New Paul McCartney album "Egypt Station" coming September 7, 2018*

I'm happy with my appearance.

 

This. Paul has been mocked by a certain % of the population, fans and rock press since basically forever. He has never been "hip", with his whole "granny songs" and happy marriage living in the country thing. To shallow people this kind of thing has always been uncool. And Paul has always been way above that. He evidently doesn't care now either.

I am aware, from reading sometimes the awful British press, that people in the comments mock him over his appearance. And it's about him looking old (duh, what do those fools expect), not just about the hair dye. I gotta say the level of shallowness from those people is staggering.

I remember Paul talked in some 90's? interview about dying his hair. About how he didn't use to do it and I think Ringo tod him he was crazy not to. Then he began to do it, and he must like better the way he looks like that, sod everyone else. I say more power to him.

I think a beard would look good on him, but Paul doesn't seem to favour it, and apart from a few periods during a depressing time for him in 68-69, he has never wore one.

 

Just to clarify... if pressed to give an opinion...I don't think his dye job looks great. Or good even. It just doesn't matter to me.

 

I edited it in time for it not to show in your quote muahaha

 

I think this whole idea and thing about Paul McCartney never being hip or cool or whatever you want to call it, is also ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

What's not hip or cool about being the cute Beatle, having females all over the world wanting to be your girlfriend! I can't think of many things that are hipper or cooler! Being the absolute greatest rock star in popular music history! Anyone who says Paul McCartney wasn't or isn't cool has their head up somewhere or buried somewhere!

 

What I haven’t heard much of in this discussion is how *good* Paul looks. He’s obviously worked hard at staying fit and energetic, and it’s paid off. If you've spent time in Paul forums with a different demographic skew you've likely encountered some hairdye debate, but also much more discussion about how attractive Paul remains, including extensive analysis of details I won’t go into here. When his appearance comes up in conversations in my own life it’s almost always as praise. And IMO, I love his look from last year with the gray sidies.

Like @Paulwalrus said, we’ve all heard the critics, but most of the time I find it’s people who specialize in gaining a following through snark and cast a wide net with their targets. As noted, aging celebrities are a favorite topic, especially the schadenfreude of watching those known for their youthful attractiveness commit the sin of getting older. Jealousy perhaps? Let’s also recall that The Beatles were mocked relentlessly for their hair and laughed all the way to the bank.

I don’t think I’ve personally encountered anyone who’s made a decision about whether to listen to Paul or go to his shows based solely on views they have about his appearance. Nearly everyone in my life is either a Paul fan or isn’t interested, and the latter tend to have too little knowledge of his appearance to have an opinion either way.

This whole thread strikes me as having strayed from the reality I perceive. Even with requisite snark and snobbery, from my vantage point Paul is overall one of the most respected and beloved figures by both the public and his peers; and regardless of image, by nearly every metric he is still an unequivocal success at his primary endeavors. I see here a lot of hand wringing and an underlying theme of the album delay signaling some grand problem to be solved, but I think Paul is doing just fine.

 

When is this album coming out anyway

 

It already has.

 

Well that is what I would call policy policing. According to that gospel one has to apologize for having a different opinion than the policy police. That s somewhat funny.

 

Would you rather Paul continue his never-ending tour so that you may get another chance to see him live or would you rather he focus on creating and releasing a new studio album every year? For me, it would be the studio albums.

 

For me it would be the studio albums, and then he performs that new music live!

 

He could use a new look to go along with the new music...

 

It s sort of funny that people complaining about Pauls voice sounding old also complain that he tries to look younger than his age.

 

Looks like he needed to take one step closer to the razor in that picture.

I will assume the stubble is grey. Mine is...

 

I admire the celebrities who don't give in to having plastic surgery. Their attitude is I am what I am and prefer to age gracefully, even though they have the money to do it. I think it's obvious Paul hasn't had anything like that done. Seeing he is vain about being grey, I'm a bit surprised.

 

Even without touring, you'd never see a new album every year at this point!! Or even every other year

 

If it doesn't matter to you, then you aren't who I was talking about. I was referring to casual fans who are put off from listening to McCartney by this. We'll never know to what degree that McCartney's awkward image has hurt how receptive new listeners are to his solo work. But to deny that it HAS hurt is like saying the Beatles' being good looking wasn't at all a factor in their success. Of course it was.

But here is one piece of "evidence" of how Paul has been hurt by "the cringe factor": I was reading an article yesterday about how George Harrison is "the most popular Beatle" with young people and it noted that George's best-known solo songs are more popular on Spotify and Apple Music and other streaming services (where young listeners dominate) than Paul's best known solo songs. So I looked at Apple Music and sure enough, My Sweet Lord, Got My Mind Set on You, and What is Life are more popular than any one of Paul's solo songs. Guess what Paul's top listed song is on Apple Music? Four Five Seconds. After that it's Maybe I'm Amazed and Band on the Run but the bars that Apple uses to indicate popularity show that those two songs are maybe two-thirds as popular as each of those 3 George songs I listed. So why is that? Is it because Paul's best solo songs suck? Some dedicated Macca haters in SHF would certainly say that. I don't think anyone in this thread would agree. I certainly wouldn't. So what other explanations can we look to for why Paul's solo work -- even his best, earliest stuff -- isn't connecting with young listeners on streaming services to the degree that it should? One possible explanation: Image. Feel free to offer other explanations (without attacking the messenger here -- i.e., me).

 

Sure it's shallow. But appearance has always been a big factor in pop music. It just is.

 

I think Paul HAS to stay 30 for some reason (and for some people). He (can't recall which interview) mentioned old pals being irritated when he appeared with some grey hairs in his 40s. I think it's a small miracle he's still performing, possibly making a new album and looking quite fit and trim. Most artists (and people) of his generation look far more unfit and old; put him next to Keith Richards, Elton John, Bob Dylan or even guys like Phil Collins and Axl Rose.

 

How do you see that information on Apple Music? Maybe it's because I just use my iPhone, but all I can see are song titles, no "bars" indicating popularity.

For Paul McCartney, it's: Live and Let Die, Band on the Run and Maybe I'm Amazed.

For Wings, it's: Band on the Run, Live and Let Die and Silly Love Songs.

Maybe I need to look on a laptop?

Edit: it just occurred to me---maybe both number of views have to be added together (PM + Wings) to get an accurate count.

 

Of course it s the colour of Pauls hair that holds people back from streaming his music on Spotify. With all the evidence you have laid bare I guess we ll have to give in
Exept for th fact that Paul has 6 million listeners every month on Spotify George has around. 3 millions.

 

Smug and condescending as usual, I see.

So why are George's songs more popular? Anyone can click 'like' on an artist's name. It's the plays that count.

 

Yes, I'm looking on my laptop. Part of the issue could be Paul has so much music, and under different artist names (PM/P&L McCartney, Wings) and so many fans who are divided about what they consider his best. I was looking purely at their top songs. And George is kicking Paul's butt (and John's. Imagine is his only solo song that comes close to George's top 3 on AppleMusic.)

 

Thanks. I do think both entities need to be added together, though.

Edit: also, and this is true for everyone, some song's streaming counts are counted separately even under the same name. Wings shows Band on the Run from original album and Wings Greatest (in the top 10 of plays).

 

All I can see is that Paul has around 6 million listeners every month on Spotify George around 3 millions. How anyone can see that as a proof that George is more popular than Paul beats me. Evspecially if it is-with your words the play that counts. Paul's has double the amounts of play every month than George. That s a fact. Song by song there obviosly can be a truth -My Sweet lord has 5 million more listeners than Wonderful Christmastime
Besides that I don t think it s good manners to namecall other members here just because they disagree with you. And I certanely disagre with you in this matter.