Laurence Juber Makes Case For Wings in the Hall of Fame

[Lazarus_2]

chris... brutha, please explain to me...'cause i must really behind the times. how laz's comments, like that last post, repeated as often as they are, do not qualify for the tremulous golden sphincteritis award every bit as much as you think maccafans does..?

really..?

when have either of us ever said wings HAD to be in before anybody else ever got in?
when did the requirements for 1) being a member of an actual band or 2) being capable of consideration to be nominated/inducted rely on how much, what percentage of work a 'fan' percieves you did, 30 years down the line ?
and we know exactly that how ?


how about ALL of paragraph 3..just which 'facts' in there are not worthy of your scorn or derision?
crutch ?
shield?!?
really !!?!
sounds like another 'mccartney is a failure' rant to me...yet, you attack maccafan for having the exuberant audacity to like the stuff

and that same, full rant repeats itself again...not with any facts of what actually bands are, but just opinions of which would, if used as a yardstick by any honest person, leave a large part of the RRHOF out of contention: half your bands are one lead guy and a BAND of back up guys, adding thier distinct stylings...why is that 'fact' so hard to understand..and why should wings be held to a higher, different standard

laz: there is absolutley nothing in my quote that is untrue..the only pretzel logic is that shite you feel you need to keep sloughing off...explain to me how an artist, if he leaves one band, creates another (seperate, different, distinct) band, with its own set of songs, its own image and its own fanbase, might not, upon becoming a success in its own right, have an attempt at getting, upon meeting the requirements, its own chance at a nomination...tell it to cream, derek & the dominoes...
sorry you can't deal with the 'fact' that mccartney started another 'band', with a distinct identity, that it became successful... that it was neither a devious marketing ploy, nor a shield or a crutch to escape the beatles (which, now that you put it that way, considering how successful they were, means that they HAD to be a seperate entity, and a rather sturdy one, in order to be a 'crutch' or a 'shield': thus further cementing thier reputation as a band, worthy of recognition as such

and, no, mark paul was the leader of wings...just as r. smith is the leader of the cure, as michael stipe is the leader of rem, or j. fogarty the leader of creedence: take that artist out, and what you get may or may not be successful, but it ain't what it was...so, your point is...right, just like half (or more) of the groups out there, wings had a creative leader, so..sue 'em, but IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM NOT A BAND !

some people around here wouldn't give macca credit if he shat bricks: it's all be some egotistical con..or better yet, half of you would strenuosly argue that it was at least better than his last album !

awes, you continue to amaze me with your newfound levelheadedness, good points, but...by understanding those points, it still leaves out the very basic fact that the whole thread is not about what the critics think, so who the phook cares...it's about what we fans think about what juber said...you spent way too much capital dissing all the band members, especially juber, to drop down into the, ' i blame it on the critics ' schtick now.

from your intitial, constantly derisive dissing of all wings band members, we now get laz bleating on about how almost all bands are NOT bands, but meer lackeys for the talents of such as jeff lynne or tom petty...unless, of course, they can PROVE what percentage of effort they put into each song/album/concert/group effort: 'cause we all know, the only way you can be a 'band' is if you hit all those mythical percentages..if not, you're not a band, right ?

no bands, eh...all back up !?
news to me

Disregard for a moment all the bands that have got in, when there's only one member that contributed to 90% or more of the material.
Cause that's what I was doing.

The statistical facts remain (not made-up, look here on macca-central.com);
Paul McCartney is credited as writing 97% or more of the Wings catalog.

p.s: for the final time, I never said, nor has anybody, that the other members of these bands were mere talentless lackeys...
that's made-up bullshit your trying to use to discredit our argument, and it's beneath civilized discussion.

[Awesoman]

chris... brutha, please explain to me...'cause i must really behind the times. how laz's comments, like that last post, repeated as often as they are, do not qualify for the tremulous golden sphincteritis award every bit as much as you think maccafans does..?

Well for starters, Chris managed to provide some documentation (y'know, evidence) to back up Laz's points (RE: 10 Best Selling Artists of the 70s - By: Susan Maphis). Something you and Maccafan have yet to do...

And is it just me or is it interesting how that article lists McCartney, and not Wings, as one of the top 10 best-selling artists of the 70's?

when have either of us ever said wings HAD to be in before anybody else ever got in?

I don't believe you have, but what does that have to do with anything? I thought we were making a case for *why* Wings should be inducted, not *when*...

...explain to me how an artist, if he leaves one band, creates another (seperate, different, distinct) band, with its own set of songs, its own image and its own fanbase, might not, upon becoming a success in its own right, have an attempt at getting, upon meeting the requirements, its own chance at a nomination...tell it to cream, derek & the dominoes...

This would be a swell point if we were comparing the Beatles to Wings. No one is. We're attempting a distinction between McCartney's solo career and Wings. Because McCartney has already been inducted (you're aware of this, right?).

and, no, mark paul was the leader of wings...just as r. smith is the leader of the cure, as michael stipe is the leader of rem, or j. fogarty the leader of creedence: take that artist out, and what you get may or may not be successful, but it ain't what it was...so, your point is...right, just like half (or more) of the groups out there, wings had a creative leader, so..sue 'em, but IT DOES NOT MAKE THEM NOT A BAND !

You continue to ramble away (incoherently) over matters that are not nor were ever in dispute. Of course Wings were a band; no one is denying this. It's just that there's simply nothing remarkable or noteworthy about them to earn a separate induction alongside McCartney. None of the other members of the band were anywhere near on par with McCartney creatively to significantly contribute to their overall success. The following point remains unchallenged: Wings were successful because McCartney was successful; not the other way around.

If you'd bother to think rationally for once, you'd probably understand that I'm not trying so much to "diss" Wings; I simply don't bother making a distinction between them and McCartney's solo work. As far as myself, the record execs and the critics are concerned, Wings were just a part of McCartney's solo career. And McCartney has already been recognized and inducted for his solo career. You don't honestly believe he got in simply because the powers that be were just enthralled with Press To Play now do you?

[maccafan]

Remember these facts I shared from the Macca report site?

Before Wings officially disbanded in 1981 (after 10 years), the band scored 24 top 40 hits, 14 of which made the top 10, six went to No. 1.

· With the exception of the 1978 platinum compilation "Wings Greatest", all of the band's nine albums reached the top 10.

· Each of the five consecutive albums between "Red Rose Speedway" and 1976's "Wings Over America" went to No. 1. ("Band on the Run," "Venus and Mars," "Wings at the Speed of Sound")

· In 1973, Wings had their first #1 single with "My Love" off the "Red Rose Speedway" album which also went to #1.

· The "Venus and Mars "album released in 1975 had many hit singles including: "Listen To What The Man Said" which went to #1.

· The 1978 "London Town" album hit single "With A Little Luck" went to #1.

· "Wings Over America" (triple album) released December 1976 went to #1.

· In 1980, the RIAA certified that Wings (not Paul solo, but Wings as a band) surpassed the Beatles in record sales. People totally forget, or want to forget this fact!

· Wings were the second most successful group nominated for more Grammys than any other band in the 70's with the exception of the Bee Gees.

So now how can anyone say I didn't present my facts, or documentation? The Macca report site is very credible, their McCartney info is very thorough, they didn't make all the above facts up! Check them out for yourselves!

Also notice the above facts say Wings and not just Paul McCartney, they even stress the distinction in the fact about the RIAA!

Seems to me there's some selective recognition going on.

Also guys, calm down, there's no need for name calling, and vulgarity, we can agree to disagree.

I'd hate to see the moderators close this discussion down because of someones immaturity. It's all just our opinions.

[mr h atom]

" seems to me there's selective recognition going on."

yup...'bout alot of things

good post

[2 of 3]

I've been searching around and can't find these details...maybe you folks can help.

You can be nominated 25 years after your first record. Paul was nominated in 1999. Did Paul get in on the first year he was nominated? If so, that would be 1974. Which album did they use? There wasn't a Wings album in 1974. If they are talking about 1973 BOTR...then great. WIngs is already in then. Does anyone know what album McCartney was inducted for?..or if he got in on the first ballot?

[Awesoman]

For starters, apologies to Maccafan as I forgot you had posted the Macca Report fan site content (although I'll point out I couldn't find anything you listed on that site).

Second, to answer the question posed, McCartney was inducted in 1999. His daughter Stella memorably wore a t-shirt that read "It's about f_cking time!". Lennon had been inducted in 1994.

We could list record sales statistics all day long, however the RRHoF doesn't induct artists based on commercial success alone (which would explain how the Yardbirds got in). Further, no one is disputing that Paul McCartney and his band enjoyed a great deal of success in the 70's. But the success has *always* been directed at and credited to McCartney (and no one else in Wings). Wings historically has been recognized as a part of McCartney's solo career. The RRHoF sees it this way, as do the record execs, as do the critics, as do many (if not most) of McCartney's fans. And this is why it is McCartney, and not Wings, that made it into the Hall of Fame.

[maccafan]

Awesoman, apology totally accepted, I have thick skin, I can handle just about anything except for childish name calling and disrespectful vulgarity.

I understand what you are saying about the critics, record execs, and most fans, that's why this kind of discussion is so good, it presents a chance to really look at the facts. Most of the above people don't really do that.

If the facts were looked at as closely as we are looking at them, I think many of the above people would at least reconsider the case for Wings induction.