Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[maccafan]

When whites sing R&B I've heard it called Blue Eyed Soul.

McCartneys arrow thru me fits that description.

[Jane]

Smokie… that is funny. The first time I heard of this immensely popular band ine the 1970’s USSR was by a guy my age (some 50-year-old, as you sed)… from Ukraine, a few months ago.

Yes, AngeloMysterioso! Everybody about 50 years old knows Smokie, their songs used to be played at cafes in the 70s a lot, especially I`ll Meet You At Midnight and What Can I Do (which sounded very much like "Vodka I Do" for the people) as well as other bands` songs but pop-rock bands`. The young generation knows them too because their songs have been covered by some Russian bands, for example the song Living Next Door to Alice. And Ukraine was in Russia at that time.

[Jane]

Isn't that a bit of a double edged sword. You're saying that most western music was banned, but that the Soviet authorities regarded Wings as so tame and inoffensive as to survive the ban? And couldn't we also draw the conclusion that Wings popularity could have been due to the fact that they were one of the few western acts freely available in the shops?
Smokie? You're saying Wings were as popular as Smokie? I'm not sure who should be the most offended.

I`ve consulted some friends, who say that many pop-rock bands could be bought in the 70s, but again not in all the shops. However these weren`t western imported records, they were imprints by the Russian firm MELODIA, licensed and not so beautiful. These were Wings, Smokie, ABBA, The Beatles, Plastic Ono Band, Eruption, Teach-In, Boney M etc. Pop-rock or pop. But no hard-rock or the like. No Deep Purple, Rolling Stones, Queen, Led Zep etc. People say hard-rock was not banned and it wasn`t a crime to have this kind of music, the thing was that it was unavailable and could be obtained only through friends who travelled abroad the brought records with them. And financial speculation was high, some dealers sold the records at very high prices and thus made a lot of money. For example one had to pay half the salary for a Western record. Such kind of deals were prohibited.
Yes, we can make the conclusion that the authorities considered pop-rock inoffensive, not only Wings but all such music.
I don`t think that Wing`s popularity was due to the fact that they were available. Not all their records were available, and the young people of the 70s enjoyed Wings, as they now say.
As for the popularity of Wings and Smokie, my friends say that first it was Wings and ABBA (in the mid 70s) and then in the late 70s Smokie became so popular that it was everywhere. I think nobody should be offended! 

[Jane]

Lets rephrase that. Paul ruled the 70's.

Many people don`t think of Wings as Paul. They think of Wings as Wings, as a band. Certainly it was all Paul`s achievement, but it was different from now when it`s only Paul. For me, for example, it was WINGS. Like The Beatles were the Beatles and not just Lennon or McCartney or the others.
I agree with maccafan that Wings was one of the best pop-rock bands of the 70s.

[tkitna]

Many people don`t think of Wings as Paul. They think of Wings as Wings, as a band. Certainly it was all Paul`s achievement, but it was different from now when it`s only Paul. For me, for example, it was WINGS.

The only difference is that Paul gave his backing band a title then. Thats it. There is really no difference from then and now except a name. Paul did everything then,,,he does everything now.

Like The Beatles were the Beatles and not just Lennon or McCartney or the others.

The difference there is that you had other people contributing to song writing and other decisions rather than just a leader. Its totally different. Thats a bad example.

[Jane]

Then it may be all in people`s consciousness. You call yourself Wings and people at large think about the band (even though you write all the songs). You call yourself Paul McCartney and people think about you even though you play with a band. I am just trying to understand why Wings is Wings in some people`s minds. 

[JimmyMcCullochFan]

I think that only the 1975-1977 lineup could be considered "Wings". Jimmy and Denny both contributed songs to Venus and Mars/Speed of Sound and were featured during the world tour.

 Here's an excerpt from a January 1975 interview Jimmy did with Guitar Magazine.

Is your contribution going to change the nature of Wings?

I think so. Wings wasn't a band before. It was Paul with session musicians. Now it feels like a band, and I'm able to say my own things and voice an opinion. I can say, Listen, why don't we do this? If it works, we do it. It's everybody being able to speak up and contribute, even though Paul is so dominate. He's a very together guy as far as arrangements go.

Which is the more important aspect of Wings' work at the moment, live gigs or recording?

At the moment, records. It's a challenge at the moment because, apart from the single, nobody knows what the new band sounds like on record. So the first thing is to get a new album together and see how that works out, whether people accept it. We've already got most of the Band on the Run album together as a stage act, so we know we're capable of doing that. Now we want to go a bit further. I think the band will change, because before there was only Paul, Linda and Denny influencing the music, now he's got a drummer and a guitarist.

[tkitna]

I think that only the 1975-1977 lineup could be considered "Wings". Jimmy and Denny both contributed songs to Venus and Mars/Speed of Sound and were featured during the world tour.

 Here's an excerpt from a January 1975 interview Jimmy did with Guitar Magazine.

Is your contribution going to change the nature of Wings?

I think so. Wings wasn't a band before. It was Paul with session musicians. Now it feels like a band, and I'm able to say my own things and voice an opinion. I can say, Listen, why don't we do this? If it works, we do it. It's everybody being able to speak up and contribute, even though Paul is so dominate. He's a very together guy as far as arrangements go.

Which is the more important aspect of Wings' work at the moment, live gigs or recording?

At the moment, records. It's a challenge at the moment because, apart from the single, nobody knows what the new band sounds like on record. So the first thing is to get a new album together and see how that works out, whether people accept it. We've already got most of the Band on the Run album together as a stage act, so we know we're capable of doing that. Now we want to go a bit further. I think the band will change, because before there was only Paul, Linda and Denny influencing the music, now he's got a drummer and a guitarist.

My only complaint here is that their contributions didnt change anything. The songs they wrote and sang sucked. Come on, 'Medicine Jar', 'Time To Hide', 'Winko Junko', 'Again and Again and Again', etc,,,. Hell, I think Joe English even sang a song, but I cant even remember its name and theres probably a reason for that. I realize they contributed in the studio with a few ideas and their playing here and there, but to be honest, if they were creatively relevant an any way, we might have heard something from them after Wings in my opinion. (I realize that Jimmy had an untimely death alsoso he gets a pass somewhat).

I dont know, I guess i'm just never going to feel it for the whole Wings thing. I think bands like the Heartbreakers, E Street Band, Crazy Horse, and even the Destroyers had more to do with their artists success than Wings. Its like Steely Dan except Paul was one guy instead of f**an and Becker. The mastermind and the pawns.

[Kevin]

^ Couple of thoughts. Of course Jimmy McCullough is going to big up his role - he's hardly likely to admit to being (or to see himself as)  a sideman.
Also, wouldn't highlighting the line It's everybody being able to speak up and contribute, even though Paul is so dominate just as telling.

[Jane]

Please, does it really matter who contributed and who didn`t, who dominated and who kept a low profile? George kept a low profile at first but the band was famous. The same here, those other Wings` guys whose names nobody remembers now (sorry Jimmy, I mean only fans do remember) made up Wings, played fantastically and Wings was famous. Who said that all should contribute for a band to be considered great and to be accepted as a band? Nobody. Wings did exist and it was famous, and it had excellent songs.

[tkitna]

Alright, i'll lay it to rest with a few closing comments. Take McCartney out of the lineup of Wings and let them have a go of it. What do you think happens? Yeah that took about .3 nanoseconds to think about. Hell, Paul could have even gotten better backup musicians, but not for that cheap.

"Wings" is just an alias for a McCartney side project consisting of different (many different) musicians being paid to play what Paul tells them to play. Its a way to distract people from solely concentrating on the 'McCartney' name and instantly thinking ex-Beatle and the silly thing is,,,,it worked. I can see from reading these posts that it still works. Well done Paul.


(Thinking about my first statement, the only two backing bands I can really think of that made it when the main artist left was 'The Band' and 'Journey'. Wonder if there were more?)

[tkitna]

Here's another thing to ponder, what if Paul called his current band Wings? Would that bother anybody and if so, why?

[Tamara]

(Thinking about my first statement, the only two backing bands I can really think of that made it when the main artist left was 'The Band' and 'Journey'. Wonder if there were more?)

The Shadows.

[tkitna]

Please, does it really matter who contributed and who didn`t, who dominated and who kept a low profile? George kept a low profile at first but the band was famous. The same here, those other Wings` guys whose names nobody remembers now (sorry Jimmy, I mean only fans do remember) made up Wings, played fantastically and Wings was famous. Who said that all should contribute for a band to be considered great and to be accepted as a band? Nobody. Wings did exist and it was famous, and it had excellent songs.

I'm just trying to understand the whole concept here, thats all. I always wonder why people ask me if I have all of Pauls solo stuff, but i've never been asked in my lifetime if I have all of Wings stuff. Hmm.

[Kevin]

In the interests of good science I am conscious bound to report the following:
Band On The Run came on the radio. I started to sing along. The woman next to me, who is 55ish said "I can't believe you like Wings!"
Which is good for The Wings As A Legit Band lobby, bad for Macca/Wings fans in general.

[DaveRam]

If you take Paul away from Wings you've got the Moody Blues , well a bit of them 
Think Band On The Run ,Venus and Mars and London Town inpaticular which as six Paul and Denny songs on it sound most like a band and are much better albums than ABBA of the same period .
My point they were a trio is incontestable ? they were like The Police ,Bee Gees and The Jam , all three like Wings had a big personality fronting them Sting ,Barry Gibb and Paul Weller , not such a strange thing in a trio that one gets more attention
 Paul and two bookends could fit the other trio's just as well 

[maccafan]

If you take McCartney away from Wings you'd have a different rock band, but they'd still be a band!

If you named the current band Wings I wouldn't have any problem with it, because McCartney is the one who named them that in the first place!

McCartney himself has said that Wings were a proper band, that's good enough for me!

[Kevin]

McCartney himself has said that Wings were a proper band, that's good enough for me!

Well he would wouldn't he, being desperate to dodge the image of a meglomanical control freak that had dogged him from his Beatle days.

And yes, if you took McCartney away from Wings you'd still have a band. Just not one that anyone would recognise (or probably listen to.)

[maccafan]

People listen to new bands all the time!!