POLL: How do you rate Paul McCartney/Wings' "Band On The Run" album?

Not a huge solo Macca fan, but 'Jet' is one of the greatest singles of the 70s..Paul goes powerpop!

 

Yeah. No doubt that after 3 weeks at #1 with "My Love", #2 with "Live and Let Die". and hitting #1 with Red Rose Speedway he was desperate to get back to the top of the pop charts.

Please tell me that post was sarcasm?

 

A brilliant album and one of my all time favourites.

 

Here's something to consider about McCartney and "Band on the Run". For as great of a songwriter as McCartney was/is, he's never been the type of writer who could easily come up with a full albums worth of great tunes. Back in The Beatles' days, he was usually good for 4-5 songs at most while John and George and sometimes cover tunes were filling the rest. Let's go back and look at some of the great Beatles albums: Rubber Soul he contributes 4 great song. Revolver he has 5. Abbey Road---his magnum opus is a pastiche of unfinished tunes. The biggest "Paul" album is Sgt Pepper. But think if any of those albums had been McCartney solo records---what would the rest of the albums had been filled with?

When he got to the solo albums, he pretty clearly seemed content for his albums to be a couple of hit singles and a lot of filler tunes of various styles and quality. When it comes to BOTR, I think it was more serendipitous than anything else: he's got a couple more great tunes than usual; the filler songs are stronger than usual; and (at least as the story goes) the situation regarding the recording of the album itself pushed him a bit harder than usual.

And I don't mean any of this criticism to be a slight on McCartney, who is obviously one of the greatest pop songwriters in history. But as an artist who was able to consistently put out albums of all killer-no filler? No, he's never been that. Maybe he's never really wanted to be.

 

I think the amount of his output was tremendous. For the most part, an album every year until 1980. Maybe that had something to do with the quality.

 

Yeah, but most artists were putting out an album-a-year in the 70s. That was what the industry expected and what most record contracts called for.

I don't know Paul's record-contract situation. If anybody could have negotiated a contract that required less than an album every year, it would have been him, I would think, but I don't know the situation behind that. He came from the 2-album a year days in the 60s. And the era where you pretty much always need a new single on the charts. So maybe he thought having to do an album a year in the 70s was getting off light?

But, with the exception of a couple of big rock bands like Zeppelin and Floyd, pretty much everyone else was still cranking out an album a year until all that seemed to change around 1977 after the release of big blockbusters like Rumours and Hotel California.

 

I agree with you overall, although I have never believed that his solo/Wings career was as inconsistent as many say. How many rock acts put out out only filler free albums in the second decade of their career?

I personally think that his albums seem to get called inconsistent unfairly, especially when compared with other big acts. For some reason he seems to get singled out. In reality, I would say that most of the Wings albums only have a couple songs on each that could be considered filler or throwaway.

I also think that it is worth pointing out that he is a prolific writer, he just doesn't always release his best songs. He has admitted that he doesn't remember many of his 70's songs, which were normally written in a cloud of smoke, and it is obvious that Pot affected his choices. Look at how many B-sides could have improved his albums; songs like Daytime Nighttime Suffering, Little Woman Love, Country Dreamer, C-Moon, Girl's School, Secret Friend, etc.
He also leaves many great melodies unreleased; songs like A Love For You and When The Wind Is Blowing for instance.

It is also worth pointing out that he saved many songs written during his time in the Beatles for his solo career, and that he wrote many songs that he gave away whilst in the Beatles, some of which were hits, like Come And Get It, Goodbye and World Without Love.

 

My introduction to Paul as a solo act. Nice. Stereophonic and Epic.

 

All of which supports the argument that he didn't seem to really care that much about the albums themselves being great.

My speculation is that even though he helped invent the concept of the "album", he comes from the era of singles and always having new "product" out on the market. That he'd rather save some great songs for singles in between albums rather than putting them all on his latest LP release might have made sense to him in the 70s.

As far as him getting singled out? Well, you're obviously a huge fan so you're naturally going to have more appreciation for the throwaway stuff on a lot of his albums than most folks will. But if you want to compare his 70s output to the other top selling singer/songwriter acts who cranked out at least one album a year and consistently placed their LPs at the top of the charts year after year? If we consider acts like Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Billy Joel, David Bowie, Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart to be his contemporaries---- hmmmm.....yes I'm sorry to say that I'd have to argue that his output was more inconsistent.

 

I don't think "good for 4-5 songs at most" (while in the Beatles) is an accurate description, simply because he wouldn't have been permitted more (or even allowed himself to have more). A "full albums worth of great tunes" means what? A perfect album? A five star album under the rating system of the old Rolling Stone Record Guide? That, of course, is entirely subjective with every single one of us having a different opinion, with maybe some (but I bet only a very few) agreement. Personally, I think even one Perfect Album is an amazing accomplishment. A Perfect Album with the remainder of a catalog in the "strong" category is a real rarity. Having multiple perfect albums....somewhere in the stratosphere!

I don't know McCartney's entire body of work like many of you do. I think for the first half of the 70's he's in the strong category with Band on the Run as his/Wings' perfect album. Late 70's and on...maybe it gets into what you describe as "a couple of hit singles and a lot of filler tunes" (again, I didn't pay much attention. I do think Flaming Pie is strong, but not perfect due to the inclusion of at least a couple of throw-aways).

Anyway, I kinda agree and yet I disagree in the sense that it really is a high bar. An easier bar if the artist had a fairly short run, such as Free (one Perfect Album, at least (sometimes I think a couple or more!) but absolutely nothing that could be considered weak).

Started to ramble a bit...but usually I'm using a phone to log onto the forum so am enjoying the freedom of a real keyboard.

 

I also think McCartney was the victim of his own success by the 1970s in many ways. He was Paul Freakin' McCartney, for pete's sake, and he was producing his own albums at that point, so who the heck was going to tell him that ANYTHING he was doing was rubbish and while he was still burning up the charts with the hit singles and the albums those singles dragged up the charts along the way, why would they?

But the truth is I think his success also allowed him to be quite lazy at times. His albums are filled with stuff that no other artists of the period would attempt to, or be allowed to, get away with: so many unfinished song ideas that instead of discarding or completing, he released as some 1:30 "ditty" or mashes it together with some other half-finished idea to create some sort of medley. While I personally have a big soft spot for the Back To The Egg album, the truth is that songs like "After The Ball" and "Million Miles" are unfinished concepts and cramming them together into some sort of medley doesn't make either of them any better or any more complete.

Without a John or a George Martin there to push him harder or offer some sort of sounding board or constructive criticism he was a bit too free to just f' off and call it an "album". It's no surprise that it's only when we get to Tug of War do we see a more cohesive and complete sounding album again.

 

Why not? Why not match John's output song for song? Why not have more original material instead of all the covers? I think he contributed what he contributed and that was that. I see no reason why if he hadn't shown up with 7 or 8 great songs instead of 4-5 that more of his stuff wouldn't have been on the albums.

It means "A Hard Day's Night". Or "Help!". Or "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver". All albums with all great tunes and having such is a major reason why The Beatles are as revered today as they are. And a major reason why McCartney's 70s albums consistently went to #1 upon release (as did John's and George's) even though they often weren't all that strong. It took 2+ songwriters to fill those albums with great material. Had they been McCartney solo albums in the 1960s? We can only speculate, but I'm guessing he's fills them up with a lot of throwaways.

 

Internal politics? I see plenty of reason why, but don't think it's important.

 

I'm certainly not going to disagree with this statement.

 

I'm starting to think @videoman may be my evil twin, as my views are quite similar to his. Or perhaps - more likely - I'm HIS evil twin.

 

I suppose that we must just agree to disagree then; IMO Paul released enough great music to keep up with the people that you listed, despite being in his second decade at the top, unlike the others who you listed who were at their peak (with the exception of the Stones who were also in their second decade).
Paul was the most successful songwriter of the 70's after all ( http://www.thejanuarist.com/most-successful-songwriters-1890-2008-and-60s-70s-80s-90s-2000s/ ), and even though success doesn't equal quality, I still think that he produced a lot of great work during that decade. He definitely did release some inconsistent albums, but my point is that so did most of the other big acts, including many of the greatest.

Your singles point is very interesting and most likely correct. His albums would certainly have been stronger had he included his B-Sides and singles on them, and had he actually released many of the good songs that he left unreleased, but as you pointed out, he was raised in the era of the single.

I think that his mindset is key to understanding that decade for Paul; it was a crazy time for him (as the book Man On The Run proved), and he was not always focused on releasing 'classic' albums, as you said. At times he did put a huge amount of effort in, like with Ram and BOTR, and it showed, but I still think that even 'coasting' or high Paul released some great work. He has some underrated gems (at least by the general public) from that decade, including songs like : Love In Song, Warm And Beautiful, Daytime Nighttime Suffering, Junk, Ram On, Dear Boy, Back Seat Of My Car, Dear Friend, Some People Never Know, Call Me Back Again, Let Me Roll It, Country Dreamer, Too Many People, Beware My Love, etc. He wrote good songs that he gave away like Mine For Me for Rod, 6 O'Clock for Ringo and 4th Of July for John Christie.

I agree that Bowie, Elton and Stevie had better decades than he did 'classic album' wise, but I still think that his huge success and the amount of quality material that was released alongside the 'filler' has earned him a mention alongside them.

I do fully agree with you that he didn't care about the whole album being great at the time during parts of the 70's; as he has said, he was high most of the time, and was more than happy to include jokes like the TV show 'Crossroads' theme on Venus And Mars. Still, I personally believe that even the likes of Elton and Rod also had 'filler'. I also don't see how a whole album could be dismissed because of one or two songs; for instance, the recent reissue of Speed Of Sound has greatly improved it's reputation here, and it has revealed to many that just because they may not like Wino Junko or Cook Of The House, it doesn't mean that the other songs on the album deserve to be dragged down with them.

I think that it is more fair to compare him to the Stones, because they were also in their second decade at the top, and I personally think that he released a similar amount of good songs as they did during that decade (this last point is of course completely subjective).

I don't feel that he is being singled out just because I am a fan; after all, I am a huge fan of every other act that you listed. I just feel that he has his 'filler' pointed out more than the likes of Stevie Wonder and the Stones, both of whom also had it, and it is not just me that feels that way.

I think that his reputation has also been affected by the reviews that he was given at the time for albums that have now been re-evaluated by most critics, with Ram being the best example. If he received that reviews that the reissues have received, but at the time, instead of the more negative ones that he did get given back then, who knows how different the reputation of his solo career would be?

I am not trying to say that he had the best career of the decade or that he released the most great material, I am just trying to point out that if you look past the occasional novelty song, joke inclusion or clunker, he released plenty of good/great songs during the 70's.
Not many people can compete with the inventiveness, diversity and success of singles like Band On The Run, Live And Let Die and Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey, the melodic run of pop hits like Jet, With A Little Luck, Listen To What The Man Said, Helen Wheels, Junior's Farm, or the beautiful ballads like Maybe I'm Amazed, My Love and Mull Of Kintyre.

Sorry for rambling.

 

Another old poll getting a pre-locking bump...

 

Best side 1 on a Wings album.

 

Without a doubt, "Band On the Run" is Paul McCartney and Wings' most successful and best album.

With the opening one-two punch of the title track and Jet, with the rest of the tracks, is a great LP from start to finish.

Many critics may choose other albums as McCartney's peak, but my impression that's due to hearing BOTR too many times, or as a backlash against the popular consensus, or just to be contrary...

 

Mamunia is a beautiful track about life and No Words has gorgeous harmonies and guitar work.

 

It is clearly one of Paul's best albums.

 

I just posted that BAND ON THE RUN (along with WHO'S NEXT) ranks as the best album of the 70's.
Thus I also consider it Paul's best solo work.

 

Clearly one of his best works - no doubt. Very inspired record. When I listened to it for the first time I got a feeling of incredible happy freedom, so that I was almost flying over the ground for a month instead of just walking. That orchestra interlude in the title track, arranged by Tony Visconti, before the acoustic guitars burst - always drives me mad. I only wish the drum sound could be better. It's a pity Denny Seiwell left Wings: he was an ideal drummer for Paul, I can't name any one better than him. So the only weak side of the album for me is the absence of Seiwell and maybe McCullough (he was very good too).

And there's the best Side One in the whole McCartney discography, as the sands has stated above (well, he meant Wings only). As for some weaker tracks on Side Two - I think it's all right: you can't have the whole album full of hits, or else you'll have a greatest hits collection. The weaker tracks only help the better ones to sound greater. And there is not so much contrast between the quality of the songs anyway.

 

His best solo album.

 

I had the US version with Helen Wheels. Its weird to hear the UK one without it! Still...great album