Was V&M another near miss for Macca?
-
RMartinez:
I think there is a lot of historical revisionism going on here. McCartney in the 70s was quite a different entity than in the current time. People were not all that nostalgic for the Beatles in the mid 70s. It was only five years since the break up, and McCartney was actually fighting cynical critics and struggled to establish himself as an artist separate from the Beatles. Even Wings was billed as such in 1976, not as Paul McCartney and Wings. To be fair, there was a certain amount of anticipation for a BEATLES reunion. But McCartney on his own was just that. And people knew it when they bought his LPs and went to his shows back then. To say people went to see him in 1976 only to hear a few Beatles songs or people bought his music merely because he was a Beatle really misses what it was ACTUALLY like back then. In 1976, people were going to hear Wings play songs off of SOS, Venus and Mars, and BOTR. LPs that made up the bulk of his set list. It is NOW that people go see him because of his Beatles past. It just was not the case back in the mid 70s.
I don't agree with the revisionism - at least in terms of Paul and his Beatle connections. I mean you are right that people see him more nowadays because he was a Beatle moreso than back then (I was around then too)...however, they did go to see him because he was a big popular star (and being and ex Beatle didn't hurt)...His concerts sold out and his records sold like they did was not so much because he was a former Beatle, but because he was a current big star....much like how Elton John, Billy Joel, David Bowie, Rod Stewart and other big stars of the 70's sold records and seats at concerts....but on the flip side, people often look at this kind of comment as a negative...but I don't see it this way. Concerts selling out and records hitting the top of the charts (with a big reason simply being your name and reputation) is something that is earned and does not happen to hacks
-
beatlesfanrandy:
Bruce M.:
beatlesfanrandy:
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.
Completely wrong. Paul/Wings were a huge commercial act in the mid-70s and were generally considered to be in a tie with Elton John as the planet's top pop music act. Listen to What the Man Said was #1 in the U.S. and got saturation airplay, but by the time the tour hit the U.S. (delayed about 3 months because Jimmy broke his finger) the album was a year old and had run its course commercially (and, as I noted earlier, an album a year was standard for most artists then). But it was a big success and fans loved it -- and it showed in their reactions when they played songs from V&M. Remember, they opened with Venus and Mars in almost total darkness, then launched into Rock Show and the lights came up -- and the audience went absolutely, totally nuts. In '76, Paul would have had no trouble selling out basketball arenas even if there wasn't a single Beatles song in his set list.
I was there and I don't agree. People on line were there to see the Beatle. They came away knowing Wings. But the biggest cheer was for Yesterday.
I was there too and you are wrong. People went to see Paul McCartney. They went to see Wings. They did not go to see a Beatle concert the way they do today. Of COURSE Yesterday got a huge response! It always will. It's his biggest song. Even that is almost a solo song. Not really a Beatle song like I Want To Hold Your Hand or She Loves You. You really don't know what you are saying if you think everyone went to those shows not knowing who Wings was. That's ridiculous! I was there, I went with a huge group of people in Denver and everyone was listening to BOTR, SOS, and V&M on the way on their 8 tracks! No one had Beatle songs playing. The tour was advertised as Wings Over America. NOT even Paul McCartney and Wings Over America. The Beatles were always going to be in people's heads to a point. But you are wrong when you try to say it was essentially a Beatle event and Wings had nothing or little to do with any of it. Yes, Paul's name had impact. But Denny Laine sang five songs in the set list, Jimmy sang one. McCartney sang lead on 24 of 30 songs. I can say this: it was brilliant! Seeing McCartney play his Rickenbacker and do a LOT of Wings songs was amazing, and the five Beatle songs in the set list reminded people what a great legacy he has. Seventy three percent of Wings' set list in 1976 was made up of Wings tunes. That pretty much makes it a Wings event.
-
Maybe is not one thing or another... What if happened both things? people who went to see Paul McCartney the ex-Beatle and people who went to see Wings. Although Wings and Beatles have no point of possible comparison, they have one thing in common: commercial success. In seven years, Beatles made about 40 big hits. Wings had My Love, Band On The Run, Listen What The Man Said and Silly Love Songs (talking about #1 hits), and Jet, and Rock Show, and Let'Em In... that's the reason of why WOA was a great success. It gathered nostalgic fans and Wings fans, in equal parts. Besides, I think that the Wings Tour was the first time Paul appeared in stage since 1966. And one more thing: what were John and George doing in that time?... Paul was the only one who decided to carry all the weight on his back.
-
IMO, this album is good and fun but not as great as Band on the Run. Even then it was very successful. First of all, the cover is wonderful. Such a great cover should have contained a masterpiece in it. Like someone has pointed out, IMHO it would have been a masterwork at the level of Band on the run IF - Production was better. George Martin? a dream... - Music selection and and running order was different. - Maybe a mixture of the best of At the Speed of Sound an V&M would have made a true classic with four top singles in it. My tentative selection would have been Side A 1.-Venus and Mars . 2.-Magneto and Titanium. 3.- Beware my love. 4.- Letting go. 5.-She's my Babe 6.-Silly Love Songs (Answering John..!) 7.- Juniors Farm. 8.-Lunch Box Odd Sox Side B 9.-Let'em in. (Brrrother John... let'em in...) 10.- Rock Show (Remake the song more rock ala get back, rhythm , soul and swing). It's a good fun song with poor performance / arrangements IMO. I love the last piano bit. 11.-You gave me the Answer 12.- Listen to what the man said. 13.-San Ferry Anne 14- Call me back again (He is singing to John..!) 15.- Sally G 16.- Warm and beautiful Produced by George Martin and Paul McCartney (Satisfaction guaranteed) Singles Listen to what the man said / Love in Song Silly Love Songs / Medicine Jar Let'em in / Treat her Gently - Lonely old people Juniors Farm / Time to Hide Enough to go on that successful tour for two to three years while leaving a second classic in a row. Enough to definitely convince John to join forces again... with permission of Mrs ONO. Just an HO.
-
Strawberry kiss: Some good ideas there. P.S. I believe you need to re-think your avatar though.
-
It's my understanding that Wings at the Speed of Sound came about due to a break in the tour caused by Jimmy hurting his hand in some kind of bar brawl...with that said, while I'm sure some of the songs were already penned (they almost had to be, in fact), the album was recorded prematurely to when ever Paul planned to record it ***just to add or amend what I said above, it appears the recording of the album had already begun but had been put on hold while they toured...then Jimmy's incident allowed for the second session which allowed for the completion of the album (yes, I took time out to research this right in the middle of the post...LOL)
-
There is mention in the V&M book that a trailer/coach of Paul's was totally trashed by Jimmy McC. That kid was a disaster just waiting to happen.
-
rich n:
Bruce M.:
beatlesfanrandy:
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.
Completely wrong. Paul/Wings were a huge commercial act in the mid-70s and were generally considered to be in a tie with Elton John as the planet's top pop music act. Listen to What the Man Said was #1 in the U.S. and got saturation airplay, but by the time the tour hit the U.S. (delayed about 3 months because Jimmy broke his finger) the album was a year old and had run its course commercially (and, as I noted earlier, an album a year was standard for most artists then). But it was a big success and fans loved it -- and it showed in their reactions when they played songs from V&M. Remember, they opened with Venus and Mars in almost total darkness, then launched into Rock Show and the lights came up -- and the audience went absolutely, totally nuts. In '76, Paul would have had no trouble selling out basketball arenas even if there wasn't a single Beatles song in his set list.
^^^I agree but sort of disagree at the same time...kind of chicken/egg argument. There's no doubt Paul's music sold well in the 70's and I personally believe it was deserved. However, there used to be a lot of discussion regarding the theory that Paul's albums sold because he was a former Beatle. All the former Beatles albums sold well, at least in the first half of that decade. And remember, the opportunity to really 'grab' the feel/quality of a new album ahead of time was not what it is these days...while a few sample songs were sent out to DJs ahead of time to help with the pre-release promotion, you largely bought on blind instinct that Paul's new album would bring some satisfaction along with the trust of some publication's review. Just my .02...but to your point, the way the charts reflected 'success' often depicted some level of 'curve' as the albums became more and more in the public's favor (not like nowadays where the ascent to the top of the charts is almost immediate and if it doesn't shoot into the top 10 in the first week or two, forget about it)
Speaking of historical revisionism... Actually, it's pretty clear that after the first round of solo albums, the idea of people buying their albums just because they were ex-Beatles died a fairly quick death. Ram never made #1 in the U.S., and"Wild Life" barely reached #10 (and didn't make the top 10 in the UK). Paul also had several singles that didn't do very well (e.g. "Mary Had a Little Lamb"/"Little Woman Love"). The early John & Yoko albums never cracked the top 100, and John didn't have a #1 album in either the U.S. or UK till "Imagine. "Some Time in NYC" only hit #48 in the U.S. despite high-profile TV appearances promoting it. Ringo's first to albums were semi-flops, and he never had a #1 album in the U.S. or UK. What their status as ex-Beatles did do was guarantee at least some radio play, which put them ahead of new and unfamiliar artists, for sure. But no, people weren't buying their albums in vast numbers just because they were ex-Beatles. Paul had nearly run himself into a ditch commercially, began a comeback with RRS (mainly due to "My Love) and cemented his commercial comeback with BOTR.
-
Strawberry kiss:
IMO, this album is good and fun but not as great as Band on the Run. Even then it was very successful. First of all, the cover is wonderful. Such a great cover should have contained a masterpiece in it. Like someone has pointed out, IMHO it would have been a masterwork at the level of Band on the run IF: - Production was better. George Martin? a dream... - Music selection and and running order was different. - Maybe a mixture of the best of At the Speed of Sound an V&M would have made a true classic with four top singles in it. My tentative selection would have been: Side A 1.-Venus and Mars . 2.-Magneto and Titanium. 3.- Beware my love. 4.- Letting go. 5.-She's my Babe 6.-Silly Love Songs (Answering John..!) 7.- Juniors Farm. 8.-Lunch Box Odd Sox Side B 9.-Let'em in. (Brrrother John... let'em in...) 10.- Rock Show (Remake the song: more rock ala get back, rhythm , soul and swing). It's a good fun song with poor performance / arrangements IMO. I love the last piano bit. 11.-You gave me the Answer 12.- Listen to what the man said. 13.-San Ferry Anne 14- Call me back again (He is singing to John..!) 15.- Sally G 16.- Warm and beautiful Produced by George Martin and Paul McCartney (Satisfaction guaranteed) Singles: Listen to what the man said / Love in Song Silly Love Songs / Medicine Jar Let'em in / Treat her Gently - Lonely old people Juniors Farm / Time to Hide Enough to go on that successful tour for two to three years while leaving a second classic in a row. Enough to definitely convince John to join forces again... with permission of Mrs ONO. Just an HO.
To each his own. I find your version of the album pretty horrifying and like the original Venus and Mars just fine with the tracks it has in the order it has them.
-
V&M could have been a great concept album, especially after the first songs. Reminded me of Bowie's glam rock/Ziggy persona. But after the strong opening, the songs never flow together well.
-
V&M has a very bad order of songs. I thought Paul would change the order of the songs in this reedition... First of all, what is 'Love In Song' doing in position nº3? we came from 'V&M/Rock Show", and amazing rock piece, and suddenly Paul changes this adrenaline for a kind of dramatic melody -a wonderful melody I have to say-. That's the place for 'Call Me Back Again'. With those two rock pieces, we would have 12 minutes of pure rock in a row. Then is time to move the story into the pop scene. 'Magnetto And Titanium Man', 'Listen What The Man Said' and 'Love In Song' for nº4, 5 and 6 would be ok (IMO). After that, we can raise the tension again going with the Reprise, 'Letting Go', 'Spirits Of Ancient Egypt' and 'Medicine Jar'. 'You Gave Me The Answer' and 'Treat Her Gently-Lonely Old People' for the closing. That's the ideal orden for me. It happens a similar thing in BOTR. It starts with 'Band On The Run' -a masterpiece-, goes on with 'Jet' (pure adrenaline), and three seconds later we're listening an incredibly soft pop-balad 'Bluebird'. That's the place for 'Let Me Roll It' and 'Mrs. Vanderbilt'!!
-
Rubbish! The sequencing of the songs on V&M is fine! What a strange thing to do, to second guess the sequencing of the songs of an LP 39 years later! Why question ANYTHING about the LP?? What is the end game here? It's the same as speculating the White Album should have been reduced to one album, and then would have been a REAL success! Based on what? Can anyone here prove V&M would have done better if the songs were a different order? Nonsense! In the digital age, you can sequence them any way you like. But 1975 is over and done with. Nothing you can do about it now.
-
All I would've done - no disrespect intended to Jimmy fans - is replace Medicine Jar with a Paul song. Other than that, the album retains its "Winner" status for me. The order of songs doesn't detract from substance. A wonderful album.
-
Bruce M.:
rich n:
Bruce M.:
beatlesfanrandy:
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.
Completely wrong. Paul/Wings were a huge commercial act in the mid-70s and were generally considered to be in a tie with Elton John as the planet's top pop music act. Listen to What the Man Said was #1 in the U.S. and got saturation airplay, but by the time the tour hit the U.S. (delayed about 3 months because Jimmy broke his finger) the album was a year old and had run its course commercially (and, as I noted earlier, an album a year was standard for most artists then). But it was a big success and fans loved it -- and it showed in their reactions when they played songs from V&M. Remember, they opened with Venus and Mars in almost total darkness, then launched into Rock Show and the lights came up -- and the audience went absolutely, totally nuts. In '76, Paul would have had no trouble selling out basketball arenas even if there wasn't a single Beatles song in his set list.
^^^I agree but sort of disagree at the same time...kind of chicken/egg argument. There's no doubt Paul's music sold well in the 70's and I personally believe it was deserved. However, there used to be a lot of discussion regarding the theory that Paul's albums sold because he was a former Beatle. All the former Beatles albums sold well, at least in the first half of that decade. And remember, the opportunity to really 'grab' the feel/quality of a new album ahead of time was not what it is these days...while a few sample songs were sent out to DJs ahead of time to help with the pre-release promotion, you largely bought on blind instinct that Paul's new album would bring some satisfaction along with the trust of some publication's review. Just my .02...but to your point, the way the charts reflected 'success' often depicted some level of 'curve' as the albums became more and more in the public's favor (not like nowadays where the ascent to the top of the charts is almost immediate and if it doesn't shoot into the top 10 in the first week or two, forget about it)
Speaking of historical revisionism... Actually, it's pretty clear that after the first round of solo albums, the idea of people buying their albums just because they were ex-Beatles died a fairly quick death. Ram never made #1 in the U.S., and"Wild Life" barely reached #10 (and didn't make the top 10 in the UK). Paul also had several singles that didn't do very well (e.g. "Mary Had a Little Lamb"/"Little Woman Love"). The early John & Yoko albums never cracked the top 100, and John didn't have a #1 album in either the U.S. or UK till "Imagine. "Some Time in NYC" only hit #48 in the U.S. despite high-profile TV appearances promoting it. Ringo's first to albums were semi-flops, and he never had a #1 album in the U.S. or UK. What their status as ex-Beatles did do was guarantee at least some radio play, which put them ahead of new and unfamiliar artists, for sure. But no, people weren't buying their albums in vast numbers just because they were ex-Beatles. Paul had nearly run himself into a ditch commercially, began a comeback with RRS (mainly due to "My Love) and cemented his commercial comeback with BOTR.
I think you're almost making my argument for me - how is it possible an album like Wild Life makes the #10 if not boosted by Paul's reputation? Not bashing that album since I find it to have a certain charm...but to my ears, Paul didn't construct that album with commercial viability in mind. And with some other albums you mentioned (from Ringo and John), cracking the top 100, or top 50 almost seemed like a favor...boosted by reputation doesn't have to mean hitting number 1. And being boosted by reputation isn't specific to being a former Beatle....any big time artist enjoys that to some extent. And as I mentioned above, I don't criticize that because it's a privilege that is earned by a strong body of work...hacks aren't afforded that privilege...it only becomes a drag if it becomes associated with an artist resting on his laurels (which is something I think we can all agree Paul has never done)
-
rich n:
Bruce M.:
Speaking of historical revisionism... Actually, it's pretty clear that after the first round of solo albums, the idea of people buying their albums just because they were ex-Beatles died a fairly quick death. Ram never made #1 in the U.S., and"Wild Life" barely reached #10 (and didn't make the top 10 in the UK). Paul also had several singles that didn't do very well (e.g. "Mary Had a Little Lamb"/"Little Woman Love"). The early John & Yoko albums never cracked the top 100, and John didn't have a #1 album in either the U.S. or UK till "Imagine. "Some Time in NYC" only hit #48 in the U.S. despite high-profile TV appearances promoting it. Ringo's first to albums were semi-flops, and he never had a #1 album in the U.S. or UK. What their status as ex-Beatles did do was guarantee at least some radio play, which put them ahead of new and unfamiliar artists, for sure. But no, people weren't buying their albums in vast numbers just because they were ex-Beatles. Paul had nearly run himself into a ditch commercially, began a comeback with RRS (mainly due to "My Love) and cemented his commercial comeback with BOTR.
I think you're almost making my argument for me - how is it possible an album like Wild Life makes the #10 if not boosted by Paul's reputation? Not bashing that album since I find it to have a certain charm...but to my ears, Paul didn't construct that album with commercial viability in mind. And with some other albums you mentioned (from Ringo and John), cracking the top 100, or top 50 almost seemed like a favor...boosted by reputation doesn't have to mean hitting number 1. And being boosted by reputation isn't specific to being a former Beatle....any big time artist enjoys that to some extent. And as I mentioned above, I don't criticize that because it's a privilege that is earned by a strong body of work...hacks aren't afforded that privilege...it only becomes a drag if it becomes associated with an artist resting on his laurels (which is something I think we can all agree Paul has never done)
Yes, very good points, rich n. The albums that sold well did so because they were good and commercial AND because they were by ex-Beatles. The "Ringo" album didn't hit #1, but it hit a solid #2 behind Elton's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" AND it had 3 Top 10 singles; the fact that John, Paul, and George were on the album was absolutely a factor in its success. By late '73, the ex-Beatles' bickering had cooled down and, with different combinations of them working or hanging out together, reunion rumors were rampant (whether grounded in any reality or not). Rich people were offering them money, Beatles conventions started popping up all over the place, and compilations like the Red and Blue albums and "Rock and Roll Music" were big sellers, the latter DURING Paul's 1976 tour, while the 10-year-old "Got To Get You Into My Life" was a Top 10 hit in the US. Sure, there were Wings fans who didn't necessarily know the Beatles' stuff, and yes, Paul had built up a solid catalog of music apart from the Beatles, but the majority of the media and fan excitement was about Paul the Beatle on his first major tour in ten years. As a book from the late '70s put it, "No one was about to coin the term Wingsmania." In 1976, Beatlemania was alive again, and Paul benefited from that big-time.
-
B J Conlee:
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.
Yes, it did seem somewhat less than one expected and hoped for....after BOTR and the excellent rocker "Junior's Farm". And, yes, ....the live versions of songs on the album are much better. Didn't realize just how much better until the remastered version of the album was released. The way he opened his tour....with the Venus and Mars rocker was superb!!!! The stage was dark....one could make out the outlines of band members moving into position on it...the opening notes of "Venus and Mars" began....and the stage lights came on....just when Paul started singing...."Sitting in the stands...." The crowd just erupted. IT WAS BRILLIANT...just exactly how one hoped it would be. Couldn't believe I was in the same "space" as Paul McCartney, seeing him...hearing him...one of the Beatles!!!!!!! I was overwhelmed!! The song placement on the album would have made a difference, as you noted,.....a rocker before "Love In Song", which did stop the early momentum Paul had going. Over the years, Paul has had this exasperating way of leaving excellent songs/singles off albums that would have made them so much stronger...all the ones you mentioned. ("Love In Song" is SO gorgeous. It would have been great on his Wings Over America tour. He had the voice to deliver it perfectly. )
-
toris:
All I would've done - no disrespect intended to Jimmy fans - is replace Medicine Jar with a Paul song. Other than that, the album retains its "Winner" status for me. The order of songs doesn't detract from substance. A wonderful album.
Nope. That was part of the cool vibe of the album and Wings at that time. Paul WANTED more of a band, much more than today. I like Medicine Jar, it rocked live, and people did not take bathroom or beer breaks during the song. It's a cool riff! C'mon!!
-
Like most of Wings' songs, "Medicine Jar" was much better live.
-
favoritething:
rich n:
Bruce M.:
Speaking of historical revisionism... Actually, it's pretty clear that after the first round of solo albums, the idea of people buying their albums just because they were ex-Beatles died a fairly quick death. Ram never made #1 in the U.S., and"Wild Life" barely reached #10 (and didn't make the top 10 in the UK). Paul also had several singles that didn't do very well (e.g. "Mary Had a Little Lamb"/"Little Woman Love"). The early John & Yoko albums never cracked the top 100, and John didn't have a #1 album in either the U.S. or UK till "Imagine. "Some Time in NYC" only hit #48 in the U.S. despite high-profile TV appearances promoting it. Ringo's first to albums were semi-flops, and he never had a #1 album in the U.S. or UK. What their status as ex-Beatles did do was guarantee at least some radio play, which put them ahead of new and unfamiliar artists, for sure. But no, people weren't buying their albums in vast numbers just because they were ex-Beatles. Paul had nearly run himself into a ditch commercially, began a comeback with RRS (mainly due to "My Love) and cemented his commercial comeback with BOTR.
I think you're almost making my argument for me - how is it possible an album like Wild Life makes the #10 if not boosted by Paul's reputation? Not bashing that album since I find it to have a certain charm...but to my ears, Paul didn't construct that album with commercial viability in mind. And with some other albums you mentioned (from Ringo and John), cracking the top 100, or top 50 almost seemed like a favor...boosted by reputation doesn't have to mean hitting number 1. And being boosted by reputation isn't specific to being a former Beatle....any big time artist enjoys that to some extent. And as I mentioned above, I don't criticize that because it's a privilege that is earned by a strong body of work...hacks aren't afforded that privilege...it only becomes a drag if it becomes associated with an artist resting on his laurels (which is something I think we can all agree Paul has never done)
Yes, very good points, rich n. The albums that sold well did so because they were good and commercial AND because they were by ex-Beatles. The "Ringo" album didn't hit #1, but it hit a solid #2 behind Elton's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" AND it had 3 Top 10 singles; the fact that John, Paul, and George were on the album was absolutely a factor in its success. By late '73, the ex-Beatles' bickering had cooled down and, with different combinations of them working or hanging out together, reunion rumors were rampant (whether grounded in any reality or not). Rich people were offering them money, Beatles conventions started popping up all over the place, and compilations like the Red and Blue albums and "Rock and Roll Music" were big sellers, the latter DURING Paul's 1976 tour, while the 10-year-old "Got To Get You Into My Life" was a Top 10 hit in the US. Sure, there were Wings fans who didn't necessarily know the Beatles' stuff, and yes, Paul had built up a solid catalog of music apart from the Beatles, but the majority of the media and fan excitement was about Paul the Beatle on his first major tour in ten years. As a book from the late '70s put it, "No one was about to coin the term Wingsmania." In 1976, Beatlemania was alive again, and Paul benefited from that big-time.
I suppose that, in the mid seventies, the rumors about a meeting between Paul and John (when Paul brought his tour to NY) had a great effect in commercial terms... right?
-
WingsOfMacca:
favoritething:
rich n:
Bruce M.:
Speaking of historical revisionism... Actually, it's pretty clear that after the first round of solo albums, the idea of people buying their albums just because they were ex-Beatles died a fairly quick death. Ram never made #1 in the U.S., and"Wild Life" barely reached #10 (and didn't make the top 10 in the UK). Paul also had several singles that didn't do very well (e.g. "Mary Had a Little Lamb"/"Little Woman Love"). The early John & Yoko albums never cracked the top 100, and John didn't have a #1 album in either the U.S. or UK till "Imagine. "Some Time in NYC" only hit #48 in the U.S. despite high-profile TV appearances promoting it. Ringo's first to albums were semi-flops, and he never had a #1 album in the U.S. or UK. What their status as ex-Beatles did do was guarantee at least some radio play, which put them ahead of new and unfamiliar artists, for sure. But no, people weren't buying their albums in vast numbers just because they were ex-Beatles. Paul had nearly run himself into a ditch commercially, began a comeback with RRS (mainly due to "My Love) and cemented his commercial comeback with BOTR.
I think you're almost making my argument for me - how is it possible an album like Wild Life makes the #10 if not boosted by Paul's reputation? Not bashing that album since I find it to have a certain charm...but to my ears, Paul didn't construct that album with commercial viability in mind. And with some other albums you mentioned (from Ringo and John), cracking the top 100, or top 50 almost seemed like a favor...boosted by reputation doesn't have to mean hitting number 1. And being boosted by reputation isn't specific to being a former Beatle....any big time artist enjoys that to some extent. And as I mentioned above, I don't criticize that because it's a privilege that is earned by a strong body of work...hacks aren't afforded that privilege...it only becomes a drag if it becomes associated with an artist resting on his laurels (which is something I think we can all agree Paul has never done)
Yes, very good points, rich n. The albums that sold well did so because they were good and commercial AND because they were by ex-Beatles. The "Ringo" album didn't hit #1, but it hit a solid #2 behind Elton's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" AND it had 3 Top 10 singles; the fact that John, Paul, and George were on the album was absolutely a factor in its success. By late '73, the ex-Beatles' bickering had cooled down and, with different combinations of them working or hanging out together, reunion rumors were rampant (whether grounded in any reality or not). Rich people were offering them money, Beatles conventions started popping up all over the place, and compilations like the Red and Blue albums and "Rock and Roll Music" were big sellers, the latter DURING Paul's 1976 tour, while the 10-year-old "Got To Get You Into My Life" was a Top 10 hit in the US. Sure, there were Wings fans who didn't necessarily know the Beatles' stuff, and yes, Paul had built up a solid catalog of music apart from the Beatles, but the majority of the media and fan excitement was about Paul the Beatle on his first major tour in ten years. As a book from the late '70s put it, "No one was about to coin the term Wingsmania." In 1976, Beatlemania was alive again, and Paul benefited from that big-time.
I suppose that, in the mid seventies, the rumors about a meeting between Paul and John (when Paul brought his tour to NY) had a great effect in commercial terms... right?
As I mentioned above - I think sales were influenced by their general stardom, not specifically that they were once Beatles...yes, the Beatles played a big part of that stardom...but they were considered current hot commodities