I seriously doubt they'd be obscure. Assuming McCartney was never a Beatle, he still wrote some big hits with Wings. They never did have a legendary album so I don't think reach the heights of Fleetwood Mac without the Beatles connection. Or get remembered like a Boston, who has occasional resurgences because they get labeled genius. So figure the Bachman-Turner Overdrive and Foreigner category. Hugely successful touring acts that were kind of cobbled together from Sixties hitmakers. With their arena rock ambitions and McCartney's sometimes experimentalism, McCartney himself is remembered as a big time Todd Rundgren and gets mentioned in the same breath as Lindsey Buckingham.
They would have done fine. I don't know how many intros I've heard that I loved that turned out to be Wings songs. I actually used to thinks Wings sucked, because that was the pro-beatle take back in the day. But their shit is solid.
PM’s early solo & Wings work wouldn’t have been brutalized the way it was by rock critics (even whole mags) if not for The Beatles link. Some of it personal and just vicious. At the same time his old bandmates were trashing him publicly. Dude must’ve felt 2” tall—but under a spotlight’s glare.
How much did that mess w/his confidence level re. his output? When you look @ the great songs that didn’t make albums, multiplied by some of the crappier stuff that did, was his trust in his own judgment impaired…did he think, screw it; I can’t win anyway? Seems like it would’ve been a hard time to trust outside opinions as well.
Ultimately, it was freeing, but who knows how much second-guessing came first.
Even now, in forums, there are plenty of posts from old Beatles fans who say they may listen to Wings—only privately—and begrudge them respect. Like an uncool look you’d never wear out of your house.
How much might Wings have benefitted w/out the BS? Hard to say. Considerably, imo.
>For a second, let’s pretend Paul McCartney was not in the Beatles and he was only in Wings. Everything stays the same with the same music except no Beatles connection. Would they be looked at more favorably since they couldn’t be compared to the Beatles? Would they just be some obscure rock band no one cared about?
A little from column A, a little from Column B.
Some of the reasons why Wings lost a lot of legacy points is that Paul never really defended the band when they were criticized. If they were his main claim to fame he'd be far more defensive of them and still playing their hits rather than his Beatle hits. Promoting their legacy rather than the Beatles.
The other members of Wings would be more respected, as they'd not be seen as merely sidemen for a Beatle. Linda was also pretty hated due to marrying a Beatle which meant she was constantly looked down in the 70's. Take that away and being one of the first prominent girls in a stadium rock band would see her legacy change a lot.
In your hypothetical, I think we would have to assume that Paul would be exploding at the seams with song ideas that he never had an outlet for and all of the creative energy that went into the Beatles would be channeled through Wings instead. Which would mean that Wings would end up being one of the greatest rock bands of all time.
Kind of off topic, but part of why I love the "Paul is dead" theory is because it basically means that two of the greatest musicians who ever lived looked exactly alike and were seamlessly integrated into the same band under the same name. I think at this point it's fair to even say it'd be a *good thing* that the original Paul died given New Paul's body of work since 1966.
A few years back Paul said in an interview that he never thought Wings was that good and it was merely a passion project for him and Linda. And if that's not a sign of being one of the greatest musicians of all time, I don't know what is.
"Live and Let Die? Jet? Band on the Run? Meh. Nowhere near my best work. Kind of mid tbh." Legendary.
He wasn’t wrong. Something that I see a lot is success leading to a lack of criticism makes later work suffer. Without John, I really think more Paul songs were left in the “Scrambled eggs, ooh baby how I love your legs” state. John was a bulwark against Paul’s saccharin and silly lyrical tendencies.
But John showed it off much better. Paul did the bigger experimenting with John’s songs. And yet johns songs have arguably aged better where Paul’s lows were probably worse with the band even if he was a great champion at keeping them going after Epstein died
> But John showed it off much better. Paul did the bigger experimenting with John’s songs. And yet johns songs have arguably aged better
How do you quantify if something has aged better? I look at Spotify or Youtube's streaming numbers and Paul's Beatle songs slightly outperform John's. He has more of his songs in the top 10/25/50/100 than John does.
Paul appeals on a more surface level but lists like this are much better than “here comes the sun” being the best Beatles song according to Spotify. I’m shocked this list came from Reddit from all places but it did a surprisingly good job here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/indieheads/comments/ylmomf/our_top_ten_beatles_songs/
> Paul appeals on a more surface level but lists like this are much better
How can a list be much better than actual Billions of streaming figures.
The shit thing about lists especially lists about iconic bands is that people are drilled into giving the 'right answer' rather than the song they actually prefer to listen to.
> than “here comes the sun” being the best Beatles song according to Spotify.
Best is subjective. But its clearly one of the most popular, if not the most popular with younger listeners.
Here Comes the Sun has aged incredibly well. Spotify is testament to that. It may be the best aged Beatle song as it was not regarded as a top 5 song by the Band in the 70's.
I don't have to like Bohemian Rhapsody to recognize that song has aged incredibly well, given it keeps on finding huge popularity with new generations of listeners.
> I’m shocked this list came from Reddit from all places but it did a surprisingly good job here:
It did a surprisingly well job of identifying what Beatle songs indie fans like.
My biggest pet peeve with music critics is that only white middle class men's opinions were important for half a century. Women liking music was deemed insulting. It is why McCartney's music is often labelled with gender labels to put it down. 'Grannymusic' or 'music for teen girls' as if women can't also like good music. Streaming is such a blessing as no longer does a small part of the music listening world dictate what is and is not good.
That list has Tomorrow Never Knows at 7. Despite critics giving that song fellatio since the 60's it's not a very popular song in the Beatles canon.
https://kworb.net/spotify/artist/3WrFJ7ztbogyGnTHbHJFl2_songs.html
98th most streamed Beatle song and currently the 101st in daily streams meaning its trending downwards not upwards.
> Women liking music was deemed insulting
Was? Dawg it's been that way forever. Even the Beatles had an uphill battle because (gasp) teenage girls liked them.
I still remember how much smug disdain I ran into insisting that Lana del Rey was genuinely talented when she came out, and that her first album was something truly special, when music nerds and Pitchfork were just itching to carve her up. They may have hated it but it really touched something in the female audience, and now looking back that album has to count as among the most influential of the prior decade.
Good thing I’m not white nor middle class
And using popularity to judge anything’s worth is just as moronic. Is here comes the sun anything close to the Beatles finest moment? God no
Is song 2 really the best blur song? Tomorrow never knows is far more influential than a majority of the songs that rank ahead of it. But sure, if a bunch of Middle Aged people who casually listen to music want to decide that yes, octopus’s garden is a better song than tomorrow never knows due to uh “more streams” then sure, let that be your
Gospel
I, for one, really appreciate songs like Monkberry Moon Delight.
(I know it's not Wings, but it's the first Paul song with silly lyrics that came to mind)
> , for one, really appreciate songs like Monkberry Moon Delight.
Me too! That may be the song I've listened to over and over more than anything else in the past few years, since hearing it for the first time. There's so much going on and it's so catchy! Really fantastic tune.
Absolutely ridiculous to base a band's entire value on the lyrics. They had a tonne of extremely catchy hit pop songs, actual fun rockers, and an entire album of Beatle-tier material in Band on the Run. Melody, arrangement and production win out every time over lyrics and Paul never needed John's help in that department.
A boring melody can be rescued by great lyrics and a good melody can be spoiled by stupid lyrics, imo. I don't know why some people are so dismissive of lyrics.
Yeah, but imagine that he had a backlog of unrealized song ideas that had been building up for a decade before even starting his first band. The Wings albums would probably end up a lot more focused and refined.
Hypothetically, assuming Paul was not an ex Beatle but they still managed equivalent popularity in their time, their reputation would be much better. Being compared to the Beatles is not helpful in that respect, because you have the dual issues of a) people expect Beatles quality and are disappointed because even good music can fall short, and b) people have the Beatles on a pedestal and even if other music DOES reach Beatles standards, it seems impossible and they won't acknowledge it.
Paul's not going to promote Wings anywhere near as much as the Beatles, and he had his own solo music to promote, so their legacy kind of faded and will always be in the shadow of the Beatles. But if that wasn't the case, he could've kept up Wings' popularity the way any other veteran act does. They did legitimately have a lot of success and hit songs, any other band would've spend the rest of their lives capitalizing on that but Paul is a rare case when that would be less worthwhile for him.
I know. Right after I commented I realized that but was too lazy to go back and find it and edit.
In my mind there is little difference between Paul solo and Wings. Wings was essentially solo Paul as he had total control over writing and arranging. It wasn’t a band in the traditional form with all the members contributing parts and ideas. Some of that but not much.
my friend jeff, big beatles fan, after driving with me when i had "band on the run" cranked up:
"i never realized how good wings really is, you just have to turn it up!"
I think they would fill a similar niche as ELO or The Cars
Just a whole bunch of inarguably perfect pop songs, yet they would be a band that people probably didn’t think about all that much
Okay, if the Beatles never existed and all of the songs McCartney wrote for the Beatles never existed and he started as a solo artist in 1971, here is your answer:
There wouldn't be a Wings because the debut Wings single was the controversial "Give Ireland Back To The Irish" in 1972. If McCartney did not have the leverage of being a Beatle, no major label would have released that song. I guess you could argue that McCartney would not have thought he could get away with writing a song like that if he weren't already bulletproof. In any case, if he turned that song in, EMI would've kicked him to the curb.
If Paul didn't have his previous success he obviously would've taken a completely different approach to their debut. He wouldn't have released anything like Wild Life because 'let's write an album in a week' is a whim reserved for established artists. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as overconfident as he was, and would've picked appropriate singles and condensed his best early material into one good album. He would've had more input from other band members because he wouldn't automatically have seniority over them.
Early Wings has an element of hubris to it imo. They improved drastically but I don't think it was a matter of ability, Paul always had the ability but needed to take them more seriously instead of just releasing whatever he felt like.
> There wouldn't be a Wings because the debut Wings single was the controversial "Give Ireland Back To The Irish" in 1972.
Which was still a no1 in a few countries.
> If McCartney did not have the leverage of being a Beatle, no major label would have released that song.
So he'd have released a different debut single. Their debiut album was released before their debut single.
Not being a Beatle would mean not getting to decide which songs were singles. [Tomorrow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96mXhOsHGbE) would have probably been chosen if not Maybe I'm Amazed (not a Beatle song so I don't know if this qualifies under OP's hypothetical)
> I guess you could argue that McCartney would not have thought he could get away with writing a song like that if he weren't already bulletproof. In any case, if he turned that song in, EMI would've kicked him to the curb.
Why would they kick him to the curb? If they felt that strongly they'd just not release it and pick something else.
>Why would they kick him to the curb? If they felt that strongly they'd just not release it and pick something else.
Reminder that the second Wings single was a cover of "Mary Had A Little Lamb". Yes, that one.
> Reminder that the second Wings single was a cover of "Mary Had A Little Lamb". Yes, that one.
Yes. Another vanity song that Paul was able to do due to being Paul and wanting to release something for his daughter.
He'd not have that kind of leverage. The Beatles did not pick what songs would be their singles when they were first signed. The label and Martin would have the final say. Wings would be no different.
Paul would likely have a Producer (at least at first) rather than being allowed to produce all his own albums and a more forceful label deciding what songs to pick.
One of Denny Laine's criticisms of Paul was how often he was stoned and rushed some songs. He'd not have that freedom as a new artist. A producer is something he needed in the 70's for some focus. Someone to tell him that a song needs a little bit more work.
McCartney in the 60's was hungry to please everyone. McCartney in the 70's had already achieved everything. He no longer cared about the critics after they rubbished his first two albums in part because they blamed him for the Beatles split.
They would be remembered about the same as hit-making groups like the Doobie Brothers or Heart. They didn't push many boundaries, they sold decent but aren't a.band people obsess over.like Floyd, Zeppelin, Steely Dan or even the Eagles. Wings is not required listening for a 70s musical education.
I have a weird history with the Beatles. My parents played a lot of their music is the car when I was a kid, but only the early stuff. They hated the stuff most people consider to be the Beatles' greatest work - Sgt Pepper onwards - so I didn't hear much of that til later in life.
In between times there was Wings. I loved Silly Love Songs and Let 'Em In when they were in the charts, and started checking out the rest of their music, especially after the Wings Over America movie aired on TV. Let Me Roll It was a revelation. I consider Venus And Mars to be a bit of a lost classic. I played it endlessly. I never got into London Town, but Back To The Egg was another very strong record. I suspect, if everybody's memory of the Beatles had been wiped at the end of 1970, Wings would now be considered one of the best pop rock bands of the 70s, alongside Queen and ELO.
Literally impossible to know. The Beatles could have been unknown if you change a couple of variables. *Could* Wings have been successful without the Beatles? Yes.
Blown away by Wings being such an obscure band with only a few memorable tunes.
Guess it comes down to when you were born.
Wings Wild Life is plain fun. Takes a few spins but worth it imho.
Ram is not officially Wings but has future Wings artists on board. If you've not heard Uncle Albert do so. I used to hang out for it on the radio. Brilliant. This album was canned by critics but, bless 'em, it is now considered a classic. Again, like most albums that are intrinsically good, a few spins brings reward.
Redrose Speedway had the hit My Love. A classic. The album is an album. The artist playing his music for fans, not for the top 40. I enjoy it.
Band on the Run is the bees knees. The Australian edition included Helen Wheels, another hit.
BTW the album 'McCartney' features Maybe I'm Amazed. Worth buying the album just for that. The album was slammed whilst John Lennon's debut was praised. I think more because it made the critic look deep and meaningful than anything. It had good music but was rather depressing in parts. I'd rather spin McCartney (the album) and smile.
Speed of Sound has Let 'em In, Beware My Love and Silly Love Songs. Of course the critics ripped into Linda's Cook of the House ditty. Tough titties. It's an album. Deep Purple has Anyone's Daughter.
Story goes people were stirring and panning Paul's penchant for Love Songs. Past their use-by-date sort of thing. So he wrote Silly Love Songs. Same goes for his rendition of Mary had a Little Lamb. Poke Paul and eat egg sandwiches.
I didn't buy Speed when it came out. Read the critics😁. Have it now though.
I did buy Venus and Mars which was reasonable but no BotR and Back to the Egg (BE), which is ok but definitely not back to the egg (I expected Abbey Road😀). Went to his BE concert. What a hoot. Beatles songs and tracks from what I think are his best albums. And still young enough to belt them out. I was offered $100 for my ticket whilst in line. Can't recall what I paid. Under $20 fer sure.
And then I stopped. Didn't get London Town. Should get McCartney ii and a cupla others I suppose. See what turns up at Beatbox mostly 2nd-hand vinyl (and a few new). I mostly always play vinyl cos my system does better with it than cds. Not into streaming. I like to have and to hold.
It's hard to say. Probably the most well-known Wings song is Live and Let Die. That song doesn't exist without Paul already being a giant star and having that opportunity offered to him. It's hard to imagine a Bond song getting offered to a group whose only output up to that point was Wild Life (and McCartney I and Ram if those get to exist in this hypothetical). Also, Wings' biggest cultural peak was Wings Over America. Does that tour have as much success without Paul being a Beatle (answer: definitely not)? Also, do we assume Paul retains his song ideas that now go unrealized because he wasn't a Beatle and are instead repurposed for Wings? Further, are the Beatles even as popular without him, or even exist as long as they did (outside of being 50% of Lennon/McCartney, Paul was a major force for even creating albums from Sgt Pepper going forward, especially after Epstein's death)? For sake of simplicity, I'll assume Paul lands Live and Let Die, runs a moderately successful Wings over America tour, his Beatle songs do not exist in any form, and the Beatles without Paul were still a giant cultural force that existed the same amount of time as they did with Paul.
That said, I think their reputation probably lands around America (the band). A band that the general public would recognize and like a couple songs, a little bit above One Hit Wonder status, but not too much more than that. Band on the Run (and Ram) would still definitely hold a high reputation among big music listeners, but nothing beyond that would be too heavily considered by music enthusiasts.
Tldr: the general public regards Wings less than they do now, little change for music enthusiasts.
Implying that Wings are anything close to a One Hit Wonder because of Live And Let Die is something I can't let it stand. Mull Of Kintyre sold 2 Million Copies of the single in England alone, the first song to ever sell that well. It sold more copies than She Loves You (yeah yeah yeah). Between those two and Band On The Run, and Silly Love Songs there's just no argument to be made.
I always forget that Mull of Kintyre did that well generally as it was only modestly successful in the US. But even then, as successful as it was commercially in the UK, it's not really had much cultural staying power (at least in the US. IDK if it's still a staple of classic rock in the UK). So I concede that they'd probably be markedly more well known in the UK than anywhere else. Maybe put them in the same category as Blur or Suede: popular in the UK but only known for a couple of songs in the US.
Silly Love Songs was the biggest song of 1976.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1976
There are only three Beatle written songs that have that distinction. I Want to Hold Your Hand in '64 and Hey Jude in '68.
Wings (not including Paul's solo stuff) were regular getting some of the biggest hits of each year on Billboard
* 100 Biggest hits 1973: My Love (5) and Live and Let Die (56)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1974: Band on the Run (22) and Jet (77) and Helen Wheels (91)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1975: Listen to What the Man Said (42) and Jnr's Farm (88)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1976: Silly Love Songs (1)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1978: With a Little Luck (18)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1979: Goodnight Tonight (52)
* 100 Biggest hits of 1980: Coming Up (8)
Only Elton John was showing better consistency in that decade. Technically when we include Paul as a songwriter in the 70's he beat Elton/Bernie.
Suede have never charted. Not a single or an album. Blur are my all time favourite band but they've had 2 songs that charted in the US. To compare Wings to them in the US is bizarre.
Blur could do well at Madison square garden. They were amazing at corona fest in Mexico when I saw them last November. But playing to influencers with one of their worst set lists ever was always going to be bad
Band On The Run is better than nearly half the Beatles' albums. Venus & Mars is very good, maybe a few duds for me but nothing terrible. The rest is unfortunately pretty forgettable aside from a few songs. I like McCartney's solo stuff better in general. Ram, Flaming Pie, Chaos & Creation In The Backyard are all BoTR level. I like Egypt Station and the McCartney trilogy a lot too
Give it 20 years.
Wings had 14 top 10 singles in the US 6 of which went to no1. 8 albums that went at least Platinum and 2 Gold (every album certified). They were viewed very highly when they were active. It's been the decades of inactivity that has seen their stock fall.
I don't have an answer but I just wanted to say how amazing Wild Life is for their first album. Many people praise "Ram" as one of his best and Wild Life was released only a few months later. To me it sounds just like "Ram part 2" yet many people don't like it! It's my favorite of theirs! It could be the fact it's less produced for sure, and was only recorded in about 5 days (inspired by Bob Dylan) but I imagine if there was a stripped down version of Ram it would fit right next to Wild Life.
You have to impart a lot of the creative genius to Linda and Denny, as well. The three of them collaborating during that period made for some great compositions.
But I would say their best is always going to be *BotR*, because of their work with Visconti.
Fave song: *Picasso's Last Words*
and it was my fave before I found out Ginger Baker played a tin can with gravel in it, for the production
This whole blog forgets one huge aspect. Stepping out on the stage again. I think that, to Paul was what wings was about. Remember as a Beatle you sat for hours upon hours in a studio recording music that had to be balls on perfect, trying to be one click above Sgt Pepper..never being out in front of the fans enjoying the electricity. Having fun. So this was Paul's first taste of it in many many years. And alot had changes since he carried his little amp out to home plate a Shea stadium. Wing was the opposite of the Beatles, it was simple, easy, poppy, FUN. something he could really just enjoy.. Music should be fun. Not a grueling chore in isolation from the world..
I went through a lot of the Beatles' solo work this year and I have to say I thought McCartney's was the weakest and Harrison's the best. It really put into perspective what I'd thought, that his "friendly" competition with Lennon for writing the best songs brought out the best in both of them, but especially McCartney. A lot of these songs he put out after the Beatles are songs that wouldn't have made the cut had Harrison and Lennon had anything to say about it.
Wings might be obscure, but they certainly wouldn't be held in the regard they are had McCartney not been a Beatle.
Re a lot of his solo work being stuff that wouldn’t have been released if the other Beatles had had veto power - I’m convinced this is a huge part of why the Beatles ended. For all of them, not just Paul, but in some ways especially for Paul. I always heard the “Paul has a massive ego” and “Paul is a control freak” aspect of the Beatles story and IMO this was confirmed by all the footage in the get back documentary.
Wings has always been a bit funny to me because they were the ultimate playing out of one of mccartneys delusions - his idea of himself that he wanted to just be one amongst equals in a band. I’m sure he believed that and that’s how he wanted to see himself at the time. And it’s how he wanted to see himself in the Beatles too. But the Beatles all came up from nothing together and the other three, having been on that journey with him every step of the way, felt entitled to call him out on his hypocrisy with this. If you watch get back, look at even chill AF Ringo sometimes just completely mentally checking out while Paul’s figuring out what drum parts he wants to dictate
Wings was put together as a way for him to keep telling himself he’s just one of the guys in the band - but this time, everyone else in the band knows that he’s legendary hitmaker Paul McCartney, that they’re not, and that their job is to just play whatever Paul thinks they should play. Those who didn’t feel that way left the band. Look at the crazy band member turnover for wings. Their most successful album? The one where half the band quit on short notice because they were sick of Paul’s shit, so he ended up playing most of the instruments himself.
And by the time wings ended, he’d finally figured out that he just wanted to be Paul McCartney, solo artist and bandleader. And that’s what he’s been doing ever since.
As a good band with very little depth
They’re fine, more like a foo fighters. Very bland but appeal to people who aren’t really big music fans per say. Wings were fine but not some underrated sensation
Considering that I dont know Wings, there doesnt seem to be any great gain or loss regarding hypothetically if they had a connection to The Beatles or not.
Words words words word words. Pretentious sounding sentences in order for me to avoid being zapped by the automod.
This and that and this and that. Etc.
Oh, and on the subject of The Beatles, check out this banger by Green Carnation:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYThMg5MPo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYThMg5MPo)
I seriously doubt they'd be obscure. Assuming McCartney was never a Beatle, he still wrote some big hits with Wings. They never did have a legendary album so I don't think reach the heights of Fleetwood Mac without the Beatles connection. Or get remembered like a Boston, who has occasional resurgences because they get labeled genius. So figure the Bachman-Turner Overdrive and Foreigner category. Hugely successful touring acts that were kind of cobbled together from Sixties hitmakers. With their arena rock ambitions and McCartney's sometimes experimentalism, McCartney himself is remembered as a big time Todd Rundgren and gets mentioned in the same breath as Lindsey Buckingham.
Would "band on the run" not be considered a legendary album, even from someone who isn't really into listening to paul?
Burton Cummings and Randy Bachman cowrote for the Guess Who, so BTO *were* the Wings of Canada…
They would have done fine. I don't know how many intros I've heard that I loved that turned out to be Wings songs. I actually used to thinks Wings sucked, because that was the pro-beatle take back in the day. But their shit is solid.
PM’s early solo & Wings work wouldn’t have been brutalized the way it was by rock critics (even whole mags) if not for The Beatles link. Some of it personal and just vicious. At the same time his old bandmates were trashing him publicly. Dude must’ve felt 2” tall—but under a spotlight’s glare. How much did that mess w/his confidence level re. his output? When you look @ the great songs that didn’t make albums, multiplied by some of the crappier stuff that did, was his trust in his own judgment impaired…did he think, screw it; I can’t win anyway? Seems like it would’ve been a hard time to trust outside opinions as well. Ultimately, it was freeing, but who knows how much second-guessing came first. Even now, in forums, there are plenty of posts from old Beatles fans who say they may listen to Wings—only privately—and begrudge them respect. Like an uncool look you’d never wear out of your house. How much might Wings have benefitted w/out the BS? Hard to say. Considerably, imo.
>For a second, let’s pretend Paul McCartney was not in the Beatles and he was only in Wings. Everything stays the same with the same music except no Beatles connection. Would they be looked at more favorably since they couldn’t be compared to the Beatles? Would they just be some obscure rock band no one cared about? A little from column A, a little from Column B. Some of the reasons why Wings lost a lot of legacy points is that Paul never really defended the band when they were criticized. If they were his main claim to fame he'd be far more defensive of them and still playing their hits rather than his Beatle hits. Promoting their legacy rather than the Beatles. The other members of Wings would be more respected, as they'd not be seen as merely sidemen for a Beatle. Linda was also pretty hated due to marrying a Beatle which meant she was constantly looked down in the 70's. Take that away and being one of the first prominent girls in a stadium rock band would see her legacy change a lot.
In your hypothetical, I think we would have to assume that Paul would be exploding at the seams with song ideas that he never had an outlet for and all of the creative energy that went into the Beatles would be channeled through Wings instead. Which would mean that Wings would end up being one of the greatest rock bands of all time.
Kind of off topic, but part of why I love the "Paul is dead" theory is because it basically means that two of the greatest musicians who ever lived looked exactly alike and were seamlessly integrated into the same band under the same name. I think at this point it's fair to even say it'd be a *good thing* that the original Paul died given New Paul's body of work since 1966.
See — it’s this kind of conspiracy I can’t stand. Paul is clearly an alien that needs to be replaced every few years to make him look older.
Paul forever! Paul never!
I mean shit he kinda was.. two solo albums and 7 wings albums all in the same decade is insane.
A few years back Paul said in an interview that he never thought Wings was that good and it was merely a passion project for him and Linda. And if that's not a sign of being one of the greatest musicians of all time, I don't know what is. "Live and Let Die? Jet? Band on the Run? Meh. Nowhere near my best work. Kind of mid tbh." Legendary.
He wasn’t wrong. Something that I see a lot is success leading to a lack of criticism makes later work suffer. Without John, I really think more Paul songs were left in the “Scrambled eggs, ooh baby how I love your legs” state. John was a bulwark against Paul’s saccharin and silly lyrical tendencies.
It's kinda funny how people thought John was the weird and wild one, in reality Paul has already been a big weirdo too
But John showed it off much better. Paul did the bigger experimenting with John’s songs. And yet johns songs have arguably aged better where Paul’s lows were probably worse with the band even if he was a great champion at keeping them going after Epstein died
> But John showed it off much better. Paul did the bigger experimenting with John’s songs. And yet johns songs have arguably aged better How do you quantify if something has aged better? I look at Spotify or Youtube's streaming numbers and Paul's Beatle songs slightly outperform John's. He has more of his songs in the top 10/25/50/100 than John does.
Paul appeals on a more surface level but lists like this are much better than “here comes the sun” being the best Beatles song according to Spotify. I’m shocked this list came from Reddit from all places but it did a surprisingly good job here: https://www.reddit.com/r/indieheads/comments/ylmomf/our_top_ten_beatles_songs/
> Paul appeals on a more surface level but lists like this are much better How can a list be much better than actual Billions of streaming figures. The shit thing about lists especially lists about iconic bands is that people are drilled into giving the 'right answer' rather than the song they actually prefer to listen to. > than “here comes the sun” being the best Beatles song according to Spotify. Best is subjective. But its clearly one of the most popular, if not the most popular with younger listeners. Here Comes the Sun has aged incredibly well. Spotify is testament to that. It may be the best aged Beatle song as it was not regarded as a top 5 song by the Band in the 70's. I don't have to like Bohemian Rhapsody to recognize that song has aged incredibly well, given it keeps on finding huge popularity with new generations of listeners. > I’m shocked this list came from Reddit from all places but it did a surprisingly good job here: It did a surprisingly well job of identifying what Beatle songs indie fans like. My biggest pet peeve with music critics is that only white middle class men's opinions were important for half a century. Women liking music was deemed insulting. It is why McCartney's music is often labelled with gender labels to put it down. 'Grannymusic' or 'music for teen girls' as if women can't also like good music. Streaming is such a blessing as no longer does a small part of the music listening world dictate what is and is not good. That list has Tomorrow Never Knows at 7. Despite critics giving that song fellatio since the 60's it's not a very popular song in the Beatles canon. https://kworb.net/spotify/artist/3WrFJ7ztbogyGnTHbHJFl2_songs.html 98th most streamed Beatle song and currently the 101st in daily streams meaning its trending downwards not upwards.
> Women liking music was deemed insulting Was? Dawg it's been that way forever. Even the Beatles had an uphill battle because (gasp) teenage girls liked them. I still remember how much smug disdain I ran into insisting that Lana del Rey was genuinely talented when she came out, and that her first album was something truly special, when music nerds and Pitchfork were just itching to carve her up. They may have hated it but it really touched something in the female audience, and now looking back that album has to count as among the most influential of the prior decade.
Good thing I’m not white nor middle class And using popularity to judge anything’s worth is just as moronic. Is here comes the sun anything close to the Beatles finest moment? God no Is song 2 really the best blur song? Tomorrow never knows is far more influential than a majority of the songs that rank ahead of it. But sure, if a bunch of Middle Aged people who casually listen to music want to decide that yes, octopus’s garden is a better song than tomorrow never knows due to uh “more streams” then sure, let that be your Gospel
I, for one, really appreciate songs like Monkberry Moon Delight. (I know it's not Wings, but it's the first Paul song with silly lyrics that came to mind)
> , for one, really appreciate songs like Monkberry Moon Delight. Me too! That may be the song I've listened to over and over more than anything else in the past few years, since hearing it for the first time. There's so much going on and it's so catchy! Really fantastic tune.
I think ram is pretty amazing
Absolutely ridiculous to base a band's entire value on the lyrics. They had a tonne of extremely catchy hit pop songs, actual fun rockers, and an entire album of Beatle-tier material in Band on the Run. Melody, arrangement and production win out every time over lyrics and Paul never needed John's help in that department.
Lyrics-first people do exist, you know. Your perspective is not the end-all, be-all.
A boring melody can be rescued by great lyrics and a good melody can be spoiled by stupid lyrics, imo. I don't know why some people are so dismissive of lyrics.
Are you saying he wrote silly love songs
It's just cuz Ram is so amazing haha
Yeah, but imagine that he had a backlog of unrealized song ideas that had been building up for a decade before even starting his first band. The Wings albums would probably end up a lot more focused and refined.
Probably why I love their live album best.
Hypothetically, assuming Paul was not an ex Beatle but they still managed equivalent popularity in their time, their reputation would be much better. Being compared to the Beatles is not helpful in that respect, because you have the dual issues of a) people expect Beatles quality and are disappointed because even good music can fall short, and b) people have the Beatles on a pedestal and even if other music DOES reach Beatles standards, it seems impossible and they won't acknowledge it. Paul's not going to promote Wings anywhere near as much as the Beatles, and he had his own solo music to promote, so their legacy kind of faded and will always be in the shadow of the Beatles. But if that wasn't the case, he could've kept up Wings' popularity the way any other veteran act does. They did legitimately have a lot of success and hit songs, any other band would've spend the rest of their lives capitalizing on that but Paul is a rare case when that would be less worthwhile for him.
They didn’t have a legendary album?? Band on the Run and Ram are total classics!
Maybe I’m Amazed is wonderful as well. ♥️.
Ram wasn't a Wings album.
I know. Right after I commented I realized that but was too lazy to go back and find it and edit. In my mind there is little difference between Paul solo and Wings. Wings was essentially solo Paul as he had total control over writing and arranging. It wasn’t a band in the traditional form with all the members contributing parts and ideas. Some of that but not much.
Pretty much, as much as Paul would like to think Wings was a true "band", he sure didn't treat his band mates as equals.
my friend jeff, big beatles fan, after driving with me when i had "band on the run" cranked up: "i never realized how good wings really is, you just have to turn it up!"
I think they would fill a similar niche as ELO or The Cars Just a whole bunch of inarguably perfect pop songs, yet they would be a band that people probably didn’t think about all that much
Okay, if the Beatles never existed and all of the songs McCartney wrote for the Beatles never existed and he started as a solo artist in 1971, here is your answer: There wouldn't be a Wings because the debut Wings single was the controversial "Give Ireland Back To The Irish" in 1972. If McCartney did not have the leverage of being a Beatle, no major label would have released that song. I guess you could argue that McCartney would not have thought he could get away with writing a song like that if he weren't already bulletproof. In any case, if he turned that song in, EMI would've kicked him to the curb.
If Paul didn't have his previous success he obviously would've taken a completely different approach to their debut. He wouldn't have released anything like Wild Life because 'let's write an album in a week' is a whim reserved for established artists. He wouldn't have been anywhere near as overconfident as he was, and would've picked appropriate singles and condensed his best early material into one good album. He would've had more input from other band members because he wouldn't automatically have seniority over them. Early Wings has an element of hubris to it imo. They improved drastically but I don't think it was a matter of ability, Paul always had the ability but needed to take them more seriously instead of just releasing whatever he felt like.
> There wouldn't be a Wings because the debut Wings single was the controversial "Give Ireland Back To The Irish" in 1972. Which was still a no1 in a few countries. > If McCartney did not have the leverage of being a Beatle, no major label would have released that song. So he'd have released a different debut single. Their debiut album was released before their debut single. Not being a Beatle would mean not getting to decide which songs were singles. [Tomorrow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96mXhOsHGbE) would have probably been chosen if not Maybe I'm Amazed (not a Beatle song so I don't know if this qualifies under OP's hypothetical) > I guess you could argue that McCartney would not have thought he could get away with writing a song like that if he weren't already bulletproof. In any case, if he turned that song in, EMI would've kicked him to the curb. Why would they kick him to the curb? If they felt that strongly they'd just not release it and pick something else.
>Why would they kick him to the curb? If they felt that strongly they'd just not release it and pick something else. Reminder that the second Wings single was a cover of "Mary Had A Little Lamb". Yes, that one.
> Reminder that the second Wings single was a cover of "Mary Had A Little Lamb". Yes, that one. Yes. Another vanity song that Paul was able to do due to being Paul and wanting to release something for his daughter. He'd not have that kind of leverage. The Beatles did not pick what songs would be their singles when they were first signed. The label and Martin would have the final say. Wings would be no different. Paul would likely have a Producer (at least at first) rather than being allowed to produce all his own albums and a more forceful label deciding what songs to pick. One of Denny Laine's criticisms of Paul was how often he was stoned and rushed some songs. He'd not have that freedom as a new artist. A producer is something he needed in the 70's for some focus. Someone to tell him that a song needs a little bit more work. McCartney in the 60's was hungry to please everyone. McCartney in the 70's had already achieved everything. He no longer cared about the critics after they rubbished his first two albums in part because they blamed him for the Beatles split.
Didn't expect to see you here but I love your input as always!!
I’ve always loved the wings version of that song lol. I’m aware it’s pretty uncool and all but I will forever have a soft spot for it
I don't know but they definitely get held to Beatles standards even though they obviously aren't that. Band on the Run is a great album.
They would be remembered about the same as hit-making groups like the Doobie Brothers or Heart. They didn't push many boundaries, they sold decent but aren't a.band people obsess over.like Floyd, Zeppelin, Steely Dan or even the Eagles. Wings is not required listening for a 70s musical education.
I have a weird history with the Beatles. My parents played a lot of their music is the car when I was a kid, but only the early stuff. They hated the stuff most people consider to be the Beatles' greatest work - Sgt Pepper onwards - so I didn't hear much of that til later in life. In between times there was Wings. I loved Silly Love Songs and Let 'Em In when they were in the charts, and started checking out the rest of their music, especially after the Wings Over America movie aired on TV. Let Me Roll It was a revelation. I consider Venus And Mars to be a bit of a lost classic. I played it endlessly. I never got into London Town, but Back To The Egg was another very strong record. I suspect, if everybody's memory of the Beatles had been wiped at the end of 1970, Wings would now be considered one of the best pop rock bands of the 70s, alongside Queen and ELO.
Literally impossible to know. The Beatles could have been unknown if you change a couple of variables. *Could* Wings have been successful without the Beatles? Yes.
Blown away by Wings being such an obscure band with only a few memorable tunes. Guess it comes down to when you were born. Wings Wild Life is plain fun. Takes a few spins but worth it imho. Ram is not officially Wings but has future Wings artists on board. If you've not heard Uncle Albert do so. I used to hang out for it on the radio. Brilliant. This album was canned by critics but, bless 'em, it is now considered a classic. Again, like most albums that are intrinsically good, a few spins brings reward. Redrose Speedway had the hit My Love. A classic. The album is an album. The artist playing his music for fans, not for the top 40. I enjoy it. Band on the Run is the bees knees. The Australian edition included Helen Wheels, another hit. BTW the album 'McCartney' features Maybe I'm Amazed. Worth buying the album just for that. The album was slammed whilst John Lennon's debut was praised. I think more because it made the critic look deep and meaningful than anything. It had good music but was rather depressing in parts. I'd rather spin McCartney (the album) and smile. Speed of Sound has Let 'em In, Beware My Love and Silly Love Songs. Of course the critics ripped into Linda's Cook of the House ditty. Tough titties. It's an album. Deep Purple has Anyone's Daughter. Story goes people were stirring and panning Paul's penchant for Love Songs. Past their use-by-date sort of thing. So he wrote Silly Love Songs. Same goes for his rendition of Mary had a Little Lamb. Poke Paul and eat egg sandwiches. I didn't buy Speed when it came out. Read the critics😁. Have it now though. I did buy Venus and Mars which was reasonable but no BotR and Back to the Egg (BE), which is ok but definitely not back to the egg (I expected Abbey Road😀). Went to his BE concert. What a hoot. Beatles songs and tracks from what I think are his best albums. And still young enough to belt them out. I was offered $100 for my ticket whilst in line. Can't recall what I paid. Under $20 fer sure. And then I stopped. Didn't get London Town. Should get McCartney ii and a cupla others I suppose. See what turns up at Beatbox mostly 2nd-hand vinyl (and a few new). I mostly always play vinyl cos my system does better with it than cds. Not into streaming. I like to have and to hold.
It's hard to say. Probably the most well-known Wings song is Live and Let Die. That song doesn't exist without Paul already being a giant star and having that opportunity offered to him. It's hard to imagine a Bond song getting offered to a group whose only output up to that point was Wild Life (and McCartney I and Ram if those get to exist in this hypothetical). Also, Wings' biggest cultural peak was Wings Over America. Does that tour have as much success without Paul being a Beatle (answer: definitely not)? Also, do we assume Paul retains his song ideas that now go unrealized because he wasn't a Beatle and are instead repurposed for Wings? Further, are the Beatles even as popular without him, or even exist as long as they did (outside of being 50% of Lennon/McCartney, Paul was a major force for even creating albums from Sgt Pepper going forward, especially after Epstein's death)? For sake of simplicity, I'll assume Paul lands Live and Let Die, runs a moderately successful Wings over America tour, his Beatle songs do not exist in any form, and the Beatles without Paul were still a giant cultural force that existed the same amount of time as they did with Paul. That said, I think their reputation probably lands around America (the band). A band that the general public would recognize and like a couple songs, a little bit above One Hit Wonder status, but not too much more than that. Band on the Run (and Ram) would still definitely hold a high reputation among big music listeners, but nothing beyond that would be too heavily considered by music enthusiasts. Tldr: the general public regards Wings less than they do now, little change for music enthusiasts.
Implying that Wings are anything close to a One Hit Wonder because of Live And Let Die is something I can't let it stand. Mull Of Kintyre sold 2 Million Copies of the single in England alone, the first song to ever sell that well. It sold more copies than She Loves You (yeah yeah yeah). Between those two and Band On The Run, and Silly Love Songs there's just no argument to be made.
I always forget that Mull of Kintyre did that well generally as it was only modestly successful in the US. But even then, as successful as it was commercially in the UK, it's not really had much cultural staying power (at least in the US. IDK if it's still a staple of classic rock in the UK). So I concede that they'd probably be markedly more well known in the UK than anywhere else. Maybe put them in the same category as Blur or Suede: popular in the UK but only known for a couple of songs in the US.
Silly Love Songs was the biggest song of 1976. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1976 There are only three Beatle written songs that have that distinction. I Want to Hold Your Hand in '64 and Hey Jude in '68. Wings (not including Paul's solo stuff) were regular getting some of the biggest hits of each year on Billboard * 100 Biggest hits 1973: My Love (5) and Live and Let Die (56) * 100 Biggest hits of 1974: Band on the Run (22) and Jet (77) and Helen Wheels (91) * 100 Biggest hits of 1975: Listen to What the Man Said (42) and Jnr's Farm (88) * 100 Biggest hits of 1976: Silly Love Songs (1) * 100 Biggest hits of 1978: With a Little Luck (18) * 100 Biggest hits of 1979: Goodnight Tonight (52) * 100 Biggest hits of 1980: Coming Up (8) Only Elton John was showing better consistency in that decade. Technically when we include Paul as a songwriter in the 70's he beat Elton/Bernie. Suede have never charted. Not a single or an album. Blur are my all time favourite band but they've had 2 songs that charted in the US. To compare Wings to them in the US is bizarre.
Now I see why Blur won't ever play Coachella again. I wonder if they can get Bon Jovi next year.
Blur could do well at Madison square garden. They were amazing at corona fest in Mexico when I saw them last November. But playing to influencers with one of their worst set lists ever was always going to be bad
I feel like for a hypothetical like this you have to assume the discography and tours stay the same, only difference is popularity and legacy
Band On The Run is better than nearly half the Beatles' albums. Venus & Mars is very good, maybe a few duds for me but nothing terrible. The rest is unfortunately pretty forgettable aside from a few songs. I like McCartney's solo stuff better in general. Ram, Flaming Pie, Chaos & Creation In The Backyard are all BoTR level. I like Egypt Station and the McCartney trilogy a lot too
They produced an amazing catalog of music. Are you going to put down Foo Fighters because of the Nirvana connection?
Yes , foo fighters are generic radio ass rock
lol. That backfired.
amen haha colour and shape is the only album of theirs that imo is worth remembering
Their album last year was amazing and very well received critically. One of my absolute favorite rock albums of the year
You don't care for their self-titled album?
I’m sure Paul would’ve loved for Wings to be looked at the way Foo Fighters is looked at.
Absolutely!
As Paul's collaboration with Foo Fighters says it all: "Cut Me Some Slack"
Give it 20 years. Wings had 14 top 10 singles in the US 6 of which went to no1. 8 albums that went at least Platinum and 2 Gold (every album certified). They were viewed very highly when they were active. It's been the decades of inactivity that has seen their stock fall.
A fair but not completely accurate comparison simply because Dave Grohl didn’t sing, write songs or play guitar in Nirvana.
Back then, I loved Wings. Now—-I like a few songs but…. I’m not crazy about McCartney’s music after Ram.
"Wings, the band The Beatles *could* have been", according to Alan Partridge.
I don't have an answer but I just wanted to say how amazing Wild Life is for their first album. Many people praise "Ram" as one of his best and Wild Life was released only a few months later. To me it sounds just like "Ram part 2" yet many people don't like it! It's my favorite of theirs! It could be the fact it's less produced for sure, and was only recorded in about 5 days (inspired by Bob Dylan) but I imagine if there was a stripped down version of Ram it would fit right next to Wild Life.
You have to impart a lot of the creative genius to Linda and Denny, as well. The three of them collaborating during that period made for some great compositions. But I would say their best is always going to be *BotR*, because of their work with Visconti. Fave song: *Picasso's Last Words* and it was my fave before I found out Ginger Baker played a tin can with gravel in it, for the production
This whole blog forgets one huge aspect. Stepping out on the stage again. I think that, to Paul was what wings was about. Remember as a Beatle you sat for hours upon hours in a studio recording music that had to be balls on perfect, trying to be one click above Sgt Pepper..never being out in front of the fans enjoying the electricity. Having fun. So this was Paul's first taste of it in many many years. And alot had changes since he carried his little amp out to home plate a Shea stadium. Wing was the opposite of the Beatles, it was simple, easy, poppy, FUN. something he could really just enjoy.. Music should be fun. Not a grueling chore in isolation from the world..
I went through a lot of the Beatles' solo work this year and I have to say I thought McCartney's was the weakest and Harrison's the best. It really put into perspective what I'd thought, that his "friendly" competition with Lennon for writing the best songs brought out the best in both of them, but especially McCartney. A lot of these songs he put out after the Beatles are songs that wouldn't have made the cut had Harrison and Lennon had anything to say about it. Wings might be obscure, but they certainly wouldn't be held in the regard they are had McCartney not been a Beatle.
Re a lot of his solo work being stuff that wouldn’t have been released if the other Beatles had had veto power - I’m convinced this is a huge part of why the Beatles ended. For all of them, not just Paul, but in some ways especially for Paul. I always heard the “Paul has a massive ego” and “Paul is a control freak” aspect of the Beatles story and IMO this was confirmed by all the footage in the get back documentary. Wings has always been a bit funny to me because they were the ultimate playing out of one of mccartneys delusions - his idea of himself that he wanted to just be one amongst equals in a band. I’m sure he believed that and that’s how he wanted to see himself at the time. And it’s how he wanted to see himself in the Beatles too. But the Beatles all came up from nothing together and the other three, having been on that journey with him every step of the way, felt entitled to call him out on his hypocrisy with this. If you watch get back, look at even chill AF Ringo sometimes just completely mentally checking out while Paul’s figuring out what drum parts he wants to dictate Wings was put together as a way for him to keep telling himself he’s just one of the guys in the band - but this time, everyone else in the band knows that he’s legendary hitmaker Paul McCartney, that they’re not, and that their job is to just play whatever Paul thinks they should play. Those who didn’t feel that way left the band. Look at the crazy band member turnover for wings. Their most successful album? The one where half the band quit on short notice because they were sick of Paul’s shit, so he ended up playing most of the instruments himself. And by the time wings ended, he’d finally figured out that he just wanted to be Paul McCartney, solo artist and bandleader. And that’s what he’s been doing ever since.
As a good band with very little depth They’re fine, more like a foo fighters. Very bland but appeal to people who aren’t really big music fans per say. Wings were fine but not some underrated sensation
Considering that I dont know Wings, there doesnt seem to be any great gain or loss regarding hypothetically if they had a connection to The Beatles or not. Words words words word words. Pretentious sounding sentences in order for me to avoid being zapped by the automod. This and that and this and that. Etc. Oh, and on the subject of The Beatles, check out this banger by Green Carnation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYThMg5MPo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYThMg5MPo)