Who cares about album chart positions nowadays? Means nothing. The core music-consumption audience of millions and millions of teens/20/30-somethings purchases, collectively, about 23 CDs a year around the world. The real consumption comes though media streams like iPhones and via YouTube advertising, etc. Having said that, the lowly chart placings and fast drop off of Beatle-related sales recently underscores the (obvious to everyone except Apple) point that the Beatles' mass audience is dying off. Apple should have released things like The Complete BBC recordings and so on about 15 years ago. "The Beatles" as a media-hype and phenomenon will always be a big name and draw, but actual consumption of their music is dwindling. Believe me, I am the first one to call it like it is when appropriate. I'm not going to claim that The Beatles are selling more -- or just as well as -- they did in the 1960s and 1970s (or even 80s and 90s). However, all of their music is still in print in 2016, and they do continue to be consumed by the mass audiences (be it streaming, downloading, or physical media). Their "1" album is still on the charts. And no matter how people try to swing it, I think it is still an amazing thing that THE HOLLYWOOD BOWL managed to get as high as #7 on the US BILLBOARD 200 LIST. The other first 6 albums on that chart were all by NEW artists. It does not matter that the HB album "only sold 35,000 copies its first week"; whether is was one million, 35,000 or 1,000 ... what is of importance is that it still sold SEVENTH of all the other "new releases" currently out there on the market. (And all that even despite some "fans" not bothering to buy the new release .. so imagine what would happen it they all did). Furthermore ... the new EIGHT DAYS A WEEK movie was reporting sell-outs, and the film had to be held over in theaters for an additional week. Even though it was simultaneously available on Hulu . How many other artists who stopped making new music nearly 50 years ago can achieve this?Of course they're not selling like they used to... but this is still impressive at this point, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 1, 2016 6:13:13 GMT -5
I don't really see much scope for any further big selling Beatles' related album releases, not Anthology 4, the Christmas album, strong new McCartney studio album.... They might go to the top of the charts (or near the top) for a week or two, but that's it. And this is not good enough for a band who has not released a new album since 1970? A BILLBOARD first week charting position of #7 and a quick fall to #37 (still in The Top 40, mind you) the second week would have been troubling in 1967 or 1977. It's nothing short of impressive though in 2016.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Oct 1, 2016 7:56:50 GMT -5
I don't really see much scope for any further big selling Beatles' related album releases, not Anthology 4, the Christmas album, strong new McCartney studio album.... They might go to the top of the charts (or near the top) for a week or two, but that's it. And this is not good enough for a band who has not released a new album since 1970? A BILLBOARD first week charting position of #7 and a quick fall to #37 (still in The Top 40, mind you) the second week would have been troubling in 1967 or 1977. It's nothing short of impressive though in 2016. No, not in my opinion. It's not enough to generate strong sales and an act of the stature of the Beatles should deliver strong sales. Elvis had a number one album in the UK just last year ( If I Can Dream). It stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks but then stayed around for months so that it has passed one million sales in that country (Source: Official Charts Company). Hollywood Bowl has bombed in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 1, 2016 8:41:53 GMT -5
It's not enough to generate strong sales and an act of the stature of the Beatles should deliver strong sales. Elvis had a number one album in the UK just last year ( If I Can Dream). It stayed at the top of the chart for two weeks but then stayed around for months so that it has passed one million sales in that country (Source: Official Charts Company). Hollywood Bowl has bombed in comparison. IF I CAN DREAM did well because it was a lot of orchestration added to old Elvis songs. Okay, then let's see what happens with Beatles sales if/when classical orchestration is added to Beatles songs (on second though, never mind... I wouldn't want that.. LOVE was dicey enough). Bringing up Elvis is not a good point, since obviously Elvis' popularity with today's youth has plummeted even further than The Beatles' . My record store owners can tell you that it's "hard to move Elvis stuff", but that "The Beatles sell all day". The Beatles are still a hot commodity in the Collecting World... Elvis, not so much. I have even gone to one used record store to try and sell some Elvis records I no longer need and the guy there tells me Elvis is a tough sell. But when I have extra Beatles LPs or other memorabilia to sell there, the guy takes them every time, and pays well. It's easy to look it up, that The Beatles today are a hotter commodity than Elvis (IF I CAN DREAM's classical concoction notwithstanding).
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 1, 2016 9:53:00 GMT -5
Well...that's a start I guess, Joey! I meant that we Beatle People need to go out and buy more copies. By Facebook postings, we Fab fans should target a specific week and if just 100,000 of us went out and re-bought the new HB album it would coast to #1 on Billboards Top 200! 50,000 people go to a single Paul McCartney concert. Paul could ask just two concert audiences to buy HB the same week and boom, The Beatles have another #1. The problem I see is that Paul may urge them to buy instead Pure McCartney, his Solo career spanning compilation with songs curated by Paul himself. That boat has sailed. Point of order: Wouldn't the release have to have sold 100,000 to start with to get fans to buy another 100,000? I think I saw it sold less than 40,000 the first week, and dropped from there, so it haasn't sold 100G to start with. And if you organized this "let's buy another" campaign, you might find there isn't 100,000 in stores at the moment. I don't know how many were pressed, but as dumb as Capitol/Apple are about things, I still have to think they didn't produce far in excess of what they figured would sell. But ultimately, who cares where it charts? (Besides you, that is.) Chart placement has never been an indicator of quality, and certainly is not now. JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 1, 2016 12:48:42 GMT -5
But ultimately, who cares where it charts? (Besides you, that is.) Chart placement has never been an indicator of quality, and certainly is not now. JcS Charts not important!? I get angry when the media and pundits claims that artists starting with ABBA, Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks, Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, etc. have more #1s than The Beatles or sell more records! I want The Beatles to score so many more #1s that it is not even close. I think we have lost the singles #1 war, I am not sure. That's why it killed me that "Got To Get You Into My Life"(1976), "Twist And Shout"(Used in Ferris Bueller movie)), Baby Its You(BBC 1) FAAB, and RL both did not go to #1! In America, at least, we love winners. Number 1 is every thing, number 2 means nothing, #2 is a loser! Paul McCartney recognizes this and said that The Beatles were not coming to the USA until The Beatles had a #1 and he disavows any solo album or solo single of his that did not get to #1. So Joey and other Members, join me and let's designate the second week of October to go out and buy at least two more copies each of HB! Tell your Beatles friends!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 1, 2016 14:18:25 GMT -5
But ultimately, who cares where it charts? (Besides you, that is.) Chart placement has never been an indicator of quality, and certainly is not now. JcS Charts not important!? I get angry when the media and pundits claims that artists starting with ABBA, Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks, Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, etc. have more #1s than The Beatles or sell more records! I want The Beatles to score so many more #1s that it is not even close. I think we have lost the singles #1 war, I am not sure. That's why it killed me that "Got To Get You Into My Life"(1976), "Twist And Shout"(Used in Ferris Bueller movie)), Baby Its You(BBC 1) FAAB, and RL both did not go to #1! In America, at least, we love winners. Number 1 is every thing, number 2 means nothing, #2 is a loser! Paul McCartney recognizes this and said that The Beatles were not coming to the USA until The Beatles had a #1 and he disavows any solo album or solo single of his that did not get to #1. So Joey and other Members, join me and let's designate the second week of October to go out and buy at least two more copies each of HB! Tell your Beatles friends! In order: No, charts aren't important. Was "Release Me" better than "Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever?" More to the point, do you enjoy HB less because it spent only one week in the top 10 (which I wouldn't have known if you didn't bring it up)? And that you don't KNOW if the Beatles (not "we") have lost the singles war tells you how unimportant it is. McCartney has been shown to be wrong on that claim. They were coming to America with or without a #1. But the disavowal you speak of--if true--would be done by a guy that is reportedly quite shallow in some areas. This would be one of those, no? I see what you did there--everyone is supposed to buy 2 more--but that still won't equal 100,000 if all that bought it in the first week go back to buy two more (assuming there are that many in the store). JcS
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 1, 2016 17:54:14 GMT -5
You are right Joey about shortages out there on the HB album! Darn, my plan thwarted by poor logistics of the record company!
Charts may not matter but we all smiled(and I say that in the past tense) when we saw one of our boys get a real Billboard #1 either for album or single. To me Paul getting a #1 album or single was like the Cubs winning the World Series......bad example in that the Cubs haven't won since 1908 and Macca last had a number 1 in like 1983 or 1984.
I would still like all fans to target the second week of October and buy one or two copies of HB to propel Beatles to the top!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 1, 2016 17:55:38 GMT -5
Of course a charting position does not mean that any one song is better or less better than another song. But sometimes it may be an indicator of what is popular and what is not. Of course we aren't going to decide if we like an album (be it HOLLYWOOD BOWL or any other) just based on the charting performance.
I ask: who cares if some people do express an interest in chart positions? So what? Why do some people get so bent out of shape when some fans like to discuss charting? Let them be interested and have their fun.
|
|