What if There Had Been No "Wings" Band?
-
To piggyback on rich n's point, Paul as a solo artist has never been as prolific as Paul in a band. In a band, Paul seems to be able to put out new music at a blistering pace (compared to other bands, at least). When he has others to bounce ideas off of, he seems to be inspired more often. On his own, Paul seems to take his time when putting out music, or it may take him more time to create the songs. I like Paul's solo and in-a-band outputs, but I'll go back to my original point that Paul seems more comfortable to be in a band than to be solo.
-
Paul wanted the band at that time....as someone said it was a bit like a security blanket at the time. TBH Im glad he did Wings, I like there stuff as much as the beatles and I personally believe it was Pauls best decade and his vocals were out of this world. Im also glad he started a new band after the beatles, if anyone could start up a new band after the greatest band ever and make them more successful than them by the time they disbanded it was Paul.
-
I wish he'd been as prolific in the 2000's as in the 70s with Wings...putting out seven or more albums...however, he probably feels like he did plenty in the '00s. Objectively speaking, he did. Looks like his first cd of the 2011 and up decade will be "Ocean's Kingdom" continuing his trademark of awe-inspiring variety--keep 'em coming, Sir Paulie Baby
-
If you look at his entire scope of work and not just the pop albums, he probably has a similar work load as he did in the 70's
-
Three Studio albums, two live albums/4 live DVDs, one (soon to be two) classical releases, the final of the Fireman trilogy, however you catagory the Liverpool Sound Collage, Twin Freaks, The McCartney Years DVD set and some odd 'here and there' projects where he makes 'guest appearances' on other artist's albums, donates songs to tribute albums, etc...plus a pretty fair amount of touring...That's from the year 2000 and forward.
-
Wings on purpose, I found some videos on You tub from Wings , here is the link
-
Recently on his home page a banner ran across the screen showing Wings tee shirts in his online store here--looked cool--made you want to get one
-
walliebaby:
To piggyback on rich n's point, Paul as a solo artist has never been as prolific as Paul in a band. In a band, Paul seems to be able to put out new music at a blistering pace (compared to other bands, at least). When he has others to bounce ideas off of, he seems to be inspired more often. On his own, Paul seems to take his time when putting out music, or it may take him more time to create the songs. I like Paul's solo and in-a-band outputs, but I'll go back to my original point that Paul seems more comfortable to be in a band than to be solo.
Well, 1980-86 - 5 solo albums in six years. Truth is - Paul's studio releases dropped off when they stopped selling in big numbers.
-
that´s right!when he sell less he put out original pop/rock albums less and less
-
...we would all be discussing his 70's career with Turpentine or The Dazzlers, most likely.
-
If there hadn't been a Paul McCartney and Wings, there would have been a Paul McCartney and the Angels.
-
I don't think there's any doubt that Wings cost Paul in terms of both sales and reputation. The massive drag factor of hangers-on like Denny Lame, coupled with the initial billing as "Paul McCartney & Wings" doomed the project to embarrassment from the start. Wings may have been good cover for Paul in a personal sense, but I have no doubt he regrets not trading under his own name during the 70s.
-
He would have been better off just as solo Paul. No disrespect but the other members of Wings had no business being in the spotlight with Paul. No one wanted to hear a non-Paul song on an album. But more importantly, Paul would have had more freedom to collaborate with different and more talented partners and players both in the studio and on stage like he has post Wings who would have pushed him. Imo, Wings in a way stifled Pauls creativity a bit and he became lazy.
-
You are all talking like Paul was tricked or forced to be in Wings. WINGS WAS PAUL'S IDEA!!! He was already getting heat for writing songs with Linda, WHICH WAS HIS IDEA!! That there were Denny, Jimmy and Joe songs in Wings LPs was TOTALLY Paul's decision. There has NEVER been a point where someone as controlling as McCartney was not in control of his career. Any Wings' failures are TOTALLY Paul's.
-
Squid:
I don't think there's any doubt that Wings cost Paul in terms of both sales and reputation. The massive drag factor of hangers-on like Denny Lame, coupled with the initial billing as "Paul McCartney & Wings" doomed the project to embarrassment from the start. Wings may have been good cover for Paul in a personal sense, but I have no doubt he regrets not trading under his own name during the 70s.
Actually, the initial billing was simply Wings. It was changed to Paul McCartney and Wings for RRS at the record label's insistence.
-
Bruce M.:
Squid:
I don't think there's any doubt that Wings cost Paul in terms of both sales and reputation. The massive drag factor of hangers-on like Denny Lame, coupled with the initial billing as "Paul McCartney & Wings" doomed the project to embarrassment from the start. Wings may have been good cover for Paul in a personal sense, but I have no doubt he regrets not trading under his own name during the 70s.
Actually, the initial billing was simply Wings. It was changed to Paul McCartney and Wings for RRS at the record label's insistence.
I was just going to post this.
-
RMartinez:
You are all talking like Paul was tricked or forced to be in Wings. WINGS WAS PAUL'S IDEA!!! He was already getting heat for writing songs with Linda, WHICH WAS HIS IDEA!! That there were Denny, Jimmy and Joe songs in Wings LPs was TOTALLY Paul's decision. There has NEVER been a point where someone as controlling as McCartney was not in control of his career. Any Wings' failures are TOTALLY Paul's.
I now owe you TWO beers, my friend.
-
Nancy R:
Bruce M.:
Squid:
I don't think there's any doubt that Wings cost Paul in terms of both sales and reputation. The massive drag factor of hangers-on like Denny Lame, coupled with the initial billing as "Paul McCartney & Wings" doomed the project to embarrassment from the start. Wings may have been good cover for Paul in a personal sense, but I have no doubt he regrets not trading under his own name during the 70s.
Actually, the initial billing was simply Wings. It was changed to Paul McCartney and Wings for RRS at the record label's insistence.
I was just going to post this.
Correct. And the right move. A lot of dumb people in the world who could not equate that Paul and Wings were one and the same at that fledgling time.
-
Bruce M.:
Squid:
I don't think there's any doubt that Wings cost Paul in terms of both sales and reputation. The massive drag factor of hangers-on like Denny Lame, coupled with the initial billing as "Paul McCartney & Wings" doomed the project to embarrassment from the start. Wings may have been good cover for Paul in a personal sense, but I have no doubt he regrets not trading under his own name during the 70s.
Actually, the initial billing was simply Wings. It was changed to Paul McCartney and Wings for RRS at the record label's insistence.
The Paul McCartney and Wings title was only used briefly in 1973-1974 (My Love single through the Juniors Farm single). Interestingly, Paul released 3 single sin 1972 and Wings was used. All 3 singles did fairly well on the charts. I'm not sure why the record label waited until 1973 to change the title of the band if they felt Wild Life sold poorly because no one knew it was Paul.
-
Didn't all The Beatles try to form bands at some point in time?