Was V&M another near miss for Macca?
-
I think Band on the Run was more successful because it came first. Had Venus and Mars preceded Band on the Run, it would have been just as huge. Maybe even more so. Maybe not. Either way, both signalled an amazing return to full form.
-
I've always resented the attitude of basing an album's merits on whether or not it out-sold its predecessor -- especially when both albums performed very, very well. At one time, Fleetwood Mac's Tusk was considered a disappointment because it sold only a gazillion copies, as opposed to Rumors selling a trigazillion copies. Or when INXS' X sold four million, as opposed to Kick, which sold eight or nine million.
-
audi:
I've always resented the attitude of basing an album's merits on whether or not it out-sold its predecessor -- especially when both albums performed very, very well. At one time, Fleetwood Mac's Tusk was considered a disappointment because it sold only a gazillion copies, as opposed to Rumors selling a trigazillion copies. Or when INXS' X sold four million, as opposed to Kick, which sold eight or nine million.
I agree. V&M was NOT a "near miss" it was a SUCCESS. It matters not to me whether it should have been released before BOTR or what might happened had it been. I am only concerned with what ACTUALLY happened. Michael Jackson's Thriller sold tens of millions of copies. BAD was NEVER going to match that. NOTHING would.
-
Band On The Run was a classic rock album, Venus and Mars, was a classic pop album. Both were very successful albeit on differing commercial and critical levels.
-
Genre-wise, I don't see much distinction between the two.
-
audi:
Genre-wise, I don't see much distinction between the two.
Me neither, to be honest.
-
This album had an awful lot riding on it at the time - not only was it the follow-up to BOTR, it was to provide the core set for Paul's upcoming tour of America. The tour was a triumph but that was in spite of Venus & Mars rather than because of it. As has been said elsewhere, the song Rockshow doesn't rock hard enough, a sentiment that could be extended to the whole album. Only the sublime pop moment of Listen to What the Man Said lifts the album from its rather sad status of "tried too hard".
-
Squid:
This album had an awful lot riding on it at the time - not only was it the follow-up to BOTR, it was to provide the core set for Paul's upcoming tour of America. The tour was a triumph but that was in spite of Venus & Mars rather than because of it. As has been said elsewhere, the song Rockshow doesn't rock hard enough, a sentiment that could be extended to the whole album. Only the sublime pop moment of Listen to What the Man Said lifts the album from its rather sad status of "tried too hard".
I disagree. I was there. V&M did EXACTLY what Paul set out to do: prepare the world for his return to the arena stage. And it was a SUCCESS. He was on the cover to Time magazine, he played to sell out arenas around the USA, he played to 67,000 people at the Kingdome. Where on earth are some of you getting the idea that Venus and Mars was some sort of obstacle to McCartney being REALLY big in 1976? He couldn't have been any bigger or more successful. And how can you know it all happened IN SPITE of V&M? Do you have any proof? Venus and Mars/Rockshow was an AWESOME foreshadowing of what was to come. That it rocked more in concert than in the studio is how ROCK SHOWS are supposed to be. Do you think it would have been a lot better if the studio version rocked more than the live version?? I think there is a lot of armchair career doubting for Paul going on here based on absolutely nothing. Was Michael Jackson not really a success because BAD didn't sell like Thriller? I saw him on the BAD tour and it was Michaelmania and the man was on top of the world promoting a new LP. Why second guess whether things may have been different if BAD had been mixed better, or heavier, or faster? Weird.
-
To me, the near miss is Wings at The Speed of Sound. Although it was also hugely successful and contains his masterpiece rocker Beware My Love, the album sounds like like he was spreading himself too thin. I love the clean and spacious production, and the remaster really brings out the instrumentation in a way you couldn't hear before. Not that it's bad, but the material is just a bit weak, imo. Especially coming after the juggernauts of Band on the Run and Venus and Mars.
-
To me the near miss is Band On The Run. If the bass was a LITTLE louder on it, it would have sold millions more and McCartney's career would have been even more successful. And he would be worth 4 billion dollars now. Oh. And the material should have been stronger. :
-
favoritething:
audi:
Genre-wise, I don't see much distinction between the two.
Me neither, to be honest.
If anything, V&M has more of a rock edge to it than BOTR.
-
Bruce M.:
favoritething:
audi:
Genre-wise, I don't see much distinction between the two.
Me neither, to be honest.
If anything, V&M has more of a rock edge to it than BOTR.
Yes, certainly when you look at the blistering guitar of "Medicine Jar" and "Letting Go," and the rawness of "Call Me Back Again."
-
favoritething:
Bruce M.:
favoritething:
audi:
Genre-wise, I don't see much distinction between the two.
Me neither, to be honest.
If anything, V&M has more of a rock edge to it than BOTR.
Yes, certainly when you look at the blistering guitar of "Medicine Jar" and "Letting Go," and the rawness of "Call Me Back Again."
Call Me Back is sheer bliss. A vocal masterpiece. Doesn't rank in his most melodious ventures, perhaps, but so brilliant. Appreciate it more as the years roll on. Not a huge fan of Medicine Jar, however. But do sing along to it.
-
Hm, Well, both Rock Show and Letting Go were singles and as singles they flopped badly. So far as I remember neither made the top 40 in the UK. It seems a bit strange to build a tour around two flop singles. I think Paul realised this and rushed out Speed of Sound so that he could bolster the tour with Silly Love Song and Let Em In.
-
You hit it on the head when you talked about the superior live versions from "WOA". That album is easily my favorite output from Paul ever and the versions of the excellent V&M songs are the centerpiece. The problem is that the studio versions pale by comparison, which is why I rarely listen to the album. If WOA didn't exist, would I feel differently? Perhaps.
-
Squid:
Hm, Well, both Rock Show and Letting Go were singles and as singles they flopped badly. So far as I remember neither made the top 40 in the UK. It seems a bit strange to build a tour around two flop singles. I think Paul realised this and rushed out Speed of Sound so that he could bolster the tour with Silly Love Song and Let Em In.
So what? You make it sound like the world tour was a flop until Speed Of Sound came out. That's not true. Before Wings came to the USA, they had a very successful tour of Australia and Europe, promoting Venus and Mars to full houses. AND, Listen To What The Man Said was a no. 1 hit song in the set list. Again, not a failure. The notion that an artist's successful tour is a success not because of their current product, but in spite of it, can be said about any artist and cannot be proven. I'll give you an example: The Rolling Stones' 1972 tour was a success not because of Exile on Main Street, but in spite of it. Here's another one: Led Zeppelin's 1973 tour was a success not because of House of the Holy, but in spite of it. It SOUNDS profound to say such things, but it really means nothing. McCartney was already a name brand when he toured in 1976, so he was going to do well. He also happened to have a hit LP, Venus and Mars, on the market and a new hit LP, Speed of Sound, in the wings, so to speak. EXCELLENT marketing on his part. But I never read ANYWHERE that he recorded and released SOS because V&M was doing poorly. That's just ridiculous. Provide a citation please. You just can't make things up and act like it is an actual fact.
-
I am enjoying the unreleased tracks and the remastered tracks on the two cd edition.
-
RMartinez:
McCartney was already a name brand when he toured in 1976, so he was going to do well. He also happened to have a hit LP, Venus and Mars, on the market and a new hit LP, Speed of Sound, in the wings, so to speak. EXCELLENT marketing on his part. But I never read ANYWHERE that he recorded and released SOS because V&M was doing poorly. That's just ridiculous. Provide a citation please. You just can't make things up and act like it is an actual fact.
Er, I think you'll find Venus and Mars was gone from the charts by the time he reached America. It was not on the market - Speed of Sound was on the market. So I don't have to "prove" anything, I'm simply stating the facts. You are the one attempting to attribute the success of the tour to an album that was no longer in the charts.
-
I'd have to say that relistening to V&M again I'm reminded that it's one of the 3 top albums from Wings for me (BOTR and BTTE being the other two). I'm suprised that Letting Go wasn't a bigger hit than it ended up being. I'd have to say not a near miss by any means.
-
Squid:
RMartinez:
McCartney was already a name brand when he toured in 1976, so he was going to do well. He also happened to have a hit LP, Venus and Mars, on the market and a new hit LP, Speed of Sound, in the wings, so to speak. EXCELLENT marketing on his part. But I never read ANYWHERE that he recorded and released SOS because V&M was doing poorly. That's just ridiculous. Provide a citation please. You just can't make things up and act like it is an actual fact.
Er, I think you'll find Venus and Mars was gone from the charts by the time he reached America. It was not on the market - Speed of Sound was on the market. So I don't have to "prove" anything, I'm simply stating the facts. You are the one attempting to attribute the success of the tour to an album that was no longer in the charts.
He would have sold out that tour on his name alone. It was not the material from either album people were going to see. Then, as now, it was the chance to see him play a few Beatles' songs live.