Wings referred to as one of the greatest bands of all time

I think it's fair and safe to refer to Wings as great, but "one of the greatest bands of all time"? I can see why many people (myself included) might refer to them as one of their favourite bands of all time, but to be considered one of the greatest of all time would have to have reached a certain level of respect and acclaim from critics and music historians. To make a fair comparison, Wings only has one album on AcclaimedMusic.net (Band on the Run at #435). Some other artists who only have one album on AcclaimedMusic, roughly around that range would be Alanis Morissette, Meat Loaf, Buena Vista Social Club, Tracy Chapman, Moby Grape, etc. I think it's fair to say that these are great artists that would be among many people's favourite artists of all time, but I've never heard any of them being considered among the greatest of all time. Looking at AcclaimedMusic's list of the top artists of all time (the Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, Radiohead, Neil Young, Elvis Presley, the Beach Boys, Prince), shows the caliber people think of when they hear an artist being referred to as one of the greatest of all time.

 

I guess this cuts to the question of whether Wings was a "real" band.

If you think they were, I guess you could safely say Wings was one of the most successful bands of all time, judging from single and album sales, chart positions, concert attendance.

And if you can argue Wings was one of the most succesful bands of all time, greatest doesn't seem too much of a reach.

But "Greatest" really is in the eyes of the beholder, once you get past Beatles, Stones, Who, Pink Floyd, Zep ,U2 etc.

Does Wings belong in that rarefied air? As big a McCartney fan as I am, I say no.

For me, I'm just happy with, Wings was a great little band that turned out a lot of really cool songs and albums that hold up well today.

Others, obviously, feel different about this, but that's how I come down on it.

 

I love this. And I agree with you.
There is a lot of great music on those Wings albums.

 

Underrate for sure, but far from one of the greatest....

 

Very well put.

I would have no problem with the statement that Wings was one of the most successful bands of all time, or one of the greatest selling bands of all time. You could say the same about groups like Hall & Oates, the 4 Seasons, 3 Dog Night, Dave Mathews Band, Commodores, etc.

 

Wings was always more of a brand than a band. No line up lasted more than a couple of years and McCartney rather wanted to have his cake and eat it. He had been in a band and wanted to repeat that dynamic. At some level he wanted the relatve anonymity and shared responsibility (blame?) that a band provides but at the same time he wanted to control every aspect of what the band did. It was pretty clear pretty quickly that the whole "just one of the band" schtick was not going to wash and the musicians who naively walked in to the situation, thinking that they would have creative parity with McCartney or that some of his glory would reflect on them, soon became discouraged and disillusioned. "Wings" just became the identity through which McCartney's music was delivered to distinguish it from The Beatles. This was not The Beatles. This was not ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. This was Wings and that was why it sounded different ton what you might have been expecting.

I love much of Wings' music but are they one of the greatest bands of all time? No. At best they were three different competent bands. But the name Wings was a platform for McCartney's disingenuousness and a creative outlet for his music which avoided having to use his own name for a while.

 

Thanks Dbone. I 100 percent agree with your examples.

I believe the word greatest needs to be reserved for the absolute best.

But, now that I think about it, could the hype about "Wings being one of the greatest bands of all time" be written as some kind of tie in to WINGS GREATEST, which WINGSPAN was replacing. Just a thought.

 

Actually, I was addressing the folks that were dismissing Wings as a poor musical act... like I said before, I do find Wings to be a *great* band, but I agree with you, I wouldnt place them as one of the *greatest*.

 

No one above has been more unfairly maligned than McCartney. No one had to deal with competing with himself more than he has thanks to being a major contributor to the most creative, adored, and biggest band ever that we shall never see the likes of again. Sorry, but I'll take his solo career over anything by Radiohead , Young, or Springsteen. Springsteen can scream Born In The USA and be cheered. Silly Love Songs, which I think is a much better constructed and sung song gets jeered.

 

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

Wings doesn't even come close to being one of the worst bands of the 70s!

In fact they are one of the best bands of the 70s! The only band that had more success is the Bee Gees! Even that was only in certain areas!

Wings broke and set world records!

As for playing with good musicians, who in Wings entire history wasn't a good musician? Every lineup kicked major butt live!

Of course this doesn't include Linda because she wasn't a musician.

Henry was really good, we don't even have to talk about Denny Laine. Denny seiwell was a professional before he joined McCartney, then came Joe English and Jimmy and if someone thinks they weren't good musicians then they don't know what a good musician is!

Next came Laurence Juber and Steve Holly, who were both working professionals and very good!

So where does this total twilight zone fantasy come from that McCartney didn't work with good musicians!

 

"Wings" [cool logo] is indeed:
"One of The Greatest Bands of All Time"...
named "Wings"* [cool logo].

* the great Discogs list at least 10 [+ hundreds of variations].
Searching for "wings" within on Discogs

 

Well, somehow he's just managed to stumble along. (Come on, he's playing with exactly who he wants to play with.)

 

The Misfats - the "greatest" rock band of all time

 

I just posted it and I'll post it again!

It's ABSOLUTE NONSENSE that in Wings McCartney didn't work with good musicians!

All those guys were good musicians, working in music before they even joined McCartney!

 

Since McCartney is one of the greatest singer/songwriters of all time, then logically Wings must be one of the greatest bands since McCartney was in it singing and writing, right?.
But seriously, Wings is one of the greatest, singles bands of the 70's. The albums, by and large, are uneven.

 

Wild Life, Red Rose Speedway, Venus and Mars.

 

And this "platform " concept isn't unique. When Wilco was formed there was only one person who signed the record deal: Jeff Tweedy. When Jay Bennett had the wild idea that he might be an equal member, Tweedy pulled him aside and explained how a circle only has one center. And fired him.

Son Volt, a "band" I love, is Jay Farrar and whomever he's gathered around him. He's referred to the use of the band name as a "vehicle".

So, yeah, Wings was whatever McCartney said it was, with a core three.

 

If you like McCartney all his albums are worth caring about!

One mans trash is another's treasure!

Some say Wings albums are uneven, to me every artist albums are uneven!

I don't like every song on anyone's album!

 

This is the thing though... it's more a phase of Paul's career than a proper band. They were sort of a band, but not quite.

What did John Lennon call it? when comparing it to the Plastic Ono Band?

 

Someone please explain what makes a real band?

Were Credence Clearwater Revival a real band?

Or was it just about John Fogerty?

 

Dunno, a certain equality among the members?

 

I agree with this statement.

A certain equality doesn't necessarily mean total equality!

Many on these forums say Lennon was the leader of the Beatles, that right there implies that there wasn't total equality, so does that mean the Beatles were not a real band?

 

Indeed it does not!.

Would you call Wings a real band?

 

Some bands have released a single album. I bet there are bands that released a single "single". There are bands that haven't released any albums, just played locally. All bands. So, yeah, Wings was a genuine...and quite successful, band.

 

Nah, c'mon.

The opinions of critics and music historians have nothing to do with whether someone is great or not in my opinion.

Of course, it has something to do with whether someone is great or not in their opinion. But there's no reason I'd put their opinion over my own--or that anyone should put anyone else's opinion over their own for that matter.

And the "Acclaimed Music" website?