Was V&M another near miss for Macca?
-
Although they are not being released fast enough, I love the Macca Archive Collections. I was especially anxious for Venus and Mars because I never had the original album. After listening to the V&M remaster for the last couple of weeks, I'm interested in hearing what other fans think about V&M relative to its ranking in Paul's Catalogue. While I believe that V&M had a lot of good and inventive material for a full album (especially on the heels of his biggest album, Band on the Run), I have found V&M to be somewhat disappointing when I consider my higher expectations. The reasons I believe might be a combination of the following: *the live rendations (no fewer than a whopping 9 tracks) on the whole just seem better. This is not unusual for Macca but some of the tracks just don't seem to have the same jolt as their live counterparts. I guess by the time their lineup went out on the road they had really matured as a group. As others have mentioned, maybe the production on some of the tracks was inferior. *the order sequence of V&M. It just seems off to me. With V&M starting with the rocking V&M/ Rock Show combination, Paul then goes to Love in Song. Love the song but I wonder whether the album would have been better served with following Rock Show with another up-tempo rocker like Magneto and Titanium, Spirits of Ancient Egypt, Letting Go etc. In other words, staying with the rocking tracks. Since this was an album, Love in Song could have been a great Side 2 introduction followed by You Gave Me An Answer, Call Me Back Again etc. *The inclusion of the Venus & Mars Reprise which in my opinion is easily the worst song on the album (I don't include the short Crossroads instrumental). Venus & Mars works as a nifty intro to Rock Show but as a complete 3 minute song with goofy and forced lyrics (my opiinion only) right in the middle of the CD just kills the momentum of the CD. I know it was fashionable at the time to try to make albums into loose concepts but to me it doesn't work at all. The song is not good except as an intro to a killer rock song just as the album starts. It does not have complete song material. *NOt including Junior's Farm in the proper album. It would have given V&M another big hit that it needed. As a blistering rocker, it would have worked well with the other rock tracks. I admire Paul's viewpoint of not including Singles on his albums but I believe that most fans in those times would still rather have it included on the album to make it even a better album listening experience. In my opinion, Paul made the same mistake again with excluding his singles on London Town and Back to the Egg. I wouuld be very interested to hear what other fans think. Are you a little disappointed in the V&M remaster. I still think it is a good album but I don't think it has the cohesion and consistency I was expecting. I would put it towards the middle of Paul's greatest albums. Besides Band on the Run, I would probably put Tug of War, Flaming Pie, Chaos, Memory Almost Full and New above it. I think V&M is a near miss becuase it had so much potential. I actualy love the 2 songs not on Wings over America....Treat Her Gently and Love In Song.
-
I also love the two songs you mention at the end of your post. I am not sure I agree that it is a near miss. It went number one, sold millions of copies, and launched McCartney's hugely successful world tour of 1975-76. It hit the target and propelled McCartney's solo career higher than ever before.
-
I think on the heels of Band on the Run, anything may have felt like a near miss...but in reality, it was strong enough that if Band on the Run never happened, Venus and Mars would've satisfied the 'Mac is Back' crowd
-
V&M and At the Speed of Sound would have made a killer single album. Several of the songs seem like throwaways, especially when compared to the better songs. Also, there is overlap between the 2 albums. Some of the songs were started in the V&M sessions but released on ATSOS (e.g., Let em in). I always felt like Paul had a great single album there, versus 2 good but not great albums. Paul basically needed a filter in the 70s to tell him songs werent good enough & should be left off, like he had with Lennon & Martin a decade earlier.
-
B J Conlee:
... I have found V&M to be somewhat disappointing when I consider my higher expectations. The reasons I believe might be a combination of the following: *the live rendations (no fewer than a whopping 9 tracks) on the whole just seem better. This is not unusual for Macca but some of the tracks just don't seem to have the same jolt as their live counterparts. I guess by the time their lineup went out on the road they had really matured as a group. As others have mentioned, maybe the production on some of the tracks was inferior...
Agreed. But the one exception is definitely "Listen To What The Man Said: -- the record is a pop masterpiece. The live versions ('76 particularly) -- while bouncy n' fun -- do not do the record justice.
-
The remaster reinforces my opinion that Venus and Mars is his best post-Beatles album, still to this day. It's a beautiful piece of work, start to finish.
-
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.