Denny Laine "Band on the Run" Tour

In fact, why was DENNY LAINE chosen in the first place? I know that Paul tells the story that he liked Denny (as a person) when the Moody Blues opened for the Fabs on their UK tour in late 1965. But they didn't exactly stay in close contact from say 1966-1970. Maybe they met at a club here and there, but I can find no real contact. Then, out of the blue, Paul is starting a new band in mid/late 1971 and Denny Laine gets the phone call to join. It seems very strange to me, unless they was some other contact that I am not aware of. And Denny was not known to Linda either.

Now, I can understand why Paul chose Denny Seiwell, as he was a good session drummer and played on Ram. I can see why Paul chose Henry McCullough as Henry was previously in Joe Cocker's band and Paul like what Joe was doing. But the choice of Denny Laine is unusual.

But then again: Was there anyone else whom Paul considered? I believe he asked the other main guitarist Hugh McCracken who played on Ram, but Hugh declined (although Hugh did go to Scotland to rehearse for a bit to see if it would work it out). But was there anyone else who Paul could have asked, without doing the supergroup thing (and asking another big name guitarist)?

Anyone with some better insight?

 

Pure conjecture on my part, but based on what I've read in my McCartneybooks (and, no, the new Philip Norman book doesn't provide a helluva lot of new insight on this topic) when Laine joined Wings on a financial level he didn't have a pot to pi-s in or a window to throw it out of- literally, he was crashing on his manager's couch at the time and had sold off most of his guitars, etc. So, one possibility might be is that Paul could have heard through the grapevine or whathaveyou about Denny's predicament and sort of figured, "Well, I know Denny, talented guy, and I like him, I want to get this new band together, so maybe I should see if I can help him out and see if he's interested. He'd probably come cheap, at least." (Yes, I can imagine Paul, skinflint that he can be at times, actually thinking that last part.) After all, Paul's first choice, the aforementioned Hugh McCracken, only turned Paul down because he knew -rightly- that he'd make much more continuing his career as a New York sessionman than in an unknown quantity like Wings was. As you say, Denny Seiwell was an obvious choice given his performance on Ram. IMO Henry McCullough was an interesting choice because when McCartney decided on him I don't think Paul thought it all the way through beyond the fact that Wings simply needed a lead guitarist if they planned on playing live: Henry was known to be a bit of a temperamental sh-t disturber, for one thing (i.e. not necessarily content just to do what the 'boss' told him to do), for another thing, Henry also liked his booze (though not to the extent that his replacement Jimmy McCulloch did) and was kind of limited stylistically as a guitarist- mainly being a blues-type player, and indeed Henry McCullough was outspoken on more than one occasion about his discomfort playing some of the 'lighter'/'poppier' Wings material. Adding Linda into the mix -given that she'd never played keyboards before in her life before Paul taught her some rudimentary chords- you would think Wings version one would have been a total disaster. Indeed, things were pretty shaky at first from all accounts but they were able to perservere, and ended up sounding like a pretty good band by the time Red Rose Speedway came around (even in spite of the iffiness of some of that material). Things could only get better from there, and they did...

I will say this though: I can totally understand why for so many years Denny Laine stuck by Paul when everybody else in the band other than Linda abandoned them on two separate occasions- I think Denny knew he was damned lucky to be where he was, not in a coattail riding sense, but out of genuine gratitude to Paul for getting him off of his manager's couch and into the band in the first place. Unfortunately, Denny Laine wasn't very wise with his money (you'd think if nothing else his share of "Mull Of Kintyre" would have set him for life) and when things got tough ultimately decided to bite the hand that fed him, making him persona non grata in the McCartney camp for decades. Oops.

 

Interesting. As you say, it could be "pure conjecture", but you lay out the scenario cohesively.

 

No - there was no "John" in Wings, unless you want to view Paul as fulfilling both the John and Paul roles.

The Beatles had two dominant songwriters/singers. Wings had one: Paul.

If you want to argue that Denny was Wings' George, go for it - I still wouldn't agree, but it's more logical than arguing Denny was "John" in the band. That's utterly wrong...

 

Wings replaced the Beatles as a band for Paul, and Denny replaced John and Paul's Yin/Yang.

Not saying Denny was as good as John - it just is what it is...

 

I disagree with you. I will continue to assert that Wings was Paul's "New Beatles" and Denny was the "New John" in Wings.

 

You'll never hear Paul talk like that. He sees Denny as a guy that worked for him and that's it.

 

Go for it - you'll continue to be wrong.

The Beatles was a partnership - each member had a vote. Sure, Paul and John dominated in many ways, but the band had no true leader - each member had a significant say.

Wings was a dictatorship. Paul ran the band and everyone else fell in line.

Wings was nothing like the Beatles and Denny in no way fulfilled John's role in the band.

No band led by an ex-Beatle could be a "new Beatles". Totally different circumstances and dynamics...

 

Paul wanted the opposite of John in Wings -- yes, he wanted someone who could sing with him but he wanted an amiable, capable but only modestly talented person who wouldn't challenge him (in either a negative or a positive way).

I'm sure he remembered Denny and thought "He's good -- but not that good."

 

Probably because that's true. No disrespect to Denny, but he was a hired hand in Wings. Whatever creative control he enjoyed came because Paul let him have it.

Wings was a solo project that Paul gussied up to look more democratic than it was...

 

Yup. Like I said, none of this means to disrespect Denny, but to equate his role with John's is absolutely perplexing.

Even if we ignore their personalities and talents, the fact is that Denny was never going to have anything close to an equal partnership with Paul. His role in the band was nothing like John's.

John started the Beatles and was always "in charge" - even when Paul became the day-to-day "leader" because John was distracted/bored/whatever, everyone knew John still was the man...

 

Oh well I completely disagree on all counts!

 

I guess your screen name comes from people saying "oh really?" to you all the time...

 

It's mostly true but not entirely.

Denny did make contributions. Even if in the end he was just an employee, those contributions are part of what makes Paul's '70s albums what they are..

On London Town he has five co-writes and two lead vocals. It doesn't matter why they're there. They just are.

 

You completely misread the dynamic of both bands in making that assertion.

 

To say he was not equivalent to John is not to say he made no contribution.

 

That vocalist is pretty darn good! Would love to see DL in concert.

 

Based on what, precisely?

You disagree that Lennon played a huge role in the Beatles? You disagree that Denny was a hired hand? You disagree that Paul ruled the roost?

What evidence is there to make a legit comparison between John's role in the Beatles and Denny's in Wings? That they both played rhythm guitar and vaguely looked alike?

 

I don't disagree that Denny played a role in the band and that Wings would've been different without him, but to compare his role in Wings with Lennon's in the Beatles is bizarre...

 

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I am in no way, shape or form saying that Denny is equal to John - only that Wings performed the same function for Paul that the Beatles did (ie: being in a band instead of solo), and Denny definitely performed the same function in many ways in Wings that John did in the Beatles. And that's a fact.

 

Correct. No one's saying Denny didn't add to/contribute to Wings - of course he did.

But to equate his role in Wings with John's in the Beatles is crazy. Anyone who makes that assertion clearly knows nothing about how either band worked...

 

What one person thinks is bizarre is completely understandable to the next.

 

Not everyone who sees things differently from you is Crazy. Got it?

 

Facts, eh? Well, you got me there!

Denny and John:

-Played rhythm guitar
-Sang
-Wrote songs

Those are similarities. Their roles in the bands and how they functioned within those bands were not vaguely the same, though.

One created the band and remained de facto leader - the other was a hired hand.

One wrote or co-wrote the majority of the band's work - the other had the occasional writing or co-writing credit.

One sang lead or co-lead on the vast majority of the band's work - the other got the occasional lead but not many.

One was an equal with Paul - the other was Denny...

 

Sorry Baba, your theory makes no sense--Denny Laine was never Paul's creative equal in Wings like John was in the Beatles--and you've done nothing to support your argument beyond making the same assertions again and again. You're certainly entitled to hold minority opinions, but I believe few if any Beatles/Wings fans would share your view in this matter.