Log In
Register
8.32pm
8 January 2014
Offline
The way i see it, Paul was not ready to go absolutly solo in the 70s, but he knew The Beatles were a done deal. Wings, i think, was meant to fill that gap that the Beatles left behind. Paul loved and at that time, needed to be in a band. “McCartney” was prove to himself that he could make music without the other 3. “Ram ” proved that he can be relivent in another musical form or band. those 2 albums led to the idea of Wings. and just the fact that he wanted to give other members of the band not only writing credit but lead vocal proves he wanted that band feeling again he once had during the early days of the Beatles. (check out the album “Wings At The Speed Of Sound “, that is the prime example of what Paul was aiming for) but Unfortunatly members kept quitting on him. (one guitarist even died from a drug od). Denny Laine was the only faithful one (besides his wife, Linda).
after Wings fizzed out in 1980, he just decided, “from now on, i’ll just be Paul McCartney “.
8.56pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline
Not only that, he was desperate to tour, since ’68 or so, and for that he obviously wanted/needed a band.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
12.55am
22 December 2013
Offline Most definitely a “Back-Up Band”, and not that it’s any slight to the musicianship of the various members over the years, remember that The Beatles were a “Back-Up Band” themselves many years ago to Tony Sheridan. A real band would be more like a group of musicians who met outside of the arrangement and grew together before forming, Denny Seiwell for example, was auditioned to play drums not much different than how Pete Best was, out of need for one. Although they were not always billed as such, the name ‘Paul McCartney & Wings’ should answer this question without much discussion…:-)
4.43am
5 February 2010
Offline I think the answer is an unequivocal “Yes.” Remember how the individual members of the Beatles would talk about their democratic set-up, that any one of them could have veto power over a decision that involved the band? Somehow I don’t think there was that same equality in Wings …
On a somewhat related note, I was just saying the other night (watching the Grammy Tribute to the Beatles) that Paul has been touring with that same group of musicians for, what, ten years now? More? I find it interesting that he’s never (to my knowledge anyway) officially christened that group of musicians as a band and given them a name. I mean, they’ve been playing together now for at least as long as Wings was together, right?
Not a bit like Cagney.
2.28am
5 February 2010
Offline Just found this quote from Glyn Johns in Sounes’ book “Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney ” that seemed relevant to this thread. Johns played a role in helping to produce the album Red Rose Speedway .
“It’s called Wings, [but] it’s Paul McCartney . It doesn’t really make any difference who’s in the band. They are all very competent, professional musicians, but they’re not a band in my view – it’s Paul McCartney [with] a bunch of guys.”
Not a bit like Cagney.
10.00am
Reviewers
16 December 2013
Offline Yes, Wings was most definitely Paul’s back-up band, and I think it was only ‘christened’ with a name because he wanted Linda to tag along, even though Paul gave his best to present it as ‘Wings’, not ‘Paul McCartney & Wings’. Paul was also used to the band scenery, so I suppose it was an easier way to carry on with making music. He would have been successful whichever way he’d decided to proceed his career anyway. I agree that every member of any of the Wings line-ups highly benefited on Paul’s account. It was a opportunity for anyone who’d join to become recognizable in the music industry to some extent, and, well, everyone who auditioned to do so knew who Paul McCartney was. But that doesn’t mean that the other members lacked talent to be a real band. Denny Laine, for one, was/is a good musician, a good vocalist, and his goal was to become popular. I’m sure he saw how teaming up with Paul would help him achieve that goal, as eager and impatient as he was towards fame. The similar goes with everyone else who joined the band, all good musicians, all with worthy creative input, but each was well aware that they’d only ever be Paul’s band, not a really a band like the Beatles were. And, I suppose, we are aware of that as well.
2.42am
11 November 2010
Offline Personally, I’ve never bothered to mentally separate Wings and Paul’s solo music. I’ve always pretty much seen them as one and the same. It’s like, I wouldn’t consider John Lennon and John Lennon with the Plastic Ono Band to be separate artists.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
2.17pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline ^that’s true, I consider it all his solo stuff, but it was definitely in a band context as opposed to everything since which is clearly Paul *solo*
But of course, Wings would’ve been nothing without Paul’s writing, singing, playing, and name.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
5.44pm
21 November 2012
Offline PeterWeatherby said
Just found this quote from Glyn Johns in Sounes’ book “Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney ” that seemed relevant to this thread. Johns played a role in helping to produce the album Red Rose Speedway .“It’s called Wings, [but] it’s Paul McCartney . It doesn’t really make any difference who’s in the band. They are all very competent, professional musicians, but they’re not a band in my view – it’s Paul McCartney [with] a bunch of guys.”
Yep, I feel the same about Wings. I don’t know if anything would’ve been different had Denny Laine not been in Wings, except for the songs he wrote. I don’t know whether it would’ve made a big difference. The other drummers and guitarists could easily be replaced with whoever and it wouldn’t change a thing.
Also, the democratic part. In other bands, of course there’s a leadsinger, but you just get er band feeling you know? The feeling they’re all quite equal. Wings doesn’t give me that feeling. ”It’s Paul McCartney with a bunch of guys.”
6.40pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline Linde said
PeterWeatherby said
Just found this quote from Glyn Johns in Sounes’ book “Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney ” that seemed relevant to this thread. Johns played a role in helping to produce the album Red Rose Speedway .“It’s called Wings, [but] it’s Paul McCartney . It doesn’t really make any difference who’s in the band. They are all very competent, professional musicians, but they’re not a band in my view – it’s Paul McCartney [with] a bunch of guys.”
Yep, I feel the same about Wings. I don’t know if anything would’ve been different had Denny Laine not been in Wings, except for the songs he wrote. I don’t know whether it would’ve made a big difference. The other drummers and guitarists could easily be replaced with whoever and it wouldn’t change a thing.
Also, the democratic part. In other bands, of course there’s a leadsinger, but you just get er band feeling you know? The feeling they’re all quite equal. Wings doesn’t give me that feeling. ”It’s Paul McCartney with a bunch of guys.”
Well, of course. At the end of the day, Paul was the boss and anyone who went into the band not thinking that was a fool. Only John, George, and Ringo were equal to him in a band.
"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
8.37pm
20 December 2010
Offline McCartney was the front man in Wings but I think Denny Laine who was in the band for the entire duration had an impact on the songs and sound that Wings achieved. I have always felt that McCartney’s best work was done in the 70’s including his debut album and ‘Ram ‘.
The further one travels, the less one knows
