Back catalogue releases related to McCartney's 2016 move back to Capitol - First releases announced*

I hate to interrupt this rumour but I was just thinking of starting a thread with the title 'If U2 were The Beatles, then which one wrote Mull of Kintyre?'

If this post receives more than 8 likes (see what I did there?), I'll create the thread.
Until then, I'd say that the reason McCartney might be reissuing even more records on vinyl is because people aren't driving enough cars.

 

I'd say this was clever, but I'd be lying. See what I did there!

 

Well, I don't think the best marketing plan in the world is going to have much affect.

 

You lying on the board? Never!
/sarcasm

 

That's right, never. Point out one. And when everything we said comes out true with this one, you will crawl back into your corner and troll somewhere else

 

Here's a question for everyone here: What is gained by a company like Capitol by swearing someone to secrecy about information of an upcoming release? I would think that keeping it a secret would encourage wild speculation of the unknown that would raise the expectations too high for the actual product to meet and thus resulting in a major letdown when it is released. Wouldn't having "word on the street" increase interest and anticipation of a given product? But hey, that's just me thinking out loud...

 

Confidentially clauses are part of their contracts so if leaks can be tracked down to them it is grounds for dismissal. Just the way the business has been for a long time. They don't really care if it makes sense to the non industry folks like you and I, Raj717

 

I understand that it's been that way for a long time, I'm just wondering why? Does it affect the bottom line somehow if accurate details get out in front of a release versus no news or incorrect news? I'm no marketing major, so the answer is probably staring me in the face...

 

One reason not to share details too early is because what's accurate now may not be accurate by the time of release. It is not in McCartney or Capitol's interest to announce the next release will include four unreleased songs if Paul decides at the last minute he only wants to release three of them.

 

You're not thinking Comprehensively...

 

Ah, but that last minute change would draw even MORE interest in the album.

 

If by "interest" you mean "dozens if not hundreds of pages of complaints on this forum," I agree. If you mean it would sell more copies as a result, I'm skeptical.

 

I don't think it's about secrecy. It's about talking to people when you have something to talk about. Sure, there IS an issue about managing the PR and not diluting the message. Say McCartney name-drops half a dozen songs he's working on but then only 3 make it to the final album. All people will talk about is the three "lost" songs, not the ones he's actually released. Also, musicians are also people: they have superstitions. Perhaps there's just a sense of not wanting to put the mockers on things. You know, like how many people don't like to tell others they're pregnant too soon...?

 

Just as an aside: While we are contemplating the incomprehensible and so-far-nonexistant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, Bob Dylan has a new upcoming set of his Gospel-era material (due out in November): 2-CD and 9-CD/DVD sets!!! If Bob can release a physical 9-disc of his Jesus period, Paul definitely needs to stop being so hesitate to open his vaults, and to stop being so stingy with his bonus material.

The mind boggles at what is possible.

 

I want to be careful with my words here as I know I could upset some people with this (and let me clarify I'm a big Bob Dylan fan who owns every Bootleg Series release so far as well as almost every studio album he's ever put out), but I think a big difference between Dylan and McCartney currently is that McCartney still seems to be wanting to push himself creatively, where as I don't see that from Dylan recently.

I'm not saying Dylan isn't putting out good albums, but I don't think he's putting much creativity in to them, whereas look at something like "Appreciate" from New, whether you like that song or not, that's a man in his 70s still pushing himself to see what directions he can go.

Maybe as a result of this McCartney is less inclined to dedicate a higher percentage of his output than necessary to his "legacy" releases, as he still feels he has more yet to do than Dylan does.

I could be wrong, but it's a suggestion....

 

Paul is frustrating to follow. His "Archive Collection" releases are like going to a museum exhibition on a certain painter and not seeing the works you'd expect to see at such an event. You know that there are additional paintings in the back room sitting against the wall. Some of which have been on public display in the past (ie. 12" inch singles, 45 mixes, etc.) as well as a treasure trove of rough sketches of some of the artists' finest works (ie. demos). You walk out of the museum scratching your head. Hopefully, the move back to Capitol will help change this and bring out all of Paul's works for the masses to enjoy in full context. What Paul needs is a proper curator.

 

Excellent analogy.

 

I'm not going to address the question of whether Dylan is being more or less creative than Paul, as my explanation below shows that this argument is not needed.

The thing is Dylan has basically allowed a few trusted individuals to curate and put out these archival sets.
Dylan does NOT---repeat: Dylan does NOT---"waste" his time dealing with this stuff. He gives the final okay, maybe suggests one or two things, but has enough confidence to let others handle it. He knows that his own personal tastes and opinions would just get in the way. And the Bob team have adopted a policy to not be hesitant in providing an overabundance of riches. I am amazed that they are actually releasing a 9-disc set of Bob's controversial Gospel period. Truly amazing! So it's a win-win for the diehards and for Bob.

Gosh, just imagine, for example, a 9-disc set of say Wings Over Europe 1972-73! (Along with a 2-CD set of highlights, just as Bob is providing a 2-CD set for the more-average fan, who doesn't need all 9 discs).

This is not the case for Paul, unfortunately.

And it should be pointed out that Paul's last new album (New) was 5 years ago. So Paul might have "more yet to do", but putting out a truly comprehensive box set of archival material at least once a year should not be too burdensome, and it shouldn't get in the way of whatever Paul is doing in a creative and contemporary sense.

 

UPDATE: And if you order the 9-disc set directly from Dylan's website, they will add 2 extra CDs of another unreleased live concert from 1979! So that's 11 discs!!

Imagine if Paul's website included bonus discs for ordering his products directly, instead of giving us coloring pages...

 

Coming soooooo........n

 

A rare factual error from Sir Bip Bop - it was actually FOUR years ago...

 

Where do I send my resignation letter?

My error. Thanks for catching that. I guess I was projecting into 2018. So by the time that Paul's new album actually comes out, it will be possibly 4 1/2 to 5 years.

 

If no official announcement concerning this mysterious release is coming this month (that means in MPL-land today or next Thursday) I don't think this project will happen anytime soon. Since the next installment of Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series had been announced yesterday (for early November) and nearly all other high-profile releases for the remainder of 2017 are revealed (e.g. Taylor Swift for November and U2 for December) it gets more and more unlikely to pop up...

 

If Dylan can announce a November 3 release on September 20, then why can't McCartney announce a November 24 release on October 11?