Should have recorded a live LP in Nashville in '74 at the big arena.....maybe an acoustic show at the Ryman too.
Exactly. The "wrong guys" is Denny Laine in this paragraph. It's human nature to move in a new direction and feel it's the best path. I'm sure in 1984, they truly believed that was the case. Then, in hindsight, you look back and realize you did some great work.
Watched an interview with McCartney where he said he was always open to suggestions from fellow players and the producer when he was recording an album and was more than willing to use whatever idea was put forth provided it was better than what he had in mind which it never was. He was sort of kidding...but not really.
I think part of it may be that Paul anticipates that his interviewer or his audience thinks that Wings were good-not-great and it's his people-pleasing impulse to meet them there, where they are, rather than challenge that and risk looking like a self-important jerk. What does he actually think? Probably depends on his mood! But my own suspicion is that (unlike us!) he doesn't much think about it at all; when pressed, however, his reflex again is just to reflect what he thinks other people think. In any case, unless there are special circumstances, Paul speaking with the press on-record is just PR (not necessarily, like, his true, considered opinion, if he even has one): he's trying to deal with a perception "out there" and he's trying to promote his current project.
In some print interview McCartney was saying how some negative early reviews of 'Ram' upset him but one day he was skiing somewhere and someone came up to him and said he really liked 'Ram' and this cheered Macca up. He went on to say that kind of comment was what he really based appreciation of his music on. Sounds made up to me but who knows.
I'm not at all sure how you drew that conclusion from what I posted. Rather, I would think he was very insecure and, rather than defending his work, his band and his decisions, he deferred to the populist view in order to ingratiate himself with those who would criticise him.
I wasn't taking a dig at your post , just commenting on McCartney in general. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.
He's not always like that. He has said several times that he never thought Band on the Run was that much better than his previous work, it just clicked. He still likes Broad Street and Press to Play. And he defended McCartney II way before hipsters and the indie/electro crowd re-discovered it in the 90s and 2000s (although he thought Waterfalls was a somewhat unfinished song). The fact that time has re-evaluated his early solo albums and the Wings catalogue has probably just made him feel vindicated in what he always thought and fed his ego even more. Good for him. Regardless of what you think of the guy himself, he's a hard worker and deserves the recognition he gets today.
Each of the Beatles was accustomed to being accompanied by the Beatles, so they all got a big shock when they went solo. Not only were they all individually very creative musicians and arrangers, they could clearly read each other’s tastes and desires from having played (and grown up) together for so long. Out in the real world, that evaporated. Paul wanted to be in a group, but seriously underestimated the skill and chemistry that it would take to match him. When John finally escaped the ‘former Beatles and Beatle-associates’ orbit of his first two studio albums, he chose a plodding, second-rate boogie band to accompany him. George went directly to an undisciplined mass of friends and acquaintances, and then he stuck to bland studio pros who had chops but couldn’t give him what he often needed - hooks and arrangement ideas. Ringo eventually settled into the All-Starr band, where he could rely on others to fill in the gaps. I think they all thought ‘if it can be like that with some random kids I grew up with, why can’t it be like that or better with good musicians that I get to choose? It can’t be that hard.’ In retrospect, it seems clear that Wings was a bandage over the wound of the Beatles’ breakup. Eventually the bandage needed to come off, and who feels sentimental about a bandage?
He may not have been kidding as much as you think. The problem might be that he sometimes took credit for other people's suggestions, so when they were better than his, they became his! Not a great example, but I remember reading somewhere that some other guy had laid down the bassline and melody of Óu Est Le Soleil? and Paul just wrote a song around it and took full credit with the guy's blessing.
Went to see Paul in 89 I guess expecting a "wings" songs concert. Remember being disappointed to hear several "beatles covers" and post wings 80s "hits" not much wings music just jet, live and let die...if I recall
Fantastic band! Yeah, but a bit boring, would rather watch 1976s Rock Show movie with that classic wings lineup with Denny and Jimmy cranked on the system to 11. Ha ha.
Back to the Egg went platinum in the U.S. (which would be great for any band, but underperforming for someone of his status). If Mull was put on that album, that album may have sold many more. The UK tour in December 1979 was sold out. The cancelled Japan tour in Jan / Feb 1980 was sold out in advance. Any European / American tour in the spring / summer / fall of 1980 would have been sold out too. So....while the future touring is conjecture, in all likelihood Back to the Egg would have sold another million copies if not more. And maybe, if Paul was tired of Wings after 1980, he would have gone out with a bang, not a drug - caused whimper. Which would have caused Wings to be viewed through an entirely different prism today. By the summer of 1980, the live version of "Coming Up" was #1 in America. The better version than on McCartney II. And Wings only had "good" musicians? I would think that most modern rock bands had a mix of resident movers / shakers and good musicians that got the job done for the song. If Wings had played America in the summer / fall 1980, maybe John Lennon would have joined them on stage? Imagine the adulation if that would have happened.
Maybe he was in denial. No modern rock band can have five Maccas. For one thing, 4 would have killed each other.
While Tug of War had its moments, basically after that Macca was in average land until Flowers in the Dirt, and the writing collaboration with Elvis Costello. And even that collaboration was limited in scope and time. And it was very interesting that Denny Laine showed up on Tug and PoP.
Their kids were young in the 70s and 80s, and the Lennon killing kept him off the road. Hard to believe that he didn't tour in the U.S. between 1976 and 1989. His kids have flown the coop and now he has all the time to tour.
I don't think Paul wants to be told what to do, or collaborate with anyone, really. So the whole idea of being in a band is rather facile when discussing McCartney. The closest he's come to working with anyone near his level was when he wrote with Costello in the '80s. And they never worked again after that. Come to your own conclusions...
I take all retrospective remarks with a grain of salt. They merely reflect a mood and a moment in time, like John Lennon's nasty Rolling Stone comments. Paul McCartney has been downplaying and maligning Wings for a long time for whatever reason. I'd check contemporaneous interviews to balance out his later statements.
In '89-'90, he did: Jet Band On The Run Maybe I'm Amazed (not Wings, but close enough) Coming Up (also not Wings, but close enough) Live And Let Die In '89-'90, he also played several of the same Beatles songs that he performed with Wings in '76 and/or '79: Got To Get You Into My Life Fool On The Hill Long And Winding Road Let It Be Yesterday Finally, in '89-'90, he also repeated the Twenty Flight Rock cover, which he played with Wings in '79.
