Was V&M another near miss for Macca?
-
It's definitely not a disappointment to me. I listened to the new remaster the other day and thought, "How is this any worse than Band on the Run?"
-
I'm in a minority, but I always liked Venus and Mars better than BOTR, going back to when they first came out. Objectively, BOTR is more consistent and maybe more original, but I always listened to V&M more and still do. Much as I like Junior's Farm, I actually don't think it would have fit well on the album, which I like just fine as is (except that some of the sound quality isn't great, as has been discussed elsewhere).
-
I really liked Venus and Mars. I think it was good follow up to BOTR. Stand out tracks include: Venus and Mars/Rockshow What the Man Said Letting Go Magneto and Titanium In my view it is in the top5 McCartney/Wings albums. Agreed the live versions are better but I think this is a testament to the quality of Wings live performances.
-
Venus and Mars is in the Top 3 albums in the McCartney catalogue for me. The opener is a cracker. Never disappoints.
-
V&M is the Wings album I find myself going back to most. It has some really interesting and varied tracks on it, not to mention the wonderful Magneto and Titanium Man. I suppose BOTR is more consistent in its sound, but I always prefer the McCartney albums where he mixes it up a bit.
-
Venus and Mars is the perfect Wings LP. I wouldn't change a thing on it.
-
With this post, I feel a little sense of role reversal. Outside of this Site, I'm almost always defending Paul. It's actually refreshing to see so much love for V&M. I probably should have come up with a better word for V&M than "disappointing". I still love many of the songs and will certainly play the remaster many times. As much as the studio versions are still growing with me, I still think that this good album had the potential "mass" appeal to be greater. I think the material was there to be as much of a Macca classic to the outside world as Band on the Run. Judging by the responses, I should have just named this post "V&M vs. BOTR". For true fans (i.e. fans on this Site) I guess I shouldn't be surprised that V&M is considered by many to be as good (or even slightly better). Part of this is probably because Paul has overplayed BOTR to death on his live tours. Even great songs can become tiresome if overplayed. But my question is....Why did BOTR resonate so much more to the casual music (rock/pop) fans than V&M. When you look at the numbers, BOTR acually sold 4 to 5 times more and it was #1 for multiple weeks at 2 different times. I think V&M was #1 in the US for 1 week. Years later, BOTR garnered so much critical acclaim and is still considered Macca's Post Beatles Highlight and best album (again by the masses vs. diehard fans). Other albums like Tug of War and Ram also get mentioned more than V&M as other great Paul albums. For what ever reason, BOTR resonate with casual music fans very quickly. V&M I guess was more of an acquired taste and except for Listen to what the Man Said, didn't get the radio airplay as BOTR. Maybe V&M just needed another big, massive hit I think it is remarkable how prolific Paul was in the 70's. He had a brand new album practically every year. It is amazing considering that Paul didn't have a vault of new music from the 60's. He was writing these albums on the fly and at the same time e doing much of the producing. While this was amazing, I think it was natural for the quality control to suffer considering how fast the albums were releasing. I think that the "fair" critics were right in many ways when they labeled many of the albums during this period to be uneven. I think the sheer volume was much of the reason. When you see polls of the greatest 500 albums (i.e. RollingStone) Paul normally has only 1 solo album which is BOTR. I personally think he should have more. But I do think that he could of had more truly "great" albums if he would have taken more time. He also could of benefitted more by working with a great producer like George Martin. Anyway, I'm rambling but I do think the BOTR vs. V&M is an interesting period. This was the time where Paul strongly overtook his fellow Beatles for chart success. He had gotten off to the slowest start of the 4 even compared to Ringo. One more thing...Does anyone else feel like I do about the Venus and Mars Reprise track. I do think it is by far the lowpoint on the whole album. Even Paul's vocal on it seems off.
-
Agree with you about the reprise. I would have included 'Lunch Box/Odd Sox' in his place. About BOTR vs. V&M, the key is in the fans. We have music fans, people who likes Paul's music and people who loves Paul and know all his works (like us). The thing is that Paul comes from The Beatles and is hard to make something in the level of the fab 4's music, so is hard to convince Beatle's fans that Paul made amazing music solo career too. And of course, we have people that keeps thinking that Paul is just a melody maker. Although is his biggest gift, he knew how to expand his own musical range. But for most of the people, he still being a man "who just makes melodies", and for worst, we have people that thinks he didn't do anything since Beatles breakup. In that situation, BOTR is the only LP that exceeds all this stupid prejudice. Maybe because BOTR (the song) is an incredible masterpiece, a masterpiece that reached the nº1 in USA. That's the point for me. And Paul knows it. Paul always tried to show people that he's not going to live from his old glories, and although many people don't recognize his efforts, he reached his objective.
-
I've always considered the reprise as a highlight of the album. I love the "spacey" feel to it. Also sales wise it was always going to be tough to follow up BOTR as this album set such a high standard. To me V&M almost feels like a continuation of BOTR with SOS being a change in direction. Great thing about music is how different people can view albums in different ways. I must say I love all the Wings albums.
-
stephencornish:
I've always considered the reprise as a highlight of the album. I love the "spacey" feel to it. Also sales wise it was always going to be tough to follow up BOTR as this album set such a high standard. To me V&M almost feels like a continuation of BOTR with SOS being a change in direction. Great thing about music is how different people can view albums in different ways. I must say I love all the Wings albums.
I like that track too, especially the way it opens up in the second verse.
-
B J Conlee:
With this post, I feel a little sense of role reversal. Outside of this Site, I'm almost always defending Paul. It's actually refreshing to see so much love for V&M. I probably should have come up with a better word for V&M than "disappointing". I still love many of the songs and will certainly play the remaster many times. As much as the studio versions are still growing with me, I still think that this good album had the potential "mass" appeal to be greater. I think the material was there to be as much of a Macca classic to the outside world as Band on the Run. Judging by the responses, I should have just named this post "V&M vs. BOTR". For true fans (i.e. fans on this Site) I guess I shouldn't be surprised that V&M is considered by many to be as good (or even slightly better). Part of this is probably because Paul has overplayed BOTR to death on his live tours. Even great songs can become tiresome if overplayed. But my question is....Why did BOTR resonate so much more to the casual music (rock/pop) fans than V&M. When you look at the numbers, BOTR acually sold 4 to 5 times more and it was #1 for multiple weeks at 2 different times. I think V&M was #1 in the US for 1 week. Years later, BOTR garnered so much critical acclaim and is still considered Macca's Post Beatles Highlight and best album (again by the masses vs. diehard fans). Other albums like Tug of War and Ram also get mentioned more than V&M as other great Paul albums. For what ever reason, BOTR resonate with casual music fans very quickly. V&M I guess was more of an acquired taste and except for Listen to what the Man Said, didn't get the radio airplay as BOTR. Maybe V&M just needed another big, massive hit I think it is remarkable how prolific Paul was in the 70's. He had a brand new album practically every year. It is amazing considering that Paul didn't have a vault of new music from the 60's. He was writing these albums on the fly and at the same time e doing much of the producing. While this was amazing, I think it was natural for the quality control to suffer considering how fast the albums were releasing. I think that the "fair" critics were right in many ways when they labeled many of the albums during this period to be uneven. I think the sheer volume was much of the reason. When you see polls of the greatest 500 albums (i.e. RollingStone) Paul normally has only 1 solo album which is BOTR. I personally think he should have more. But I do think that he could of had more truly "great" albums if he would have taken more time. He also could of benefitted more by working with a great producer like George Martin. Anyway, I'm rambling but I do think the BOTR vs. V&M is an interesting period. This was the time where Paul strongly overtook his fellow Beatles for chart success. He had gotten off to the slowest start of the 4 even compared to Ringo. One more thing...Does anyone else feel like I do about the Venus and Mars Reprise track. I do think it is by far the lowpoint on the whole album. Even Paul's vocal on it seems off.
A few thoughts... First, there was nothing unusually prolific about Paul during the 1970s. Artists then typically put out an album a year -- Elton John often put out two in one year. I love the Venus and Mars Reprise. It actually never occurred to me that anyone might think it a low point. It's great, spacey, and wonderfully atmospheric. I can't imagine what's not to like -- even as I understand intellectually that tastes just vary. While BOTR did outsell V&M, V&M was still a very big hit. The only reason it just hit #1 for a week was that it was dueling with Elton John's "Captain Fantastic" -- the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful album from a still-young artist at the absolute peak of his fame. The V&M tunes all got a huge audience reception when he played them in the Wings Over America tour. I don't think the general perception among his fans at the time was that there was a huge difference in quality between the albums. And I still listen to Venus and Mars more! LOL.
-
It's Wings in full flight consolidating the success of BOTR. A fistful of songs that sounded great live. Only suffers from a dubious production, but by God, Venus and Mars are alright ANY night!
-
moptops:
It's Wings in full flight consolidating the success of BOTR. A fistful of songs that sounded great live. Only suffers from a dubious production, but by God, Venus and Mars are alright ANY night!
spot on! a good studio version of "Soily" might've had a spot on there somewhere...
-
I think BOTR was more successful because it has a more commercial and generic sound to it, that would appeal to a wider audience. This is not a bad thing at all. The title track and Jet are probably two of his most sellable records, and DJ favourites.
-
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.