Talk:Paul McCartney and Wings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Answer Songs

I remoi'm changing wikipedia

The name "Spitz" is the surname of the author.

Add this in the middle:

Spitz, changing wikipedia is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That’s all.

Note: Copy the information over to notepad, or Winword, and insert the information there, and then copy it back to the page. It will save time…

Note: Make sure the page you are editing has a "References section".

--andreasegde 13:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name

I wonder if this article ought to be named Paul McCartney and Wings, so we can get rid of the nasty "(band)" disambiguation? They were called both names during their existence. I'm not necessarily advocating this merely asking what others think :) --kingboyk 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks right the way it is. Most of the time, the band was just called Wings. (16 of their 23 singles are credited to "Wings"; 7 to "Paul McCartney & Wings".) -- AyaK 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What we have done, though, is added "(sometimes called Paul McCartney and Wings)" right after the name, just to make sure that someone looking for Macca would know that he/she was in the right place. -AyaK (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Headings?

Can someone with a little more knowledge about the band split this article into a few parts? It's a bit difficult to go through in this essay form.Aaaaalias 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've split the band history into three "Lineup" sections based on the three different lead guitarists in Wings. Section 2 is the largest, though, since it encompasses everything from McGear (1974) to London Town (1978). AyaK 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Supergroup?

Looks like several posters contend that Wings shouldn't be classified as a "supergroup." However, based upon the definition of supergroup in Wikimedia -- AND the fact that Wings is expressly shown there as a supergroup because of Laine's background as the Moody Blues leader prior to joining Wings -- the word "supergroup" appears to be a correct description of Wings. If you don't think it's right, please take it up over there. AyaK 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As Wings has now been removed from the "supergroup" description, we have removed that classification here as well. AyaK (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The what

Someone needs to clarify the sentance at teh beging that begins with .. "the only three.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.136.244 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the sentence was clear as written. For the record, it says: "The only three members in all of the different versions of Wings were McCartney, his wife Linda, and ex-Moody Blues guitarist and singer Denny Laine." As you can see from the article, Wings can be divided into three lineup groups (each with different drummers and lead guitarists) and seven different lineups -- and only three of the members were in all of those different versions. Does anyone else think that needs further clarification? AyaK 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wings1974.jpg

Image:Wings1974.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. AyaK 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Wings (band) → Paul McCartney & Wings — I always knew "Wings" as "Paul McCartney & Wings", and I thought that all of their songs were officially credited to "Paul McCartney & Wings", and not just "Wings", except for some early songs. I also believe that if you guys oppose to this, then we should at least move the page to "Wings", because it's only a redirect page to "Wing (disambiguation)". We already have the disambiguation template at the top of this page, so then if anyone types in "Wings" on accident, then they can go directly to the disambiguation page listed at the top of the page. —— ObentoMusubi - Contributions 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose. The band was Wings first, later with McC moving himself to top billing; the usage was inconsistent (on labels for various singles etc.) throughougt the band's run. Moreover, consider the search patterns:

Someone searching for Paul McCartney will easily find his page, including links to here.

Someone searching for Wings will find the redirect page including links to here (and given the size of that redirect page I don't think we can assume that all/most Wings attempts are for the band.

It seems unlikely that people looking for specifically for the band will type Paul McCartney and Wings and are much more likely to go with one of the above options.

Thus the way things are now is accurate and most straightforward for most searchers. Jgm (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Majority of works were attributed to Wings. Snocrates 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I think we need a far stronger case to be made than the initial proposal. That's not to criticise the proposal, we are all learners here and it's good to be bold and have a go. But a case should be made in terms of Wikipedia:naming conventions, and I don't think that has been done. In particular, we need to look past official usage and try to see whether this is reflected in common usage. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suzy and The Red Stripes & The Country Hams

How exactly are they "related acts"? Both are Wings in disguise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.234.115 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I added Suzy and the Red Stripes as a related act because the record wasn't released on the same label in the U.S. (Epic) or the U.K. (A&M) as Wings' material was (EMI/Capitol), which indicates that it was not viewed as a Wings record by EMI despite the fact that Wings cut it. However, the Country Hams' single came out under the Wings contract and both sides are currently included as bonus tracks to a Wings album, so I'd support their deletion from this list. Is anyone defending the Country Hams as a separate act? -- AyaK (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I take the lack of comment as agreement with my decision to delete the Country Hams from the related-act list. -- AyaK (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

But...isn't it better The Wings??? 79.41.172.109 (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

They were NEVER "The Wings". Just "Wings". AyaK (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

box

shouldnt a box be created for wings? they are popularenough for one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.80.126 (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Thanks to those of you who executed it. -- AyaK (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Image

It's nice to have a picture in this article, but I wonder if we can come up with something besides the Band on the Run cover since it includes a bunch of people who were not members of the band. Jgm 13:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I thought the same thing and uploaded the current one without actually having read this. - Vague Rant 10:30, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, this is much better, thanks. Jgm 17:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's against policy to use an album cover for a biography image. However, this won't let me change it, and I have a publicity photo that would make more sense. FotoPhest (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many different pictures have been used as the lead image since the Band on the Run cover was there, including the Wild Life cover. But you're right to point out that using an album cover is only "fair use" for the album entry, not for the group entry, and so should not be done. -- AyaK (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Holley / Holly

My sources spell the drummer's name "Holly" (Gary McGee, Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings, 2003). This article has flopped back and forth between "Holly" and "Holley". Which is it? — John Cardinal (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky question, as there are sources that spell his name both ways. I suppose it could go either way, though it would be nice to know what's correct and what's not. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

On his solo album, he used "Holley", so I've respected his choice in the article. No idea which is technically correct. -- AyaK (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Both "Holly" and "Holley" are used in this article. Can we pick one? -- GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the article only used "Holley" for Steve Holley. That's all I saw when I just scanned the article. If any of you see any use of "Holly" for him, please correct it. -- AyaK (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Wings were not a pop band... They were playing rock and soft rock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Even 'Silly Love Songs'? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Of course Wings played pop/rock. Heck, McCartney was just awarded the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song, and there is nothing more "pop" than that. As McCartney said in "Silly Love Songs", what's wrong with that? -- AyaK (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I always feel that the banality of 'Silly Loves Songs' answers it's own question. But anyway, is this possibly the result of another fact being unsourced? Really, it doesn't matter if you or I would categorise Wings as pop/rock, that'd be OR. As with everything, we gotta go to the reliable sources. [NB: If the Gerwshwin Prize was offered to McCartney, that wouldn't meant that Wings was pop. McCartney may have done pop outside of Wings, and it may have been that pop for which he was awarded the Prize.]203.45.146.36 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence:

There is a sentence that I think is a little misleading; it reads:

"Unlike other post-Beatles projects such as the Plastic Ono Band, Wings were more than just a backing band for an ex-Beatle."

It's not clear whether, in this regards, Wings is unlike some other post-Beatles projects, or all other post-Beatles projects. The latter, I would think, is clearly wrong. The Travelling Wilbury's would be the most obvious example of a post-Beatles band being more than just a backing band for an ex-Beatle (Ringo Starr and His All-Star band is also more than just a backing band for Rich, at least inasmuch as Wings is more than a backing band for Paul). Should we chuck in 'some' before 'other'? And if we did, would that make the sentence almost trite and trivial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree in part. I think the reference should be to projects immediately after the group broke up, to remove the ambiguity, and I'm going to make such a change. -- AyaK (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's a very good option. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, doesn't Plastic Ono Band satisfy the given requirements of being more than just a backing band for an ex-Beatle? Lead vocals and song-writing duties were shared between John and Yoko. Depsite how people might like to forget it (and fair enough!), the Yoko Ono band did Yoko's album as well. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than the 1969 Toronto performance, the Plastic Ono Band were just Lennon's session musicians for a particular album. Neither Lennon nor any of the other "members" thought of it as more than a session gig. That's why the drummers changed from Alan White to Ringo Starr to Jim Keltner to Keith Moon in so-called "Plastic Ono Band" releases. It was just a duo with backing musicians, not a band, which is why Lennon called the Plastic Ono Band a "conceptual supergroup." Yes, the same band recorded John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band, but that's just because they were both recorded at the same sessions. -- AyaK (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All of which is interesting, but is not related to the criteria given by the article for being more than a backing band for an ex-Beatle. The page says that the criteria are lead vocals and song-writing duties being shared amongst more than one member. Specifically, the article doesn't include in the criteria whether the members thought it was a band. Further, the fact that the line-up changed shouldn't really be an indicator that it wasn't a band, in that the line-up in Wings famously changed a lot too. But anyway, line-up changes, claims about being a 'conceptual supergroup' (even if that's not a type of band, which is hardly clear), and length of existence (one group of sesssions or not) aren't given as criteria in the article, so the article is wrong to say that Wings was the only 70's band that was more than a backing band for an ex-Beatle (in the way that 'more than a backing band for an ex-Beatle' is defined in the article). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice the sentence isn't sourced (reliably or not). That in itself cause for concern. Sounds like OR, if it's not sourced. Which may in fact be the reason the info is so dubious. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Top bands of the 1970s

A while back, a book was published which contained a list, determined by sales figures and documented radio play, of the top 10 most popular bands of the 1970s. Wings was at #2; I remember this because sometime in 2002-04 I won a half dozen singles from a radio station by correctly guessing that Wings was one of the acts on this top 10 list. Anybody know what this book was? I can't remember the details, but it was clearly a reliable enough publication to merit a mention in the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It may have been The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn. It lists the top artists by decade and ranks Paul McCartney at number two for the 1970s. Piriczki (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin

How did the McCartneys get together with Laine ? Did they already know each other ? Were the McCs looking for a guitarist ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In 1971 McCartney decided to form a new group and asked drummer Denny Seiwell and guitarist Hugh McCracken, both of whom had played on Ram, to join. Seiwell accepted but McCracken declined so McCartney invited Denny Laine, who he had known since the early '60s, to join. Piriczki (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)