|
Post by stavros on Mar 6, 2016 16:45:45 GMT -5
Paul's most successful era after the Beatles broke up was his time with Wings. At least it was commercially.
His (rather rare in number for such a massive artist) compilation albums have always tapped heavily into that 1970s period with Wings. The band he had assembled for the 1975-76 World Tour was probably Wings' finest line up. This was on the back of the massive sales from albums "Band on The Run", "Venus & Mars" and "Speed of Sound".
Other members of the band were also contributing their own songs by then as well. Jimmy McCulloch's "Medicine Jar" and "Time to Hide" were featured live on the World Tour and certainly worthy of a place on the set list. The "London Town" album features 5 songs penned jointly with Denny Laine and Wings biggest hit in the UK "Mull of Kintyre" was also written with Laine.
"Back to the Egg" may be seen as a disappointing album by many but the addition of Steve Holly & Laurence Juber was not a bad move to my ears. Had a certain herbal substance not been taken to Japan then perhaps things would have been viewed differently after another successful World Tour rather than a week in a Tokyo jail.
I'm sure Paul could have gone solo in the 1970s and used a band, like he does now, for live work.
But was his musical output and live work enhanced by being part of "Wings"?
What do you say?
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 6, 2016 18:55:14 GMT -5
Time To Hide was written and sung by Denny Laine, not Jimmy McCullough
Paul needed Wings as a live band.
As far as his studio work, I think having the guys in Wings helped, but it was less essential.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Mar 6, 2016 22:30:02 GMT -5
Paul could call his current band Wings if he wanted to, though in his mind I think Linda would had to have been a part of that.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 7, 2016 0:42:50 GMT -5
Good question. The conventional wisdom and knee-jerk response is "No, Paul didn't need Wings and Wings music is really just Paul's music."
But in hindsight I think Wings was good for Paul and clearly Denny Laine was a good musical partner with Paul. Though not a John Lennon, Denny Laine has proven with history better than anyone else Paul worked with and I would include Elvis Costello in that in terms of commercial success. Because Elvis Costello is so respected and good, conventional wisdom also tells us that he was Paul's best collaborator since John but those songs Paul and Elvis co-wrote are forgotten except for us Beatles geeks. No one but us play them now or even remember them.
As to Paul's solo catalog, the songs that people buy, play, sing along to and demand in concert are the ones from Wings and that was always Paul and Denny Laine(and Linda).
I do not know if Paul "needed" Wings but they were good for him, members like Denny Laine really contributed as a bandmate should. Linda foolishly blasted Wings in the 1984 PLAYBOY interview but Paul sure got twee without them and who knows, Denny Laine might have been able to talk Paul out of Broadstreet, the project that made Paul instantly an oldie but goldie.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 7, 2016 0:49:45 GMT -5
Paul could call his current band Wings if he wanted to, though in his mind I think Linda would had to have been a part of that. He could but Denny Laine had more artistic value to Paul as a songwriting partner in his pinkie than these guys in Paul's long-time touring band have in their whole bodies. That's why Paul rarely lets them get close to a studio with him: they are basically a Beatles/Wings cover band with a real ex-Beatle as singer!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 4:01:47 GMT -5
I think Linda needed Wings
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 7, 2016 5:06:33 GMT -5
I think Linda needed Wings no Linda needed music lessons...
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 7, 2016 5:09:19 GMT -5
Good question. The conventional wisdom and knee-jerk response is "No, Paul didn't need Wings and Wings music is really just Paul's music." But in hindsight I think Wings was good for Paul and clearly Denny Laine was a good musical partner with Paul. Though not a John Lennon, Denny Laine has proven with history better than anyone else Paul worked with and I would include Elvis Costello in that in terms of commercial success. Because Elvis Costello is so respected and good, conventional wisdom also tells us that he was Paul's best collaborator since John but those songs Paul and Elvis co-wrote are forgotten except for us Beatles geeks. No one but us play them now or even remember them. As to Paul's solo catalog, the songs that people buy, play, sing along to and demand in concert are the ones from Wings and that was always Paul and Denny Laine(and Linda). I do not know if Paul "needed" Wings but they were good for him, members like Denny Laine really contributed as a bandmate should. Linda foolishly blasted Wings in the 1984 PLAYBOY interview but Paul sure got twee without them and who knows, Denny Laine might have been able to talk Paul out of Broadstreet, the project that made Paul instantly an oldie but goldie. Well said, but I think people may have thought different if Elvis and Paul put out the demos in a Wilbury style production AT THE TIME. I also liked Broad Street, but yeah, that was generally a Paul cringe moment at a grand scale. Should have made it more of a parody.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 7, 2016 7:49:56 GMT -5
Obviously Paul needed other musicians: I think he needed Wings (as opposed to simply support musicians) as a psychological thing. He was traumatised by the Beatles breakup, and I think he needed a named group as a kind of deliberate anti-Beatles, so it was the group which had the success not him. He knew that his Beatlehood would guarantee him success as a solo artist, but he needed the Wings identity as part of the psychological mind games which also set him off on the tour of UK colleges, playing a game of "our group, starting from the bottom up, just like we did with the Beatles."
Notwithstanding Denny Laine's credentials as singer, musician, frontman and writer, Wings was never going to be anything other than Paul's backing band, but I think on one level the early 70s Paul wasn't ready to face audiences/the record-buying public on that basis, he needed the Wings identity interposed - possibly as an excuse for potential failure, also.
Odd how quickly "Paul McCartney and" got added after the first album bombed, on the basis that nobody knew it was Paul. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that it bombed because it was shite.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 7, 2016 10:30:37 GMT -5
Well said, but I think people may have thought different if Elvis and Paul put out the demos in a Wilbury style production AT THE TIME. I also liked Broad Street, but yeah, that was generally a Paul cringe moment at a grand scale. Should have made it more of a parody. I would love a commercial release of the McCartney/MacManus demos! I am a Beatles geek so I love that pairing. LOL, if Paul were to replace "Band On The Run" or "Let Me Roll It" in his concert setlist for "Don't Be Careless Love" or hell, even "My Brave Face," there would be an angry riot! Notwithstanding dear vectisfabber's slam on the amazingly organic and funky Wings Wild Life, didn't the albums go back to being credited to just Wings by Venus And Mars. Folks, I'll admit that I have flip-flopped on this issue. Yes, I still think it was always really "Paul McCartney and Wings" but The E Street Band were critical to Springsteen, the Heartbreakers to Petty, the Crickets to Buddy Holly! Yes, Paul needed Wings in the 1970's and he was much better because of them in their various line-ups. Paul should have had Wings in the 1980's, with Denny Laine as an anchor. Paul likes to be a bandleader and while that got him in trouble with The Beatles because they grew up together, he could dictate as he liked to Wings and still get significant contributions from the others, especially Denny Laine. I disagree that Wings were just mere sessionmen, especially the 1975 to 1977 Wings. Paul's bands since 1989 have been mere patsies, guys who couldn't lead a whore to the bed! Wings at least had some artistic push-back, certainly not as much as John Lennon, George Harrison or Ringo(in that order), but more than the chumps Paul has had since.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 7, 2016 11:32:47 GMT -5
Obviously Paul needed other musicians: I think he needed Wings (as opposed to simply support musicians) as a psychological thing. He was traumatised by the Beatles breakup, and I think he needed a named group as a kind of deliberate anti-Beatles, so it was the group which had the success not him. He knew that his Beatlehood would guarantee him success as a solo artist, but he needed the Wings identity as part of the psychological mind games which also set him off on the tour of UK colleges, playing a game of "our group, starting from the bottom up, just like we did with the Beatles." Notwithstanding Denny Laine's credentials as singer, musician, frontman and writer, Wings was never going to be anything other than Paul's backing band, but I think on one level the early 70s Paul wasn't ready to face audiences/the record-buying public on that basis, he needed the Wings identity interposed - possibly as an excuse for potential failure, also. Well put. I think this is all correct. In addition, I suppose artists of The Beatles' generation were also wary of the old showbiz label of "So-and-so and the So-and-so's", which I think they viewed as very 1940s/50s style (the very name "Beatles" had been in part an attempt to get away from that). In 1971, I don't think 50s' nostalgia had taken hold yet, and Paul probably thought he needed a "real band, man" in order to justify playing live. Odd how quickly "Paul McCartney and" got added after the first album bombed, on the basis that nobody knew it was Paul. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that it bombed because it was shite. Not this again! The album didn't bomb, unless #1 on international charts is your minimum standard for success. It went top 10 in the US and went Gold. That's pretty awesome for a pop album with no hit single and no names on the cover.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 7, 2016 12:35:40 GMT -5
[quote author=" Panther" Odd how quickly "Paul McCartney and" got added after the first album bombed, on the basis that nobody knew it was Paul. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that it bombed because it was shite. Not this again! The album didn't bomb, unless #1 on international charts is your minimum standard for success. It went top 10 in the US and went Gold. That's pretty awesome for a pop album with no hit single and no names on the cover. [/quote] "Bombed" is perhaps too harsh of a word, but #10 is a far cry from the standards achieved by the two albums that preceded it and at least the next five that followed.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 7, 2016 13:56:52 GMT -5
I think #10 on Billboard's Top 200 is extraordinary for Wings Wild Life as it does not seem like an album even meant for the Charts!
It was about "getting back" musically, escaping from Beatles boundaries, doing things Paul's way not the record company's way and rolling one's own!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 7, 2016 15:38:44 GMT -5
Time To Hide was written and sung by Denny Laine, not Jimmy McCullough Paul needed Wings as a live band. As far as his studio work, I think having the guys in Wings helped, but it was less essential. I knew that. But realized when I read it back that I missed crediting Denny with "Time to Hide" Doh! Thanks for correcting me.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 7, 2016 15:45:09 GMT -5
Good question. The conventional wisdom and knee-jerk response is "No, Paul didn't need Wings and Wings music is really just Paul's music." But in hindsight I think Wings was good for Paul and clearly Denny Laine was a good musical partner with Paul. Though not a John Lennon, Denny Laine has proven with history better than anyone else Paul worked with and I would include Elvis Costello in that in terms of commercial success. Because Elvis Costello is so respected and good, conventional wisdom also tells us that he was Paul's best collaborator since John but those songs Paul and Elvis co-wrote are forgotten except for us Beatles geeks. No one but us play them now or even remember them. As to Paul's solo catalog, the songs that people buy, play, sing along to and demand in concert are the ones from Wings and that was always Paul and Denny Laine(and Linda). I do not know if Paul "needed" Wings but they were good for him, members like Denny Laine really contributed as a bandmate should. Linda foolishly blasted Wings in the 1984 PLAYBOY interview but Paul sure got twee without them and who knows, Denny Laine might have been able to talk Paul out of Broadstreet, the project that made Paul instantly an oldie but goldie. I always see Wings as the trio of Paul, Denny and Linda. I don't know what happened in detail between Paul and Denny and why he couldn't have carried on as "Wings". Perhaps Paul felt as he approached his 40s he had to get in some heavy duets to keep his profile high? So we got "Ebony & Ivory" with Stevie Wonder and "Say,Say,Say" with Michael Jackson in the 1980s. I think Denny was still working with Paul once he abandoned his "Wings" for a while. But sadly it all started sliding down hill during the 1980s and I don' think they've spoke since!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 7, 2016 17:48:53 GMT -5
Wings' Wild Life sold about as well as Plastic Ono Band, Lennon's masterpiece. Both albums were only certified gold.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Mar 7, 2016 19:04:26 GMT -5
I always see Wings as the trio of Paul, Denny and Linda. I don't know what happened in detail between Paul and Denny and why he couldn't have carried on as "Wings". Perhaps Paul felt as he approached his 40s he had to get in some heavy duets to keep his profile high? I think Paul and Denny's fall out was a result of many things. There was Jo Jo Laine, there was Paul's feeling abandoned by Denny after the Japanese bust and there was Denny's interview. Authorship and credit of Mull of Kintyre as well as the royalties from that song probably pissed Denny off but I don't think he would have left Wings over that one. IMO I've always thought that Denny was a underrated.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 7, 2016 19:48:48 GMT -5
If you want to talk about bombed, that would apply to Some Time in New York City in the USA.
Hard to fathom that it completely missed the top-40 on the heels of Imagine. I don't think John's ego ever quite recovered from this public Beatle-slapping.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 7, 2016 22:00:10 GMT -5
Did John really need "Elephant's Memory"? Back on topic, though, I think Paul had an easier time saying how hard it would be "to follow the Beatles" with Wings than he would have with a solo career. They were somewhat of a crutch. But then again, 1972 was a little before the singer/songwriter solo act era that was soon to follow. It was a natural thought to start another band. John was doing the same thing at the time. I think what was the most influence on Paul, at the time, was having a house full of kids.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Mar 8, 2016 4:17:38 GMT -5
Odd how quickly "Paul McCartney and" got added after the first album bombed, on the basis that nobody knew it was Paul. Perhaps it didn't occur to him that it bombed because it was shite. Not this again! The album didn't bomb, unless #1 on international charts is your minimum standard for success. It went top 10 in the US and went Gold. That's pretty awesome for a pop album with no hit single and no names on the cover. Bombed critically rather than commercially. It sold - I bought it on release, I was always going to, but I was one of those who thought then, and think now, what a load of rubbish. And I was not alone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2016 5:33:08 GMT -5
Did John really need "Elephant's Memory"? Back on topic, though, I think Paul had an easier time saying how hard it would be "to follow the Beatles" with Wings than he would have with a solo career. They were somewhat of a crutch. But then again, 1972 was a little before the singer/songwriter solo act era that was soon to follow. It was a natural thought to start another band. John was doing the same thing at the time. I think what was the most influence on Paul, at the time, was having a house full of kids. I had to read that twice, i thought it was RTP replying ?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 8, 2016 5:45:18 GMT -5
Bombed critically rather than commercially. It sold - I bought it on release, I was always going to, but I was one of those who thought then, and think now, what a load of rubbish. And I was not alone. So you never tire of telling us. So then I'll just re-affirm that I hated it too earlier on, but NOW I really appreciate it for being refreshingly different and not the usual "Churned Out Pop Hits Product To Appease The Sheeple". You want that saccharine stuff? There's plenty to go around throughout 97% of Paul's recorded career. I applaud McCartney for doing something more spontaneous and unconventional.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Mar 8, 2016 7:13:29 GMT -5
Did John really need "Elephant's Memory"? Back on topic, though, I think Paul had an easier time saying how hard it would be "to follow the Beatles" with Wings than he would have with a solo career. They were somewhat of a crutch. But then again, 1972 was a little before the singer/songwriter solo act era that was soon to follow. It was a natural thought to start another band. John was doing the same thing at the time. I think what was the most influence on Paul, at the time, was having a house full of kids. I had to read that twice, i thought it was RTP replying ? ? I don't get your comment at all. I'm being somewhat critical of Paul, saying he used an out for not giving his best. I'm also implying he started writing songs for kids. I would had understood your comment had it been attached to the one were I compared POB sales to Wild Life's.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Mar 8, 2016 7:51:11 GMT -5
Bombed critically rather than commercially. It sold - I bought it on release, I was always going to, but I was one of those who thought then, and think now, what a load of rubbish. And I was not alone. So you never tire of telling us. So then I'll just re-affirm that I hated it too earlier on, but NOW I really appreciate it for being refreshingly different and not the usual "Churned Out Pop Hits Product To Appease The Sheeple". You want that saccharine stuff? There's plenty to go around throughout 97% of Paul's recorded career. I applaud McCartney for doing something more spontaneous and unconventional. I too can admire Paul for trying something different. I like it OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is only about 2/3 of an album with (except for "Tomorrow") mostly average songs (and most of those are good 2-3 minute songs padded needlessly to 4-6 minute length to fill out the album> Plus one true piece of crap ("Bip Bop"). Again not as bad as the critics made it out to be, but not as good as the "revisionist histlry" is making it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 8, 2016 9:39:48 GMT -5
I had to read that twice, i thought it was RTP replying ? ? I don't get your comment at all. I'm being somewhat critical of Paul, saying he used an out for not giving his best. I'm also implying he started writing songs for kids. I would had understood your comment had it been attached to the one were I compared POB sales to Wild Life's. I can't speak for fabfour but I also thought of our friend RTP when you mentioned the singer-songwriter era. RTP has said Paul started that with his first solo album McCartney! Your point was the opposite, such singer/songwriter era didn't exist yet when Wings were formed so Paul used Wings as a crutch so to speak. I agree with you but just your mere mention of singer-songwriter era made me think of RTP!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 8, 2016 9:55:59 GMT -5
So you never tire of telling us. So then I'll just re-affirm that I hated it too earlier on, but NOW I really appreciate it for being refreshingly different and not the usual "Churned Out Pop Hits Product To Appease The Sheeple". You want that saccharine stuff? There's plenty to go around throughout 97% of Paul's recorded career. I applaud McCartney for doing something more spontaneous and unconventional. I too can admire Paul for trying something different. I like it OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is only about 2/3 of an album with (except for "Tomorrow") mostly average songs (and most of those are good 2-3 minute songs padded needlessly to 4-6 minute length to fill out the album> Plus one true piece of crap ("Bip Bop"). Again not as bad as the critics made it out to be, but not as good as the "revisionist histlry" is making it out to be. Hey speaking of revisionist history, let me remind you all of The JSD Wings Wild Life Challenge! Do not listen to WWL in headphones while sitting in your favorite music-listening chair, in your favorite music room crammed with vinyl albums, CDs, music books and music DVDs especially if there are no windows in that room. Do not play WWL at night(dawn is okay but see below). Do not play WWL right after your dog or grandmother dies(not necessarily in that order). Never play WWL to any snobby "Progressive Rock" admirers, they only want musical topics taken from literature's best. Play WWL on a sunny, preferably Spring day when nature is at rebirth in your automobile with the windows all rolled down, sun-roof open, as you drive serenely through the beautiful countryside with that hot 20 year old coed from the community college you met at Starbucks who loves Mumford & Sons! AND PLAY IT LOUD! Then if you do not absolutely love WWL I will give you your money back but I want the coed(I like Mumford & Sons but not as much as The Avett Brothers).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Mar 8, 2016 11:18:59 GMT -5
Paul was certainly 'uncool' according to Rolling Stone magazine, in 1971. But are there any contemporary reviews of Wild Life from other sources available? Especially from non-American sources?
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Mar 8, 2016 12:06:04 GMT -5
Did John really need "Elephant's Memory"? Short answer: NO!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 8, 2016 14:02:23 GMT -5
Did Paul's induction as a Solo artist to the RRHF clearly and unequivocally include the Wings years? If there is wiggle room maybe Paul could get that third induction pushing him past his Beatles bandmates and tie Eric Clapton's three inductions.
Or maybe Wings could get in just as The E Street Band did a couple years ago on their own! It would be glorious to see Denny Laine, Denny S., Henry McC., Joe English and the rest get some glory! Not to mention posthumously Linda and Jimmy McC.!
Paul is pretty clever at self-promotion, a Wings reunion tour would be huge! Paul could essentially do the same setlist and his Wings could play as well as that current touring band. It would be "Paul McCartney & Wings" and would not just sell-out like Paul already is doing, but give him headlines again, generate interest.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Mar 8, 2016 15:33:40 GMT -5
|
|