Why No "Wings" ??
-
-
walliebaby:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
You make it sound like Paul picked up some street urchins and bought them instruments that he had them hold onstage, not play. It's not like Wings was The Partridge Family, for goodness' sake. ETA:
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
-
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
-
"Wings was not just Paul McCartney post-Beatles. Wings was Paul McCartney?s group post Beatles, if that makes sense. If you go see Paul now and when he does a Wings song in his set, it?s great but there is something missing. You?re not hearing Linda?s voice; you?re not hearing Denny?s voice; you?re not getting the qualities that they brought to Paul?s work." - Laurence Juber 2010
-
BertoneBeatle:
"Wings was not just Paul McCartney post-Beatles. Wings was Paul McCartney?s group post Beatles, if that makes sense. If you go see Paul now and when he does a Wings song in his set, it?s great but there is something missing. You?re not hearing Linda?s voice; you?re not hearing Denny?s voice; you?re not getting the qualities that they brought to Paul?s work." - Laurence Juber 2010
this.
-
walliebaby:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
You make it sound like Paul picked up some street urchins and bought them instruments that he had them hold onstage, not play. It's not like Wings was The Partridge Family, for goodness' sake. ETA:
...The Monkees?? Maybe???
-
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
Not an insult, just a fact. Doesn't reflect on the musical ability of various members that shuffled into and out of the group. And they did...come and go quite frequently. Just that without Paul the group would not have existed or ever come about in the first place. Had Paul left, would the remaining members...whoever they might have been at any particular time...have hired a new lead singer and carried on with the same popularity? Uh, no.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
walliebaby:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
You make it sound like Paul picked up some street urchins and bought them instruments that he had them hold onstage, not play. It's not like Wings was The Partridge Family, for goodness' sake. ETA: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltabduKmru1qgcd7ao1_400.gif[
...The Monkees?? Maybe???
Another low blow?
-
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
Not an insult, just a fact. Doesn't reflect on the musical ability of various members that shuffled into and out of the group. And they did...come and go quite frequently. Just that without Paul the group would not have existed or ever come about in the first place. Had Paul left, would the remaining members...whoever they might have been at any particular time...have hired a new lead singer and carried on with the same popularity? Uh, no.
When it comes to music, popularity is not a factor in what sounds good and what is quality music. Exhibit A: the top-selling artists of the past 10 years. You're insinuating that Wings were talentless blobs of Play-Doh that Paul shaped into living, breathing props to stand behind him on stage, forgetting the countless contributions they made to Wings albums, shows, and songs. The fact that Paul was in the band drew attention to the band, yes, but the various members of Wings were musicians before he came along, and remained so after Wings broke up.
-
Whenever I watch Rockshow, it's those few moments like "Medicine Jar" and "Time To Hide" that remind me: Wow! I'm not just watching a Paul McCartney concert; I'm watching a band.
-
BertoneBeatle:
"Wings was not just Paul McCartney post-Beatles. Wings was Paul McCartney?s group post Beatles, if that makes sense. If you go see Paul now and when he does a Wings song in his set, it?s great but there is something missing. You?re not hearing Linda?s voice; you?re not hearing Denny?s voice; you?re not getting the qualities that they brought to Paul?s work." - Laurence Juber 2010
and when Paul does a Beatles song, you're not hearing John's voice. YOu're not hearing George's voice. You're not getting the qualities they brougtht to Paul's work. YOu don't hear Ringo for that matter either.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
Not an insult, just a fact. Doesn't reflect on the musical ability of various members that shuffled into and out of the group. And they did...come and go quite frequently. Just that without Paul the group would not have existed or ever come about in the first place. Had Paul left, would the remaining members...whoever they might have been at any particular time...have hired a new lead singer and carried on with the same popularity? Uh, no.
and the Beatles would not have existed without John. Had John left (like he wanted to) would they have carried on with the same popularity? Hired a new lead singer and guitar player? No. It didn't happen.
-
audi:
Whenever I watch Rockshow, it's those few moments like "Medicine Jar" and "Time To Hide" that remind me: Wow! I'm not just watching a Paul McCartney concert; I'm watching a band.
-
I agree with Beatles4ever in that without Paul there is no Wings. Rockshow, in my opinion, is the ultimate Paul live performance. The Peak. Vocally. Performance-wise. Style-wise. Everything! Even the fashion ensues. Saw it on original release at a theatre. I was hanging out for the conversion from VHS to DVD for decades. Simply the best rock concert of all time, to my humble ears. Still is. So, that being said, whilst Wings is Paul, credence must be given to the tight musicianship that allowed that all to happen. It took a special group of people to facilitate such a magnificent performance. So, kudos to the other members of the band. Jimmy was a brilliant guitarist. A cohesive influence. Not a great singer, and Medicine Jar is so-so, but there is a reason Paul got him on board. And pursued him. A valuable contributor to the best Wings line-up. The most talented guitarist of the Wings incarnations. Denny Laine wasn?t the differential between Wings making it or f*aking it. Not brilliant, not instrumental. Added no charisma. Found him bland. But certainly a very valuable support mechanism. I would have absolved him from singing Go Now in Rockshow, but as time has skipped along, I do like ?Time to Hide??.. he does look particularly baked during that, by the way. Which I kinda find funny?. And I think he was starting to add some pretty valuable contributions post-Rockshow? A couple of really good contributions on London Town and Back to the Egg?. Again and Again and Again is wonderful. However, in the argument of whether it was a real band?.. well? I?m not sure we would?ve tolerated another At the Speed of Sound-type record?. Because if Wings were to evolve into a ?real? band, that would?ve been the natural formation? share the load? two songs for you? two for you? another for you? twelve songs on an album, only seven of them from Paul?. Now, that never would?ve worked?. And was not ever called upon again? for good reason. But I do love the Wings period. Love it. But, back to the original point, without Paul, there is no band. Paul was the vodka. The others were the orange juice.
-
walliebaby:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
Not an insult, just a fact. Doesn't reflect on the musical ability of various members that shuffled into and out of the group. And they did...come and go quite frequently. Just that without Paul the group would not have existed or ever come about in the first place. Had Paul left, would the remaining members...whoever they might have been at any particular time...have hired a new lead singer and carried on with the same popularity? Uh, no.
When it comes to music, popularity is not a factor in what sounds good and what is quality music. Exhibit A: the top-selling artists of the past 10 years. You're insinuating that Wings were talentless blobs of Play-Doh that Paul shaped into living, breathing props to stand behind him on stage, forgetting the countless contributions they made to Wings albums, shows, and songs. The fact that Paul was in the band drew attention to the band, yes, but the various members of Wings were musicians before he came along, and remained so after Wings broke up.
It's a bit odd that you seem to think you know what I mean more than I do myself...the person making the comments. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING/INSINUATING THAT THE MEMBERS OF WINGS WERE TALENTLESS BLOBS, ETC., ETC., ETC. I'M SAYING THAT NO MATTER HOW GREAT OF MUSICIANS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN..AND STILL MAY BE...WITHOUT PAUL FRONTING THEM, THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAYING THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO THEM. AND ARE NOT NOW. LIKE IT OR NOT, TO MOST PEOPLE ...INCLUUDING THOSE OF US WHO LOVE PAUL...WINGS WERE MUSICIANS THAT BACKED UP PAUL! CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC TELL US WHERE DENNY LAINE IS THESES DAYS AND WHAT MUSIC HE HAS RELEASED? DITTO EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF WINGS? DO WE RUSH OUT AND BUY ANY RECORDS THEY MAY BE RELEASING? HARDLY. NOW STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH OR INTERPRETING THEM TO SUIT YOUR NEEDs. NOW, I AM OFFICIALLY OFF THIS TOPIC! :
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
walliebaby:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
JimmyMcCullochFan:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
SusyLuvsPaul:
Why isn't there a special forum here for Wings? Like there is for the Beatles.
Cause Wings ain't The Beatles! Without Paul there would have been no Wings. The Beatles were more than just one person. Needed all four to exist as "that band". Wings only needed Paul.
What an insult to the other members of Wings. :
Not an insult, just a fact. Doesn't reflect on the musical ability of various members that shuffled into and out of the group. And they did...come and go quite frequently. Just that without Paul the group would not have existed or ever come about in the first place. Had Paul left, would the remaining members...whoever they might have been at any particular time...have hired a new lead singer and carried on with the same popularity? Uh, no.
When it comes to music, popularity is not a factor in what sounds good and what is quality music. Exhibit A: the top-selling artists of the past 10 years. You're insinuating that Wings were talentless blobs of Play-Doh that Paul shaped into living, breathing props to stand behind him on stage, forgetting the countless contributions they made to Wings albums, shows, and songs. The fact that Paul was in the band drew attention to the band, yes, but the various members of Wings were musicians before he came along, and remained so after Wings broke up.
It's a bit odd that you seem to think you know what I mean more than I do myself...the person making the comments. I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SAYING/INSINUATING THAT THE MEMBERS OF WINGS WERE TALENTLESS BLOBS, ETC., ETC., ETC. I'M SAYING THAT NO MATTER HOW GREAT OF MUSICIANS THEY MAY HAVE BEEN..AND STILL MAY BE...WITHOUT PAUL FRONTING THEM, THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PAYING THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO THEM. AND ARE NOT NOW. LIKE IT OR NOT, TO MOST PEOPLE ...INCLUUDING THOSE OF US WHO LOVE PAUL...WINGS WERE MUSICIANS THAT BACKED UP PAUL! CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC TELL US WHERE DENNY LAINE IS THESES DAYS AND WHAT MUSIC HE HAS RELEASED? DITTO EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF WINGS? DO WE RUSH OUT AND BUY ANY RECORDS THEY MAY BE RELEASING? HARDLY. NOW STOP TRYING TO PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH OR INTERPRETING THEM TO SUIT YOUR NEEDs. NOW, I AM OFFICIALLY OFF THIS TOPIC! :
No need to yell as Santa is watching. I agree with what you said about without Paul there wouldn't have been Wings because that is obviously true. He started the band along with Linda but Wings was more than Paul McCartney. What made up that "Wings sound" was the core trio of Paul, Linda and Denny. If Wings only needed Paul then you'd get "McCartney", "McCartney 2" etc and other members of the band sang lead vocals/wrote songs for the records. The way you phrased what you wrote made it seem like you were insulting the other members of Wings which is why I said what I said. Also, if Jimmy was still alive and releasing music, I'd be the first in line to rush out and buy his new record
-
I'm curious: Are Wings in the R&R Hall Of Fame? Considering the numerous hits they had, they should be. Plus, their music contributed much to the sound of the '70s.
-
I always hear this argument... "Wings wasn't a real band because X member didn't become famous afterwards". How is that a pre-requisite for a band being a "real" band? Many bands have members with unspectacular solo careers. Was Nsync the Justin Timberlake show (not that they are a real band LOL)? And Denny's career post-Wings was mis-managed. Some members are still doing quite well. Laurence Juber has not stopped producing music or touring. Look him up. Some like Geoff Britton are just playing bar bands. Seiwell also works consistently.