Laurence Juber Makes Case For Wings in the Hall of Fame

[mr h atom]

WOW... CONDESCEND MUCH ??

actually...after reading the above piece i'd say... alot !

1) "so going by..."; except no one has said that it is just that, now have they...? go back and read what many of have actaully said, then match it up with what mike posted: you'll find that a wings inclusion is not out-of-bounds at all.

2) "there is a reason.." s.a.a.. wings was NOT a backing band, they were a full-on attempt at a real cohesive group.
sorry you just can't past get this, but that is the fact.
they were hired and were expected to be a group, not a backing band.
read the press of the day, read the history of the group, don't inflict your personal prejudices: just because you've sold yourself on your idea that they were nothing more than a marketing ploy meant to overshadow john DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
the current lineup is a backing band, wings was a group...there is a difference & it has been covered before, as well.

3) "they wouldn't have made it...especially not based on the music they put on the albums*"

really..so...now, there were/are no wings fans....and you know this HOW ?
god talk to you lately and slip you the inside skinny ?

you know the minds of all the people buying records and tickets, listening to the radio back in the '70's..?

listen closely...in '89, i sat in atlantas omni, i sat near a couple of teenage girls, they were mccartney fans, they were there to hear songs off FITD...the knew the words, they sang along...if, in '89, mccartney can create new fans, how do you know that wings, as a group, did not as well...

here's one for you... i was a wings fan before i was a beatle fan...i was one of those young kids who had to be told mccarntey was in a previous ban. by then, i was a fan of the new stuff...granted, 'ram' was the center of that universe, and it is not a wings album...but all my other albums were. my 1st beatle album was the white album, i didn't get that until...'79...so don't tell me there were no wings fan..or that every one of them came to it just because there happened to be an exbeatle in it.

i bought the wings albums because they were wings albums..i looked forward to seeing what denny or linda or anyone else might add, just as i did/do everytime i hear a beatle album now, i don't skip over the ringo tunes ( 'don't pass me by ' is one of my alltime favorite tunes, by anyone anywhere), or the george songs ('while my guitar...' & 'long, long, long'; i still consider them to among the very best beatle songs ever), they're all great...don't even begin with that backing band-they didn't matter crap.

and, then...there's the *...well, now, do we get to the heart of the matter ?
is this not more than a bit of a slam against the catalogue of wings...
sounds awfully derrogative to me...
so, if i were to use your simple-minded tactics: what you are really saying is, you simply are not a wings fan, you think their music is inferior...you don't think the albums or music is, unobjectively, any good....

on that, i would disagree, wholeheartedly...i could list all the reasons, but...with prejudices like that...i wouldn't expect you to understand.

[2 of 3]

i was a wings fan before i was a beatle fan...i was one of those young kids who had to be told mccarntey was in a previous band.

Yes...but do you not see that there would not be a WIngs....if it didn't have a former Beatle in it? THat the former Beatle IS Wings? That the former Beatle is the reason they made records?

[Awesoman]

1) "so going by..."; except no one has said that it is just that, now have they...? go back and read what many of have actaully said, then match it up with what mike posted: you'll find that a wings inclusion is not out-of-bounds at all.

I have read what many have said about the subject. Yet no one in favor of inducting Wings has been able to provide a single *specific* reason as to what makes them so worthy of this honor. There have been plenty of blanket responses ("They played well together!" "They worked hard!" "They harmonized together!"), but that simply doesn't cut it. There are plenty of bands out there (such as the Doobie Brothers and Chicago), all of whom played well together, sold out shows, and have had *decades* of success but have yet to get inducted in the RRHOF.

You seem to be pretty passionate about Wings so let me ask you this: Taking Paul McCartney *completely* out of the equation, exactly how specifically did the other members of the band contribute to their overall success (besides just playing well)? What specific creative decisions did they make and exactly how were they successful? And how does that warrant them a place in the Hall of Fame when McCartney has already been inducted?

2) "there is a reason.." s.a.a.. wings was NOT a backing band, they were a full-on attempt at a real cohesive group.

"Attempt" is the key word here. But it's hard to see the "cohesion" when only one member of the band was carrying all the weight. Critics weren't buying into the "collaborative effort" facade either.

sorry you just can't past get this, but that is the fact.

I'm not disputing that Wings was marketed as a "group effort". Yes, other members of the band wrote and sang lead on songs. None of which were hits, but more on that later...

3) "they wouldn't have made it...especially not based on the music they put on the albums*"

really..so...now, there were/are no wings fans....and you know this HOW ?
god talk to you lately and slip you the inside skinny ?

Actually it's quite simple. How many songs written and sung by the other band members were big hits for the group? Answer: zero. And how many songs written and sung by the other band members appeared on either of the greatest hits compilations (Wings Greatest and Wingspan)? Answer: zero. So it is plenty safe to conclude that the other band members' music had little to do with their overall success. The band's success belonged to McCartney, period. He wrote and sang all the hits, and his success with the group put him in the Hall of Fame. So putting Wings in the Hall of Fame would be overly redundant and pointless.

[2 of 3]

The RRHF is weird anyway. Springsteen is in....E Street Band isn't. Tom Petty AND the Heartbreakers are in. Buddy Holly...but no Crickets. None of it makes a whole lot of sense really.

[maccafan]

awesoman, you totally missed the point of my post.

No Wings shouldn't be in the hall of fame just because they worked hard and were McCartneys band, though those are very real considerations.

As I've posted before they should be in the hall because...

They are the only group in the history of rock music that had to follow the freaking Beatles!

They were under tremendous pressure having a former Beatle in the band!

The criticizm they faced was unmerciful!

They totally worked their way up from scratch!

They had to deal with rotating members!

Linda McCartney wasn't even a musician, she started from total scratch, and just look at what she was able to achieve!

Almost every one of their albums was initially and unmercifully bashed, the only exception was Band On The Run!

They got absolutely no love from the critics, and rock magazines! This really only came later after Wings went around the world showing naysayers that they indeed did rock!!

Yet, in spite of all these overwhelming odds, they still managed to become a tight, hard rocking, hit making, crowd pleasing machine, producing...

#1 worldwide singles
#1 worldwide albums
Breaking world records
Setting world records
Winning Grammys

The only group any former Beatle had that toured the world!

Becoming the second biggest group in the entire era of the 70s!

Only the Bee Gees had more success. Many people love to talk about Led Zeppelin, the Who, Genesis, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, etc. The fact is in the 70s Wings blew them all away! That right there is reason for induction in the hall of fame!

How do you not put the second biggest group in the entire era of the 70s in the hall of fame?? That's what is totally illogical!

So for all the reasons above, Wings without a doubt, should be in the Hall Of Fame!!

[Awesoman]

Look, we're running around in circles here.

Maccafan and Mr. Atom, do you not recognize that McCartney--and solely McCartney--was responsible for all of Wings' achievements that you have listed? And he has already been recognized for said achievements. If you want to make a valid case for giving Wings their own slot in the RRHOF, you must be able to differentiate between Wings and McCartney's post-Beatles career. And that requires looking at what the other band members accomplished in the band that would warrant them their place in the Hall of Fame. You have to be able to prove that Wings was more than just McCartney's backing band and that their individual actions had a direct and significant impact on the band's overall success.

McCartney was responsible for the following:
• He formed the band
• He wrote all the hit songs
• He sang lead on all the hit songs
• He was the frontman
• He made all the band’s decisions
• He won the Grammy Awards
• He broke up the band

So if the other band members had no involvement in writing or singing the hit songs, could not produce their own hit music alongside McCartney's, and were a largely faceless and interchangeable unit, exactly *what* did Wings achieve that had not already been acknowledged when McCartney was inducted into the Hall of Fame?

[RickStark79]

They are the only group in the history of rock music that had to follow the freaking Beatles!

For pete's sake, nearly EVERY group in rock history had to follow the Beatles. But only ONE, yes ONE, had the luxury of having a Beatle in it. Stop using that as a negative!

[lobbybobby]

The RRHF is weird anyway. Springsteen is in....E Street Band isn't. Tom Petty AND the Heartbreakers are in. Buddy Holly...but no Crickets. None of it makes a whole lot of sense really.

Absoulutely the best point on this whole thread. So that means Mike Campbell's in the hof and Little Steven's not.

Would the Pips be in without Gladys?

None of it makes any sense to me at all.

p.s. Abba is in and Rush is out. Enough said.

[Lazarus_2]

WOW... CONDESCEND MUCH ??

actually...after reading the above piece i'd say... alot !

1) "so going by..."; except no one has said that it is just that, now have they...? go back and read what many of have actaully said, then match it up with what mike posted: you'll find that a wings inclusion is not out-of-bounds at all.

2) "there is a reason.." s.a.a.. wings was NOT a backing band, they were a full-on attempt at a real cohesive group.
sorry you just can't past get this, but that is the fact.
they were hired and were expected to be a group, not a backing band.
read the press of the day, read the history of the group, don't inflict your personal prejudices: just because you've sold yourself on your idea that they were nothing more than a marketing ploy meant to overshadow john DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.
the current lineup is a backing band, wings was a group...there is a difference & it has been covered before, as well.

3) "they wouldn't have made it...especially not based on the music they put on the albums*"

really..so...now, there were/are no wings fans....and you know this HOW ?
god talk to you lately and slip you the inside skinny ?

you know the minds of all the people buying records and tickets, listening to the radio back in the '70's..?

listen closely...in '89, i sat in atlantas omni, i sat near a couple of teenage girls, they were mccartney fans, they were there to hear songs off FITD...the knew the words, they sang along...if, in '89, mccartney can create new fans, how do you know that wings, as a group, did not as well...

here's one for you... i was a wings fan before i was a beatle fan...i was one of those young kids who had to be told mccarntey was in a previous ban. by then, i was a fan of the new stuff...granted, 'ram' was the center of that universe, and it is not a wings album...but all my other albums were. my 1st beatle album was the white album, i didn't get that until...'79...so don't tell me there were no wings fan..or that every one of them came to it just because there happened to be an exbeatle in it.

i bought the wings albums because they were wings albums..i looked forward to seeing what denny or linda or anyone else might add, just as i did/do everytime i hear a beatle album now, i don't skip over the ringo tunes ( 'don't pass me by ' is one of my alltime favorite tunes, by anyone anywhere), or the george songs ('while my guitar...' & 'long, long, long'; i still consider them to among the very best beatle songs ever), they're all great...don't even begin with that backing band-they didn't matter crap.

and, then...there's the *...well, now, do we get to the heart of the matter ?
is this not more than a bit of a slam against the catalogue of wings...
sounds awfully derrogative to me...
so, if i were to use your simple-minded tactics: what you are really saying is, you simply are not a wings fan, you think their music is inferior...you don't think the albums or music is, unobjectively, any good....

on that, i would disagree, wholeheartedly...i could list all the reasons, but...with prejudices like that...i wouldn't expect you to understand.

I had a brain aneurysm reading this ranting drivel.

I bought Wings albums because they were Wings Albums, kinda like saying "I bought the Water because it was Coca-Cola-Company Water" ...

Whether you personally think Wings was a real band or not is irrelevant.
Any band under any name would be considered a real band by your logic.

Wings did not significantly alter the overall McCartney Sound, Wings should be always, "Paul McCartney & Wings, just like Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers is named such."
The Heartbreakers do not significantly alter the sound of Tom Petty.
But I think Paul McCartney's sound is much more noticeable than Tom Petty's sound.
So there's even more reason to call them Paul McCartney & Wings, Wings would never get into the RARHOF without McCartney.
So to induct Wings alone into the hof, would be like saying McCartney wasn't behind 90% or more of the overall sound of Wings.

end rant.

[Lazarus_2]

1. Why are they the only band to have followed the Beatles?
Any group created around the time of the Beatles break-up could be said to have 'followed the Beatles'
. Does simply having a Beatle in your "named-band" warrant being said to have 'follwed the Beatles' ?
wtf...

Tremendous pressure etc...

2. Tremendous pressure? I wouldn't think so, having an ex-Beatle in your so-called "Band"
means success will come fairly easily as long as that Beatle remains in your band.
Maybe pressure for McCartney to carry the whole band, but not for the other musicians.
At least I could say I wouldn't be pressured, I'd just be in a sort-of "friendly competition"
with McCArtney within' the band, if I were in Wings,
and I'd probably leave the band if McCartney wouldn't allow an equal share of my songs
on the records. Knowing McCartney's ego, he'd probably have me ousted before the our first
record. all hypothetical of course.

3. They didn't work their way up from scratch, they had a former Beatle in the band,
so being at the top from the start, at least for the first record or so,
was a-given.

had to deal with rotating members

4. They had to deal with rotating members possibly because of;
*McCartney's Ego,
*Members not happy being brushed-aside often
for a McCartney re-working of a track.
*Being told exactly how to play their instruments.
which is fine if you're not a veteran performer, but veterans i'll assume
will not take too kindly being told what to do.

initially and unmercifully bashed, the only exception was Band On The Run!

5. And Band On The Run was the least Wings-ridden album.
A bare-bones, McCartney/McCartney/Laine production.

They got absolutely no love from the critics, and rock magazines! This really only came later after Wings went around the world showing naysayers that they indeed did rock!!

6. They rocked in a way. In an over-rehearsed, little spontaneity way.
At least they were better than seeing McCartney solo live.

Yet, in spite of all these overwhelming odds, they still managed to become a tight, hard rocking, hit making, crowd pleasing machine, producing...

#1 worldwide singles

7. The odds were underwheling. The odds were in fact very good that they'd be a hit, what
with McCartney in the band.
Tight; yes too-rehearsed maybe
hard rocking; more smooth-rocking
hit-making; sure 'McCartney' was
crowd-pleasing; yep, what do you expect with McCartney fronting your band?
producing #1 singles; yeah, same as above.

The only group any former Beatle had that toured the world!

If by group you mean constantly-rotating backing-band for Paul McCartney.
Success does not make them a proper group.
And by proper I mean a majority of members aside from one, contributing to
the sound of the group fairly equally.