mr h atom wrote:of course... we all know paul would never do anything just because he wanted to...or because he thought it felt right for him: he always does things just to try (even though we all know it can never happen) to be as good, or better, than john...or garner as much free publicity ('cause he's just NOT that talented)
heaven forbid anyone might think he can actually think for himself...
to some...paul is like that consumate 'the price is right' contestant we all know and love: can never think for himself..it is always only $1 more than the last guy...
and the actual various members of the band: of course, they, none of them, had any talent...except for that pre-universal skateboarding ability to ride coattails with aplomb !
hacks, all !
how could we, who lived in the '70's , have ever been so duped !
i'm gonna go throw my copy of 'wide prairie' out the window...after all, she never wanted to have any part of any sort of thing !
paul MUST'VE forced her to !
the unimaginative cad !!
Now you're just being ridiculous, Atom.
Since no one is really understanding my point, I'll reiterate my main gripe about Wings: The band should have been marketed solely as Paul's backing band. That wasn't necessarily the case. It doesn't have anything to do with the other band members' talent, musical ability, etc. (well except maybe for Linda). By attempting to have the band be a collaborative unit (ie - allowing other band members to write and sing lead on songs) was a bad move because their music was completely over-shadowed by Paul's. And because it was only Paul that had any hits in the band, factored in with the group's interchangeable members from album to album, to call the group a serious collaborative effort is a joke.
Long story short: McCartney tried to market the group as more than just his backing band. They weren't.