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

"one of" the greatest bands of all time? Yeah, o.k. I could believe that.

 

Who is Oasis?

 

Except Beady Eye didn't have 5 No. 1 albums in a row and never sold out tours globally. So swing and a miss.

Don't you McCartney bashers ever get tired of repeating the same dumb lines and empty insults (like your profile pic)? It's actually hilarious how obsessed some of you are with McCartney. You realize your silly bashing doesn't dissuade people from liking the man and his music, don't you? In fact, such nonsense just makes McCartney fans want to post another 10 new threads here about Paul and his music, so thanks for the inspiration. Keep up the good work!

 

I'd ask what testimony specifically--quote what you're taking to be sufficient to enable speculation on this, but that's probably getting more into detail than anything like this would possibly go on a message board.

Anyway, having a problem with something like this based on "whether they really were a band" is stupid in my opinion in any event.

 

<whispers to not embarrass maccafan> It's never a fact that anything is or isn't the "greatest" anything.</whisper>

 

Maybe "The albums labeled as 'Wings' contained some of the greatest music of all time" would have been catchier.

 

Just erase the word from the English language, then. (Speaking of English...did you read his interview quote that I posted above? Am uncertain whether your back and forth with @GubGub , about specifics, is about Wings or King Crimson ....but there ya go!

Also, are you deliberately overlooking the "one of the" greatest , part of the marketing blurb? On purpose? In theory, that adds context to the marketing blurb. I think.

 

If it drove sales, that would work.

 

They were certainly very good. Or he was/is.

When I hear a Wings song, the first thing I think is, I wonder how much of this is Paul by himself....

 

I have a feeling you're reading just the opposite of my views into my post(s).

I pointed out the "one of the" phrase way back on page 2, the 37th post in the thread.

 

Great. We're on the same page, then.

 

Just to clarify, I'd say that the albums released under "Wings" (which I'm phrasing that way to avoid people arguing over whether it was really a band) are some of the greatest, by the way. (I just don't believe that there are facts whether anything is the greatest or not, contra some opinions expressed.)

As I noted earlier, Wings are easily in my top 100 (as is Paul McCartney), and anything that makes it that high on my list easily counts as "one of the greatest," especially given the many thousands of artists there are. Top 100 is the upper fraction of a percent of what's available. Even top 500, say, would easily be in the greatest fraction of 1 percent of artists.

 

Well there are lot s of people who doesn't t like Paus post-Beatles work. Within this group there s a sub-group that s on a mission. Namely to take every chanse of bashing Pauls music with the same old boring stereotypes. And if that s not enough naming us who enjoysvPauls music as fan-boys with rose-coloured glasses.

Personally I find these kind of things tiresome,immature,boring and lacking in respect of others opnions./preferences. They also seems a bit obsessive-why spend so much(negative)energy on things one don t like.

The good thing is that time has proven us long-time connaseurs of Pauls music right. There is a great deal of respect for the Maccas music today and his seventies/early eighties stuff has stood the test of time better than much other music from the same era. Plus -his releases over the last two decades have generated a great deal of positive reactions .
So -Wings might not be considered -one of the greatest bands ever. But the music they released certanely belongs to the greatest most memorable pop-music of it s time.In some cases -any time.

 

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

Question is, Greatest what?

Few forms of torture can equal, me thinks, being locked in a room and being forced to listen to an endless loop of McCartney's "best" / "greatest": Silly Love Songs, My Love, No More Lonely Nights, Temporary Secretary, Ebony and Ivory, Coming Up......

The only thing he did was Yesterday, Today he's just Another Day.

 

Yep, and there's a sub-groupie with a post immediately following yours!

 

And many don't...

 

I'm glad you don t have to put up with that"torture".
I'm also happy enjoying most of the songs you mentioned. I believe even mr Lennon was a fan of Coming up.
It s great that there is so much music for all of us to enjoy.
Then there are some who enjoy lettin the world know what they don t enjoy.
That s pretty enjoyable

 

At most they were a good singles band.

 

They were one of the all-time greatest singles band.
Also I would say a pretty good albums band and from my own experience a very exiting live-band

 

We all have our idea of perfect 5 star albums. To me, that means not a weak song in the bunch, that I like all the songs on the album. (I think many people may have different ideas of what makes a perfect album.)

Wings has Band on the Run. To me, perfect.

Wings has Venus and Mars. To me, close to perfect.

Wings has Red Rose Speedway. To me, a very good album (followed closely by Wildlife).

Not too shabby at all.

 

Well, I certainly would not be going back and forth about King Crimson as I know absolutely nothing about them, as I think I mentioned previously.

 

Who said I have a problem with it? Nothing that goes on in SHF is of the remotest importance to me. It is just an interesting place to exchange points of view on a favourite but entirely trivial subject from time to time.

The only point that I have made is that Wings had a strategic purpose for McCartney when he employed them as a way, at least in his own head, to deflect attention from himself at a time when the press and public were not being especially kind to him. As such, it appears from testimony given by various members (Henry McCullough, Denny Seiwell, Joe English) and by McCartney's own subsequent admission, that they did not function like a band who formed organically (The Beatles for example) because the employer/employee relationship between the front man and the other members, along with the unwillingness of the front man to listen to advice/criticism from the other band members unbalanced the dynamic and led to resentments and frustrations that resulted in the high turnover of band members. Personally, rightly or wrongly, I don't think of them as a band. I think of them as backing musicians.

Oh, and by the way I happen to love their records.

 

For me, less than 1% of albums that I like have a song that I don't like. That's extremely rare for me. That doesn't mean that I'll think every album or every song is a 10/10, but I usually feel that albums are pretty consistent. An album might be all 8s and 7s, or all 7s and 6s or whatever. It's rare that I think there's a big quality jump anywhere on an album.

 

I'm not saying you do. I was saying the people who have a problem with "Wings is one of the greatest bands" due to those people not believing that they were a band.