Wild Life was McCartney's 3rd solo effort, and it didn't get as close to #1 as his first two efforts, or anything that came after it.

Many think that its because the album said it was simply by a band called "Wings."  Supposedly nobody in America knew that it was really a Macca album with new band members, and that's why the album peaked at #10 on the Billboard Album Chart.

Are Americans that stupid?  I don't think so.  What the hell happened, unless the album really wasn't all that hot?  I know that no hit singles were spawned from that LP, and maybe that had something to do with it?

Americans arent stupid. If it looks like a turd than it must be a turd. Unfortunatley, thats what 'Wild Life' is.

(My fanboyism for Paul forces me to like this, but I do recognize that it was a stinker)

I think it's the Wings equivalent of 'McCartney'. Poor songwriting, and a rushed recording.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

I think it's the Wings equivalent of 'McCartney'. Poor songwriting, and a rushed recording.

Wow - you think "McCartney" was poor and rushed?  I'm surprised.

Quoted from Buttmunker

Wow - you think "McCartney" was poor and rushed?  I'm surprised.

I was just listening to some of it earlier on, in response to the thread about 'Junk', and 'Teddy Boy'. There's barely a lyric until the fourth track, then it's back to instrumentals again. 'Junk' is OK, but it could have been much better. 'Maybe I'm Amazed', and 'Every Night' are excellent, but they can't save it from being a Turkey in my opinion.

Wild Life isn't that bad of an album...it has it's up and downs.

Wings is not solo. But I'll let it slide.

However, IMO, Wildlife has some goodies, I love Wildlife, Love Is Strange, I Am Your Singer, and Little Woman Love (if you have that version).

McCartney is pretty bad.. Most of it is kinda filler, but what gets me most are the lyrics. I'll take McCartney II over McCartney any day.

Agree BlueMeanie McCartney the album is not ageing well and apart from Maybe I'm Amazed , Every Night and Junk  there is not much to hold your interest, likewise with Wild life i only really like Dear Friend .

Quoted from Buttmunker

Are Americans that stupid?

Hehehe    If Americans are stupid, people from England is even worst. WILD LIFE peaked at #11 in the UK, man!
It was his weakest effort at the time because it was credited to Wings solo (and then Red Rose and BOTR were credited as Paul McCartney & Wings...), because of the lack of hit singles and probably because RAM was released only six months earlier.

I don't have Wild Life. I still have to buy it. I can't give my opinion about it. But I don't think McCartney was a rushed album, it was recorded in 3-4 between Nov/Dec 69 and Feb/Mar 70, and released in April 70. A rushed album was McCartney II, that was recorded entirely during July 1979.  

Quoted from wingsman

But I don't think McCartney was a rushed album, it was recorded in 3-4 between Nov/Dec 69 and Feb/Mar 70, and released in April 70. A rushed album was McCartney II, that was recorded entirely during July 1979.  

McCartney wasn't rushed, recording wise. I just think he entered into it with nowhere near enough good material. And it sounds like it. You can also witness Macca's famous quality control!

I think Wild Life is a great ablum. It seems to me that when people first hear Wild Life, they've either had heard Ram first and are expecting something equal or they hear people saying its horrible so they begin listening to it expecting to hear something horrible. I mean what really makes Wild Life so bad?  There is not one song that is so horrible that you say "God! This is horrible! My ears are bleeding!!". All the songs have great melodies, even though the quality of songs aren't on par to that of Ram, has it occured to anyone that Paul was trying to start from scratch with Wings and trying to go for a sort of garage band sound? Why can't anyone appreciate that?

A garage band sound?  Look, I've never heard this album, but I'll bet you I'm going to love it.  Why?  Because everybody hated Pinkerton by Weezer, but I loved every track on that record.

Betcha Wild Life will be the same.  (crosses fingers.)

Quoted from 679

Agree BlueMeanie McCartney the album is not ageing well and apart from Maybe I'm Amazed , Every Night and Junk  there is not much to hold your interest, likewise with Wild life i only really like Dear Friend .

I couldnt have said this better. Even down to 'Dear Friend' which I think is the best song on 'Wild Life'.

Quoted from Wordno

has it occured to anyone that Paul was trying to start from scratch with Wings and trying to go for a sort of garage band sound? Why can't anyone appreciate that?

You could appreciate it, but it still doesn't mean you're going to like it.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

You could appreciate it, but it still doesn't mean you're going to like it.

Haha good point.

RAM is overated, but B.O.T.R & RED ROSE SPEEDWAY I never get tired of hearing (w/ the exception of "Jet" on b.o.t.r--totally sick of that one)

Quoted from 829

RAM is overated, but B.O.T.R & RED ROSE SPEEDWAY I never get tired of hearing (w/ the exception of "Jet" on b.o.t.r--totally sick of that one)

Well, its all personal opinion, but RAM blows anything he has ever done out of the water in my opinion. 'BOTR' hasent aged well at all, and 'RRS' isnt near as good as I have always thought. As a matter of fact, it falls further and further down the list the more I listen to it (its been in my cd player for the last two weeks and its overdue to come out).

I agree with you that BOTR is overrated, but I really don't think that Ram is. Its just such a great Lp with so many good quality songs. Red Rose Speedway is also a great Lp. People should appreciate RRS a little more.

Here's my take on the Macca solo albums under discussion:

McCartney: very solid with top-tier songs like Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed and Every Night.  Teddy Boy and and That Would be Something are almost there too, but the rest are pretty good.  Nothing embarrassing.

Ram: Paul's attempt to do Pet Sounds (only he doesn't have the psychic depth to pull it off lyrically).  Great rockers like Too Many People, The Back Seat of My Car and Smile Away (which gets a little juvenile lyrically, but what the hey).  Dear Boy, Heart of the Country are great, Uncle Albert is a fine attempt at the segue-song of Beatles tradition (but without the depth or bite of Happiness is a Warm Gun or even side two of Abbey Road).  Ram On, nice Pet Soundish theme--good uke.  But Monkberry and the two songs that follow are less than stellar IMHO.

Wild Life: Paul tried to record an album fast like Bob Dylan, but Paul is a musical architect not an action painter.  Some good ideas all through this, but generally a mess.  (not unlike Dylan's own three-day album "Planet Waves" with The Band who can come up with some pretty killer parts if you give them a chance to workshop the songs).

Red Rose Speedway: having Hugh McCracken on guitar sweetens the sound, but there ain't alot of A-list material although My Love is a great ballad and When the Night is almost a great song (or a great performance of a good song).  

Band on the Run: Great songs: BOTR, Jet, Let me Roll it, and maybe Picasso's Last Words (and Helen Wheels on the US version).  The rest are very good: Bluebird, Mamunia, and 1985.  Mrs. Vanderbilt seems out of place and No Words is a great hook but not much more (John could have probably helped flesh this out).

Venus and Mars: Great Songs: Venus and Mars/Rock Show (best segue song of Paul's solo career), Letting Go, Listen what the Man Said, Treat Her Gently.  Good songs: Medicine Jar.  Annoying: You Gave me the Answer. (Paul rewrites the granny song that he'd been writing every since Your Mother Should Know.)  Dated: Magneto.  

Speed of Sound: a mistake like Creedence's Mardi Gras (where Fogerty made the other guys write and sing their own material).  Let 'Em In is a good idea but the lyrics get a little thin (think of what John in his heydey could have added to this).  Nothing else much to say.  Silly Love Songs did more to damage Paul's career than any single song.  What's wrong with that, I'd like to know?

Quoted from adamzero

Here's my take on the Macca solo albums under discussion:

McCartney: very solid with top-tier songs like Junk, Maybe I'm Amazed and Every Night.  Teddy Boy and and That Would be Something are almost there too, but the rest are pretty good.  Nothing embarrassing.

Ram: Paul's attempt to do Pet Sounds (only he doesn't have the psychic depth to pull it off lyrically).  Great rockers like Too Many People, The Back Seat of My Car and Smile Away (which gets a little juvenile lyrically, but what the hey).  Dear Boy, Heart of the Country are great, Uncle Albert is a fine attempt at the segue-song of Beatles tradition (but without the depth or bite of Happiness is a Warm Gun or even side two of Abbey Road).  Ram On, nice Pet Soundish theme--good uke.  But Monkberry and the two songs that follow are less than stellar IMHO.

Wild Life: Paul tried to record an album fast like Bob Dylan, but Paul is a musical architect not an action painter.  Some good ideas all through this, but generally a mess.  (not unlike Dylan's own three-day album "Planet Waves" with The Band who can come up with some pretty killer parts if you give them a chance to workshop the songs).

Red Rose Speedway: having Hugh McCracken on guitar sweetens the sound, but there ain't alot of A-list material although My Love is a great ballad and When the Night is almost a great song (or a great performance of a good song).  

Band on the Run: Great songs: BOTR, Jet, Let me Roll it, and maybe Picasso's Last Words (and Helen Wheels on the US version).  The rest are very good: Bluebird, Mamunia, and 1985.  Mrs. Vanderbilt seems out of place and No Words is a great hook but not much more (John could have probably helped flesh this out).

Venus and Mars: Great Songs: Venus and Mars/Rock Show (best segue song of Paul's solo career), Letting Go, Listen what the Man Said, Treat Her Gently.  Good songs: Medicine Jar.  Annoying: You Gave me the Answer. (Paul rewrites the granny song that he'd been writing every since Your Mother Should Know.)  Dated: Magneto.  

Speed of Sound: a mistake like Creedence's Mardi Gras (where Fogerty made the other guys write and sing their own material).  Let 'Em In is a good idea but the lyrics get a little thin (think of what John in his heydey could have added to this).  Nothing else much to say.  Silly Love Songs did more to damage Paul's career than any single song.  What's wrong with that, I'd like to know?

Just exactly how did Silly Love Songs damage McCartney's career?

Quoted from adamzero

Silly Love Songs did more to damage Paul's career than any single song.  What's wrong with that, I'd like to know?

.. Meaning?

All Pauls albums have their ups and downs, I don't think I can call an entire album complete crap.
Yes, even McCartney II has it's good songs, and hell, Speed Of Sound is a great album in my opinion,
the only one I skip through is Cook Of The House.  

Well i like this album , yeah its not a classic , but compared to what Macca releashed in the 80s , its a classic
thats just my opinion of course , and i was listening to Wings Before The Beatles  

I just meant that it sealed the impression in the public mind and critical opinion that Paul was the "lightweight" compared to the "genius" John.  I should have phrased it better.  The album is listenable, Silly Love Songs is listenable, but it's a long way down from the heights Paul reached with the Beatles.  What's wrong with that, I'd like to know?  

Quoted from JimmyMcCullochFan

Just exactly how did Silly Love Songs damage McCartney's career?

Yeah, I was going to ask this too. This song is a prime example of what Pauls capable of when somebody lights a fire under his a**. I cant remember if it was John or George that said all Paul could do was write silly love songs. So what does he do, he writes 'Silly Love Songs' and besides having one of the greatest bass riffs in the history of modern music, it was one of Pauls most successful tunes ever.

I dont see any damage done from that song. We need to remember that Paul was never a 'Rock' singer anyways although thats what everybody wished and hoped for. I mean, the few rockers he has are great and he does them well, but most of his tunes are pop and adult/contemporary.

Quoted from adamzero

I just meant that it sealed the impression in the public mind and critical opinion that Paul was the "lightweight" compared to the "genius" John.  

If that be true we can only be grateful that John so manfully set out to level the playingfield with Starting Over, Woman and Beautiful Boy.

Quoted from adamzero

Speed of Sound: a mistake like Creedence's Mardi Gras (where Fogerty made the other guys write and sing their own material).  Let 'Em In is a good idea but the lyrics get a little thin (think of what John in his heydey could have added to this).

But of course when John was in his hey day so was Paul, so he wouldn't have needed any help from Mr L. On the flipside you can't help but wonder how Paul's input might have lifted the dreary Mind Games and Walls and Bridges, or the lyrically disastrous Sometime In New York City.
(and my understanding of Mardi Gras is that Fogerty allowed, rather than made, the other members to contribute. They had been pressuring him for sometime, hence its nickname "Fogerty's Revenge." Like Paul, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I actually like Mardi Gras.  Stu and Doug's stuff ais pretty good.  There's just a couple of Stu songs where he croaks like a frog that are hard listening.  From what I've read, Fogerty made the other guys write, produce and sing one third of the album each.  He even refused to play lead guitar on their songs (except for one--but luckily Stu could do a pretty good Fogerty lead).  Stu and Doug wanted a say in the business end of things, but Fogerty said if the band was going to be a democracy they'd have to start writing, singing and producing.  

This is off topic, but I've often wondered who is the greater one man band: Fogerty or Paul?  

Also, I totally agree about John's albums--a little Paul input may have provided the necessary lift that's missing.  But "Meat City" would probably remain unsalvageable.  

Quoted from adamzero

This is off topic, but I've often wondered who is the greater one man band: Fogerty or Paul?  

Fogerty couldnt hold Pauls jock strap.

Besides me hating CCR horribly, I have to ask if they ever evolved as a band. Every freaking song i've heard sounds the same. Even Fogerty's solo stuff sounds just like the same 3 or 4 chord CCR crap. Also, i'd rather have my nuts shot off in a hunting accident than to hear Fogerty sing. No other voice (except maybe Springsteen) can irritate me more.

CCR did evolve.  They started out as a San Francisco psychedelic band doing 50s covers (Suzie Q with gregorian chants and guitar noodling), then they became a three-minute swamp rock/southern rock band (even though they were from California) when they had most of their hits, then with Pendulum Fogerty started using horns and keyboards (which he played) for a more soul sound until they did Mardi Gras.  

I know some folks can't stand CCR or Fogerty, but I think the guy's one of the great songwriters and singers of rock (he's one of the few white singers to make the black charts, Van Morrison being another).  

Here's just a sample of his songs: Proud Mary, Green River, Bad Moon Rising, Commotion, Wrote a Song for Everyone, It Came Out of the Sky, Down on the Corner, Fortunate Son, Who'll Stop the Rain, Long as I Can See the Light, Run Through the Jungle(maybe his best, his brother/enemy Tom thought so), Lodi, Pagan Baby, Sailor's Lament, Have You Ever Seen the Rain?, Someday Never Comes.  And that's just with CCR.  

Not that it means everything but All Music Guide gives CCR five stars for Green River (1969), Willy and the Poor Boys (1970), Cosmo's Factory (1970), four-and-half for Bayou Country (1969), four for Pendulum (1970).   (They even give three for Mardi Gras (1972)).  

That's three five-star albums in two years.  Five four+ albums in two years.  With all the songwriting, singing, producing and lead guitar handled primarily by one guy. That's a pretty amazing run by any standard.  

While All Music Guide lists all the U.K. Beatles albums at five stars (except for four-and-a-half for Let it Be), Paul has a number of four-star and four-and-a-half star albums but only one five-star (Ram).  John has two five-stars: POB and Imagine.  George has one five-star: ATMP (with a four and a half-Cloud Nine).  Poor Ringo, a few four-and-a-halves, but no fives.

That being said, TK, I appreciate your opinion and love how you specify that you'd rather get your nuts shot off in a "hunting accident" (as opposed to any other form of nut-losing).  

Quoted from adamzero

That being said, TK, I appreciate your opinion and love how you specify that you'd rather get your nuts shot off in a "hunting accident" (as opposed to any other form of nut-losing).  

Lol!

No, its all good. I realize what CCR did and i'm not here to deny their place in music. I just dont care for them. Isnt it wild that they never had a number 1 hit? Seriously, that surprises me with that catelog.

Quoted from tkitna

Lol!

No, its all good. I realize what CCR did and i'm not here to deny their place in music. I just dont care for them. Isnt it wild that they never had a number 1 hit? Seriously, that surprises me with that catelog.

The funny thing about it is that they achieved 5 #2 hits in 2 or 3 years, and never a number-one record! Poor them! They have one of the sadest Billboard records for that: "more #2 hits without a #1 single"  
No, seriously, poor guys.  

I forgot my actual comment here!  
I just bought Wild Life today with my first salary ever from work. (Congralutions to me, please! lol   )
And I'm listening to it. It's not so bad. Let's see.

I am listening to this album these days and it sounds boring some times:long songs in some cases and not very good arrangements but I do not think this is one of the weakest efforts Paul ever made.London Town and Give My Regards to Broadstreet are two I do not like at all.