What if There Had Been No "Wings" Band?
-
What if Paul had just released all his post-Beatles music under his name Paul McCartney and had not formed the band "Wings"? Would his music have been more, or less, appreciated? He would still have had the various line ups backing him, and Linda, on all the albums. In a way, I wish he'd done this. And put out all the same steller stuff, just under his name. Perhaps he'd have gained more critical respect and acclaim at the time. You think?
-
It often was Paul McCartney and Wings. I don't think it would have mattered. I also thought that Wings was Paul McCartney. The critics turned against Paul in the mid 1970s. They liked to point out his more lightweight work as an indication of his decline. Plus, Paul often chose to showcase his middle of the road stuff instead of his best rockers, etc. Topics that have long been discussed on this board.
-
For me Paul is the wings i think it would be even better for his carrer if he didnt cover his name under the wings
-
the name doesn't make a difference.
-
Maybe, but I think that it was fine because, he started with a band, but in the end all the people knows that Paul is "the man" behind The Beatles, Wings and anyother band that he made. His genius is so big that can't be hidden behind a name. I think that at this time, is not neccesary for Paul to stay in a competicion with John or things like that, becouse is really clear that he is de best of the best no matter what the others saying.
: -
I think Paul would have been fine without a band, but I think it was like a security blanket for him to have other with him on the records and especially on stage with him. I think Paul would have done just fine without Wings, but for his own comfort, it seems like he was much happier to have others playing with him.
-
The critical negativity toward Paul's '70s work began with "Ram," before the name Wings was used. And let's be honest, some of that negativity was earned. Paul's '70s work had great moments and not-so-great moments. "Wild Life" wouldn't have been a good album or gotten good reviews if it had the Pope's name on it.
-
Wings was the first incarnation of 'My Band'...LOL
-
Bruce M.:
And let's be honest, some of that negativity was earned. Paul's '70s work had great moments and not-so-great moments. "Wild Life" wouldn't have been a good album or gotten good reviews if it had the Pope's name on it.
That`s subjective.I can never understand why people hate Wild Life so much - and I think it is one of the albums that is being re-evaluated.
-
Adriana Rojas:
Maybe, but I think that it was fine because, he started with a band, but in the end all the people knows that Paul is "the man" behind The Beatles, Wings and anyother band that he made. .
Now don't go saying that about the BEatles. The others all had contributions. but I do think Paul is the main driving force behind every band he's worked with since on his own material. think about how good he sounds lately with a solid long-term band behind him now.
-
Bruce M.:
The critical negativity toward Paul's '70s work began with "Ram," before the name Wings was used. And let's be honest, some of that negativity was earned. Paul's '70s work had great moments and not-so-great moments. "Wild Life" wouldn't have been a good album or gotten good reviews if it had the Pope's name on it.
And then he released the "Mary Had A Little Lamb," single. That sealed the deal for the critics. I still feel embarrassed for Paul over that "decision."
-
Kathryn O:
Adriana Rojas:
Maybe, but I think that it was fine because, he started with a band, but in the end all the people knows that Paul is "the man" behind The Beatles, Wings and anyother band that he made. .
Now don't go saying that about the BEatles. The others all had contributions. but I do think Paul is the main driving force behind every band he's worked with since on his own material. think about how good he sounds lately with a solid long-term band behind him now.
I would go as far as it was probably true for the later stages of the Beatles run (In some cases, to Paul's credit and in other's, to the chagrin of the other members)
-
I'm glad he formed an actual band for several reasons, one of which is that I can say "I prefer Wings to the Beatles!" as it gets my point across much more clearly than saying "I prefer Paul McCartney to the Beatles." I'm also glad for Wings because it gave an outlet to Denny Laine's best work, all of which was enhanced by his being able to work with Paul of course, but there would be no place for a song like Time to Hide (or, to take Jimmy, Medicine Jar or Wino Junko) on a "Paul McCartney" record, and the song wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if it weren't played by Wings and instead appeared on a Denny solo record. But I also just think it was ballsy for Paul to form another band instead of just running on his name alone like the others did.
-
I'm glad he formed "Wings"--another fascinating move on his part in a celebrated career full of them
I only wish "Wings" had been more prolific, put out a few more albums than just seven albums in ten years. Is that right? Or, is that a good number of albums for ten years? Seven. -
Cyllthain:
I'm glad he formed an actual band for several reasons, one of which is that I can say "I prefer Wings to the Beatles!" as it gets my point across much more clearly than saying "I prefer Paul McCartney to the Beatles." I'm also glad for Wings because it gave an outlet to Denny Laine's best work, all of which was enhanced by his being able to work with Paul of course, but there would be no place for a song like Time to Hide (or, to take Jimmy, Medicine Jar or Wino Junko) on a "Paul McCartney" record, and the song wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if it weren't played by Wings and instead appeared on a Denny solo record. But I also just think it was ballsy for Paul to form another band instead of just running on his name alone like the others did.
Saying wings were better than the beatles is crazy,you have paul on both but do you compare Denny Laine with John Lennon or George Harrison!Even Paul wrote most of his masterpieces when he was with the beatles,wings were great cause of Paul but beatles were better
-
herc:
Cyllthain:
I'm glad he formed an actual band for several reasons, one of which is that I can say "I prefer Wings to the Beatles!" as it gets my point across much more clearly than saying "I prefer Paul McCartney to the Beatles." I'm also glad for Wings because it gave an outlet to Denny Laine's best work, all of which was enhanced by his being able to work with Paul of course, but there would be no place for a song like Time to Hide (or, to take Jimmy, Medicine Jar or Wino Junko) on a "Paul McCartney" record, and the song wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if it weren't played by Wings and instead appeared on a Denny solo record. But I also just think it was ballsy for Paul to form another band instead of just running on his name alone like the others did.
Saying wings were better than the beatles is crazy,you have paul on both but do you compare Denny Laine with John Lennon or George Harrison!Even Paul wrote most of his masterpieces when he was with the beatles,wings were great cause of Paul but beatles were better
and that does not mean that Wing is not great but simply no one can top the Beatles or the northern songs -
herc:
Cyllthain:
I'm glad he formed an actual band for several reasons, one of which is that I can say "I prefer Wings to the Beatles!" as it gets my point across much more clearly than saying "I prefer Paul McCartney to the Beatles." I'm also glad for Wings because it gave an outlet to Denny Laine's best work, all of which was enhanced by his being able to work with Paul of course, but there would be no place for a song like Time to Hide (or, to take Jimmy, Medicine Jar or Wino Junko) on a "Paul McCartney" record, and the song wouldn't have been anywhere near as good if it weren't played by Wings and instead appeared on a Denny solo record. But I also just think it was ballsy for Paul to form another band instead of just running on his name alone like the others did.
Saying wings were better than the beatles is crazy,you have paul on both but do you compare Denny Laine with John Lennon or George Harrison!Even Paul wrote most of his masterpieces when he was with the beatles,wings were great cause of Paul but beatles were better
Put your reading glasses on, old boy.
Cyllthain didn't say that Wings were better, what he/she said was that "I prefer Wings to the Beatles!" It's the same as me saying "I prefer Red Rose Speedway over Band On The Run". I'm not saying RRS is "better" than BOR, (because it isn't), its just that for me, I prefer that album. For some reason, it hits a chord with me moreso than BOR. -
SusyLuvsPaul:
I'm glad he formed "Wings"--another fascinating move on his part in a celebrated career full of them
I only wish "Wings" had been more prolific, put out a few more albums than just seven albums in ten years. Is that right? Or, is that a good number of albums for ten years? Seven.I'd say that' s not bad. I've got a friend who is a musician who seems obligated to put out an album a year so he has something to promote when he goes to conventions every summer. His quality got kind of shakey there for a while (but it's since improved but there was a time we told him to maybe go for quality over quantity)
-
Kathryn O:
SusyLuvsPaul:
I'm glad he formed "Wings"--another fascinating move on his part in a celebrated career full of them
I only wish "Wings" had been more prolific, put out a few more albums than just seven albums in ten years. Is that right? Or, is that a good number of albums for ten years? Seven.I'd say that' s not bad. I've got a friend who is a musician who seems obligated to put out an album a year so he has something to promote when he goes to conventions every summer. His quality got kind of shakey there for a while (but it's since improved but there was a time we told him to maybe go for quality over quantity)
off topic but I agree with you KO, quality over quantity all day. there's a ton of crap out there, not enough quality. Susy, I think Wings was really productive, an album per year for 7 years is great for a single artist like Paul, and after all all the songs were his. I personally think Wings being the band it was showed, and shows historically, that Paul had another run in him after the greatness of the Beatles, and that he accomplished his mission of getting back on top with his own band. that alone is impressive, especially when easily compared with the othr 3 beatles and the fact they never actually returned to sustained form commercially or wanted to form new bands. And because of it, his solo career I think looks even more impresssive. its just a massive body of work with different progressions. Having that long successful career with a seperate band looks pretty amazing and unique historically. in any case I would guess not that many do it.
-
If only thinking of albums specifically under the brand name 'Paul McCartney' that fall under the catagory of new studio pop rock, 7 albums in 10 years would be a huge increase of production from Paul these days...however, he has so many side projects that I think at the end of the day, we're getting some type of 'Paul McCartney' product at nearly the same pace as when Wings was in full flight
