Home

Wings' albums in Paul's post-Beatles discography

378 views

26 posts

Last post 02/06/2022

Posted by Bruce M.

      Pages

      Original post

      Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

        rbortega wrote:

        Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

        I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

          NJR wrote:

          rbortega wrote:

          Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

          I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

          In concert, perhaps, but not on record. Denny Laine sings the opening lines of "Picasso's Last Words," and on "No Words" it's almost a shared lead vocal. And of course Denny and Jimmy McCulloch both get lead vocal turns on the Venus and Mars album, which was released in 1975.

            rbortega wrote:

            Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

            Definitely seperate from his solo work. I still consider myself as a Wings fan over being a Paul McCartney fan,probably because when I first got into Wings,having purchased the Live And Let Die & Helen Wheels singles, I didn't know who Paul McCartney was. My first visual introduction was the Helen Wheels video and it was just two blokes and a girl in a car,without knowing who they were. 

              NJR wrote:

              rbortega wrote:

              Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

              I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

              Agree.  It was always Paul and some side musicians that came and went.  I really never thought of Wings as a group.  I would venture the guess and opinion that just about everyone else in the world thought the same thing.  Paul tried to make "Wings At The Speed of Sound" seem like a group album/effort by permitting everyone a turn singing a song, but...in reality....it was just Paul.  (Linda's "Cook of the House" was an embarrassment....IMO.  Further, this may sound mean, but Linda's presence on stage with Paul held him back right from the get-go....kept him from being taken seriously for years....in my opinion.  I know he wanted her on stage with him just as John wanted Yoko with him, but their presence hampered both Beatles.)  It's always been that way.  His corrent group is a very tight band, probably his strongest, but it's still just Paul people buy tickets to see.  Paul will always be Beatle Paul.  

                Kestrel wrote:

                rbortega wrote:

                Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                Definitely seperate from his solo work. I still consider myself as a Wings fan over being a Paul McCartney fan,probably because when I first got into Wings,having purchased the Live And Let Die & Helen Wheels singles, I didn't know who Paul McCartney was. My first visual introduction was the Helen Wheels video and it was just two blokes and a girl in a car,without knowing who they were. 

                Seriously?  You really didn't know who Paul was????  Had never heard of him?  At all? indecision

                  Beatles4Ever wrote:

                  Kestrel wrote:
                  rbortega wrote:

                  Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                  Definitely seperate from his solo work. I still consider myself as a Wings fan over being a Paul McCartney fan,probably because when I first got into Wings,having purchased the Live And Let Die & Helen Wheels singles, I didn't know who Paul McCartney was. My first visual introduction was the Helen Wheels video and it was just two blokes and a girl in a car,without knowing who they were. 

                  Seriously?  You really didn't know who Paul was????  Had never heard of him?  At all? indecision

                  No, not at all. I had zero interest in music until I was about 14. Prior to that I was just interested in sports,especially football.

                    Kestrel wrote:

                    Beatles4Ever wrote:
                    Kestrel wrote:
                    rbortega wrote:

                    Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                    Definitely seperate from his solo work. I still consider myself as a Wings fan over being a Paul McCartney fan,probably because when I first got into Wings,having purchased the Live And Let Die & Helen Wheels singles, I didn't know who Paul McCartney was. My first visual introduction was the Helen Wheels video and it was just two blokes and a girl in a car,without knowing who they were. 

                    Seriously?  You really didn't know who Paul was????  Had never heard of him?  At all? indecision

                    No, not at all. I had zero interest in music until I was about 14. Prior to that I was just interested in sports,especially football.

                    You were definitely in the minority! I'd say that over 90% of kids age 5 or older in 1964 knew who the Beatles were and could name all of them! And you're from the U.K. and would have been exposed to them much earlier! 🤯

                      NJR wrote:

                      Kestrel wrote:

                      No, not at all. I had zero interest in music until I was about 14. Prior to that I was just interested in sports,especially football.

                      You were definitely in the minority! I'd say that over 90% of kids age 5 or older in 1964 knew who the Beatles were and could name all of them! And you're from the U.K. and would have been exposed to them much earlier! 🤯

                      Possibly but thinking back to my infant & primary school days in the sixties I can't recall any interest or discussion about the Beatles at all. In the playground we were too busy shooting each other while playing war games. At home I definately had no exposure to the Beatles. When the radio was on it was always BBC Radio 4 (news/talk/magazine station), we never watched anything like Top Of The Pops on the tv, I read comics and not the Melody Maker or NME. Any exposure at all to the Beatles would have just gone right over my head through lack of interest. 

                        Kestrel wrote:

                        NJR wrote:
                        Kestrel wrote:

                        No, not at all. I had zero interest in music until I was about 14. Prior to that I was just interested in sports,especially football.

                        You were definitely in the minority! I'd say that over 90% of kids age 5 or older in 1964 knew who the Beatles were and could name all of them! And you're from the U.K. and would have been exposed to them much earlier! 🤯

                        Possibly but thinking back to my infant & primary school days in the sixties I can't recall any interest or discussion about the Beatles at all. In the playground we were too busy shooting each other while playing war games. At home I definately had no exposure to the Beatles. When the radio was on it was always BBC Radio 4 (news/talk/magazine station), we never watched anything like Top Of The Pops on the tv, I read comics and not the Melody Maker or NME. Any exposure at all to the Beatles would have just gone right over my head through lack of interest. 

                        I can remember being on the playground in 3rd grade (age 8 or 9) and several of us girls singing "I Saw Her Standing There." Myself (as Paul) and 3 friends put on a lip-sync concert as The Beatles and mimed to about 4 of their records to the entire 3rd grade. We made instruments out of cardboard, wore the Beatle wigs, the whole 9 yards! 😂 The boys fake-screamed like girls. It was a riot! I remember my mom came, but don't know why she didn't take any photos! ☹️ 

                        Our car radios and transistor radios were always tuned to the AM top forty stations, so that's how I heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in late Dec. 1963 when I was 8. Plus, Ed Sullivan was "must see TV" in our house! I read comics too (Superman, Superboy, and all the DC comics)  and played war games, but I also read the newspaper which is when I started cutting out and saving all the articles about the Beatles. ("The Beatles are coming!") That hobby continued every year until the present. I eventually stopped putting articles in scrapbooks and just put them in a folder (each year, one folder) 

                          NJR wrote:

                          I can remember being on the playground in 3rd grade (age 8 or 9) and several of us girls singing "I Saw Her Standing There." Myself (as Paul) and 3 friends put on a lip-sync concert as The Beatles and mimed to about 4 of their records to the entire 3rd grade. We made instruments out of cardboard, wore the Beatle wigs, the whole 9 yards! 😂 The boys fake-screamed like girls. It was a riot! I remember my mom came, but don't know why she didn't take any photos! ☹️ 

                          What a lovely memory to have but what a shame that there are no photos or cine film of the occasion to look at? I wonder if your three friends can remember that day as clearly as you do? 

                            Kestrel wrote:

                            NJR wrote:

                            I can remember being on the playground in 3rd grade (age 8 or 9) and several of us girls singing "I Saw Her Standing There." Myself (as Paul) and 3 friends put on a lip-sync concert as The Beatles and mimed to about 4 of their records to the entire 3rd grade. We made instruments out of cardboard, wore the Beatle wigs, the whole 9 yards! 😂 The boys fake-screamed like girls. It was a riot! I remember my mom came, but don't know why she didn't take any photos! ☹️ 

                            What a lovely memory to have but what a shame that there are no photos or cine film of the occasion to look at? I wonder if your three friends can remember that day as clearly as you do? 

                            Back then, nobody I knew even had 8mm cameras! I have tons of other photos of myself since I was my parents' only child, that's why I was surprised my mom didn't bring the old Kodak camera that day. 

                            I remember the other girls - Chris Haff, Gail Flagg and Laura Petroff. They all lived on Charles Ave. which was directly across the street from where I lived. We used to practice at Chris' house in the rec room/basement. We all graduated from high school together, but didn't keep in touch after and they never went to any of the reunions, like I did. 

                              NJR wrote:

                              rbortega wrote:

                              Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                              I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

                              This is how I think of it too. Wings, Paul's touring bands, The Fireman, Paul and Linda, etc, are all sub-categories of "Paul Solo". 

                                McCall wrote:

                                This is how I think of it too. Wings, Paul's touring bands, The Fireman, Paul and Linda, etc, are all sub-categories of "Paul Solo". 

                                Good way to think of it...sub-categories.

                                  McCall wrote:

                                  NJR wrote:
                                  rbortega wrote:

                                  Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                                  I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

                                  This is how I think of it too. Wings, Paul's touring bands, The Fireman, Paul and Linda, etc, are all sub-categories of "Paul Solo". 

                                  Well,I'm certainly going to continue to disagree that Wings were a sub-category act. Wings were Wings, a group in their own right. Its a bit like saying that the Faces were a sub-category of "Rod Stewart solo". Or Roxy Music were a sub-category of "Bryan Ferry solo". How about the Police being a sub-category of "Sting solo"? Or The Jam being a sub-category of "Paul Weller solo"? A list of other examples would be endless. As with most groups, one (or two) of the members will always dominate but that doesn't mean the group is just some form of backing group for that particular member.

                                    Kestrel wrote:

                                    McCall wrote:
                                    NJR wrote:
                                    rbortega wrote:

                                    Do you count Wings' albums as part of Paul McCartney's solo discography or should they be considered separate from his solo work?

                                    I consider anything he did 1970 and on as solo. In other words, not as a Beatle. But a subset of that is Wings from 1971 to 1980. He was always the "star of the show" and only in 1976 did we even get to hear anyone else but Paul sing. 

                                    This is how I think of it too. Wings, Paul's touring bands, The Fireman, Paul and Linda, etc, are all sub-categories of "Paul Solo". 

                                    Well,I'm certainly going to continue to disagree that Wings were a sub-category act. Wings were Wings, a group in their own right. Its a bit like saying that the Faces were a sub-category of "Rod Stewart solo". Or Roxy Music were a sub-category of "Bryan Ferry solo". How about the Police being a sub-category of "Sting solo"? Or The Jam being a sub-category of "Paul Weller solo"? A list of other examples would be endless. As with most groups, one (or two) of the members will always dominate but that doesn't mean the group is just some form of backing group for that particular member.

                                    The difference depends on when the person went solo. Sting was in The Police first, then went solo. He was never in a band after that, or created a band. Rod Stewart was in Faces first, then solo. Phil Collins was in Genesis, then solo. So obviously the bands they were in are not sub-categories! Paul was in the Beatles, then in 1970 he went solo. Then in 1971 he created Wings. After that ended he didn't have a band name and just had basically sidemen and he toured as just Paul McCartney.  That's why his solo career is different. For many 1st generation fans, anything Paul did after the Beatles was "solo" even if he did name the group. I went to see Paul McCartney, not the other guys.  It's jmho. 

                                      I agree.  The Beatles were so huge in popularity and sales that Paul was the elephant on the stage and in the studio no matter who he was with unless the Beatles had gotten bac together. 

                                        NJR wrote:

                                        The difference depends on when the person went solo. Sting was in The Police first, then went solo. He was never in a band after that, or created a band. Rod Stewart was in Faces first, then solo. Phil Collins was in Genesis, then solo. So obviously the bands they were in are not sub-categories! Paul was in the Beatles, then in 1970 he went solo. Then in 1971 he created Wings. After that ended he didn't have a band name and just had basically sidemen and he toured as just Paul McCartney.  That's why his solo career is different. For many 1st generation fans, anything Paul did after the Beatles was "solo" even if he did name the group. I went to see Paul McCartney, not the other guys.  It's jmho. 

                                        ...and your jmho is a very valid one. But personally I think Paul being in group A,then going solo,then being in group B doesn't mean that group B is any less of a group than group A. Its just another group. But I think,as you infer, when you first become interested in Paul does alter the way you perceive what follows. In 1976 when I first saw Wings live,I went to see Wings and not just Paul. It was just as amazing for me to see Linda,Denny,Jimmy and Joe as it was to see Paul, as I'm sure it would have been for Beatles fans to have seen John,George and Ringo a decade earlier.  

                                          Kestrel wrote:

                                          NJR wrote:

                                          The difference depends on when the person went solo. Sting was in The Police first, then went solo. He was never in a band after that, or created a band. Rod Stewart was in Faces first, then solo. Phil Collins was in Genesis, then solo. So obviously the bands they were in are not sub-categories! Paul was in the Beatles, then in 1970 he went solo. Then in 1971 he created Wings. After that ended he didn't have a band name and just had basically sidemen and he toured as just Paul McCartney.  That's why his solo career is different. For many 1st generation fans, anything Paul did after the Beatles was "solo" even if he did name the group. I went to see Paul McCartney, not the other guys.  It's jmho. 

                                          ...and your jmho is a very valid one. But personally I think Paul being in group A,then going solo,then being in group B doesn't mean that group B is any less of a group than group A. Its just another group. But I think,as you infer, when you first become interested in Paul does alter the way you perceive what follows. In 1976 when I first saw Wings live,I went to see Wings and not just Paul. It was just as amazing for me to see Linda,Denny,Jimmy and Joe as it was to see Paul, as I'm sure it would have been for Beatles fans to have seen John,George and Ringo a decade earlier.  

                                          Yes, I definitely think it depends on when you became a fan. If you were like Stella, asking her dad "What was the name of that group you were in before Wings?" 😂 (or a 1st generation fan like me, for whom Paul will always be a Beatle!) 

                                            NJR wrote:I went to see Paul McCartney, not the other guys.  It's jmho. 

                                            THere's other guys up there? lol

                                              Pages