Paul McCartney on Wings: "we were terrible"

That's rather interesting. I've never even considered doing something like that. If I don't like it, that's pretty much it. I'm certainly not going to pound my head against the wall.

If I'm a fan, I'll be a little more forgiving.

But a non-fan academic exercise? Never.

 

well I sorta liked material between Ram and Venus and Mars, and then it was really downhill. I kept expecting a miracle but... only separate songs here and there I ended up liking.

 

I don t see music as a competition and don t see any reason to compare the great music made by Macca or Bowie. However my reply to you dealt with your claim that Paul stayed within his comfort zone not if he did it slower than Bowie. With all respect it s a bit hard to follow the logic in your postings. Perhaps because there is none

 

Love this Paulie disco big time....

 

You're always going on about Benjamin Netanyahu!
Let it go! You're never gonna meet him!

 

Very charming

 

I'm Just trying a little humor that's all..

 

Found the original quote, which I had mis-remembered:

As Wikipedia notes, "From 1972 to 1986, ELO accumulated more combined UK and US Top 40 hits than any other band in the world, and also generated the third most UK and US separate Top 40s." They sold 50 million records over a 14-year period.

So, there's an interesting bit 'o trivia.

Looking at their Wikipedia discography, I had no idea ELO had so many UK Top 10 hits. They were big here but truly enormous in their homeland.

 

Honestly, ELO never seemed like they were that "big" in the US to me. Not arguing the charts, of course, but they always seemed like a B-level band - popular but not hugely so!

 

Of course by suggesting "we were terrible" Paul means himself. Wings wasn't a band in the true sense. They only served as his backing band and as such the players were interchangeable (Denny Laine being an exception). Paul wrote the songs, produced the recordings and no doubt had the greater say in arrangements. All no different to his "solo" career post Wings. From 1970 it's really only a solo career for Paul and his quality is very patchy.

 

Certainly true. But that McCulloch, English, Laine and Linda line up, was a hell of a backing band. Plus the Howie Casey horns!

 

Not as big at the end of the day, but definitive of the times. Evil Woman is a classic among others.

 

They seemed pretty huge to me. The concerts were a big deal, although I was too young to get taken to one, and unlike a lot of bands they had a long, long career with consistent success. From '74 thru '81 they were a fixture in the upper reaches of the single charts, and they had a pretty monster double album with Out Of The Blue. The singles for that one didn't chart all that high (for example, "Mr. Blue Sky" only got to #35), but the songs were ubiquitous on rock radio for about 4 years and the album moved at least a million units in the US and 10 million worldwide (and I don't know if it ever got re-certified).

They probably had their greatest chart success in the US toward the end of their run, with the disco-tinged Discovery, which featured their highest-charting US hit, the stomper "Don't Bring Me Down". It was a #1 album in the UK too, and was the first there to generate four top-ten hits from a single LP. Went double platinum in the US.

I've always thought Time was their best record - loved it as a kid in Junior High - but it marked the start of their fairly-steep commercial decline. Of all the '70s rockers you'd think ELO would have adapted best to the '80s, what with their love of electronics, (over)production and overt '60s nostalgia, but I think they're a pretty clearcut case of video killing the radio star.

 

But that's not the same thing as being in his comfort zone. You're confusing issues. What you were saying was that McCartney never strayed out of his personal comfort zone. That has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing or when. Bungee jumping would be well out of my comfort zone but doing it wouldn't be ground breaking (unless the rope snapped...) or revelatory for anyone. Except me. And that's the point you were originally criticising McCartney for: not stepping out of his comfort zone.

 

sure, it's not competition, but I was simply trying to come up with an example of an artist who always came out of the comfort zone and did it timely, to stay on the cutting edge of things. What I mean by McCartney never coming out of his comfort zone: lazy lyrics, bad sounding production which has dated a lot (although it remains to be shown whether remixes can breathe some new life into the recordings), lack of ambition to make truly great albums which would be perfect. He basically lost his perfectionism we know from Abbey Road. I hoped the McCartney would sound something like 10cc: imaginative melodies, stellar production, great players on instruments, etc. He delved into other genres when they were in full swing developing. He didn't foreshadow any future tendencies in music whatsoever. For me, going out of the comfort zone is really taking a risk releasing an album that could really backfire with fans, let alone critics. As, for example, releasing half an album worth of instrumentals in 1977 when you're known as a vocalist first and foremost, or... I don't know... using, ahem, a string quartet with just a solo guitar when you're part of what is known as a loud energetic electric guitar based rock'n'roll band. ))) no competition here - just examples.

Perchance, one of the most adventurous and daring things Paul's ever done was Robber's Ball - mixing electronic/disco whatever with opera? Audacious! and it actually worked kind of well, for my taste. But! He left it unreleased.

 

As I mentioned, I'm not gonna argue charts or sales - clearly those support that ELO was a very popular band.

I just never had the impression they were all that successful. I was right in the top 40 demo through most of their chart run - I remember a handful of their songs pretty well, but to see them in Elton/Macca territory in terms of sales shocks me.

Those two were omnipresent on radio during the period discussed, but ELO wasn't.

In my memory, at least! But I'm old and addle-brained so what do I know?

 

In my semi-defense of my interpreted "lack of hugeness", ELO had a lot of top 40 US hits but relatively few top 10 hits.

That's a big difference. Songs that peak at #38 aren't going to be dominant on radio - obviously they get decent play, but it's hard to view a #38 as a "big hit".

As I noted earlier, ELO had zero #1s and 7 top 10s.

Spreading 7 top 10s over a fairly long period (1974-1981) doesn't make a band look "dominant", does it? If ELO had scored 7 top 10s in three years, I suspect I'd view their "dominance" differently...

 

Though it's a nice song, this didn't help his "rock credibility" at the time. You can tell by Henry's face that he wished he was elsewhere.

 

Sounds like a better plot than the movie Broadstreet.

 

Not taking the time to go through the previous eleven pages and I am sure someone else said this but I feel obliged to say it again:

The whole "we were terrible" comment that has been plasterized all over social media and music journalism trades as stated in the BBC Master Series programme has been taken way out of context. What he meant is that they were "terrible" when they began as Wings. The original piece lineup with Paul, Linda, Denny Seiwell, and Denny Laine. Specifically the Wild Life LP. And as much as I love all things Macca, Wings were rough in the beginning. I still like the music but it's true.

My problem is that current trends in social media have taken this comment and applied it as a general blanket statement from Paul saying "Wings were terrible". Ugh! I can't stand it.

The Macca Loyalists here at SH know the difference but the fact that the writers of these articles can't specify that Paul is only talking about Wings in their early days drives me mad.

Clearly, they were good. Beyond good! In my humble opinion!

Now damnit remember to be Cosmically Conscious and when is the Archive Flowers coming?

 

I wonder how many successful bands wish they were as terrible as Wings.

 

He came pretty close to doing that in 1970. McCartney is 35 minutes long with 15 minutes of instrumentals.

 

McCartney sounds like a demo and not a proper recording. I am still sad that Maybe I'm Amazed never got, say, Martin treatment.

 

A classic doesn't need to be messed with! There isn't a Greater Classic category.