Review: Paul McCartney’s New Documentary, ‘Man On The Run’ – The Story Of Wings
While I remain way behind on posting about recent rock n roll developments due to a brief vacation with the Rock Chick (at least I’ve got the U2’s new EP review up), I paused in catching up to watch Paul McCartney’s new documentary/rockumentary about his early solo career last night. There is a bunch of never-shared-before home movies and footage. Quite frankly I thought it was a great watch for any McCartney fan, Beatles fan or hell, just any fan of 70s rock n roll.
The documentary covers the span of time from when the Beatles finally, publicly split up to McCartney’s early solo career and eventually to the formation of Wings. It runs through the 70s up until the assassination of John Lennon in ’80 which was one of the most senseless acts in history. In essence the rockumentary shows us McCartney’s 70s (1970 to 1980) which up until his amazing “comeback” with Flaming Pie in 1997, was his strongest/most popular era. The 80s were tough on many rock n rollers who made comebacks in the 90s.
It was John Lennon who actually broke up the Beatles by announcing he was leaving (let’s not jump to blaming Yoko). McCartney bears his soul in this doc and admits he was rocked by the end of the Beatles. He decamped with Linda and the kids up to his farm in Scotland where he was drowning himself in whisky. I think it was Linda who pushed him to record something. The result was the first “lo-fi” record, Paul’s solo debut, McCartney. We do so love our solo debuts around here.
McCartney was convinced by his brother-in-law, who was also his attorney, to sue the other Beatles and the evil Allen Klein. Paul knew this would be suicide with the fans – he even says, “The other Beatles will hate me, the press will hate me, the fans will hate me, even I will hate me.” He was right, the backlash from the suit really hurt him especially with critics. It’s hard to say it’s over when you’re in the biggest band the world had ever seen.
After McCartney, which the critics and his former bandmates slagged, Paul put out the masterpiece Ram, credited to Paul & Linda McCartney and it was slagged as well. This was all against the backdrop of Lennon writing scathing songs about him like “How Do You Sleep?”
I think of all the Beatles, Paul took the break up the hardest. He was the most invested in being in the band. John and George had become disenchanted. And Ringo, well, he was working on a budding acting career as a fall back. When they broke up, which he’d never expected he was pretty shattered. The ire of his ex bandmates wasn’t helping.
He longed for those early days when they were just a young rock band and it was fun. Who amongst us hasn’t harkened back to a happier time and maybe pushed too hard to recapture that feeling. Anyway, he decided to form a band – supposedly a band of equals – and the result was Wings. Linda was his first recruit followed by Denny Laine.
The documentary takes us through the first few Wings records, which were up and down. It’s hard to form a band of equals when you’ve got an ex-Beatle in the band. There were a number of personnel changes and we track through those. It wasn’t until Band On The Run came out that McCartney had a certified hit on his hands. Even Lennon was complimentary.
I will say, as an aside, watching this documentary made me realize where the whole mullet haircut came from. So if any photos of me in college surface, yes, sporting my briefly worn mullet (suggested by the lady who cut my hair at the time), blame McCartney who sported many different mullets. What a bad era for hair.
We follow McCartney through the second half of the 70s when he was dominating the charts. We see a lot of footage of his first world tour. He had a lot of trouble with Japan and his pot consumption, including being jailed in late 70s.
There are some great guest commentators. Obviously Paul and Linda and Denny Laine all have parts in the telling of the story. Mick Jagger contributes a few comments. I thought it was really great that Sean Ono Lennon, John’s second son, comments about not only the break up but Paul’s reaction to John’s murder. Sean seems to get how McCartney thinks and feels.
I think Paul might have been more rocked by the death of John than even the dissolution of the Beatles. It certainly knocked his solo career off the solid trajectory it was on prior. After 1982’s Tug Of War, produced by George Martin and largely about John, and 1983’s Pipe’s Of Peace, McCartney’s solo career went off the rails. I’ve always speculated that it was because he was so deeply scarred by losing John…
It is a blessing they reconciled before John’s death. John was even occasionally complimentary of Paul’s records. Well, when he wasn’t saying things like, “All he writes are silly love songs,” which of course inspired Paul to write “Silly Love Songs,” which was a number 1 hit. They needed each other to spar off of.
He broke up Wings after John’s death and went solo again, like he was on those first two early albums. Paul can do more in the studio by himself than someone surrounded with other guys… unless those guys are John, George and Ringo.
This was a really nice time capsule taking us back to those early, raucous days of McCartney’s solo career. They really do a nice job here telling his and Linda’s story but also the story of Wings. I always liked the version of the band with Jimmy McCulloch (guitar) and Joe English (drums). I highly recommend watching this one with a glass of dark and murky fluid! Perhaps a nice Scotch whisky like Paul used to drink.
Cheers!
I was never a huge fan… I remember seeing yellow submarine at my local theater in the early 70’s (in way western KS). I think I enjoyed it (I was more interested in Pam Jacobs). Shortly thereafter bought the Lonely Hearts Club Album… I recall absolutely loving the intro to that song… but disappointed with the rest of the album. My neighbor who was 4 years older re-introduced me to pot And the white album… I spent all my money on it… I even played it backwards… but mostly enjoyed it for its weirdness.
You’ve convinced me to watch Man on the Run. I’m gonna need to come full circle on this story.
I’m beginning to wonder why I never met this famous Pam… I tried to play ‘Sgt Peppers’ for my daughter when she was a kid… all the primary colors on the album cover made me think kids would like it. I was wrong. I guess I should have tried ‘The White Album’! I do love how weird the Beatles got on that record. With McCartney I’ve been in and out on him but overall I’d say I’m fan. I really dug this doc tho! Stirred up a lot of nostalgia in me. Enjoy it with whisky, my friend!
I will indeed… thank you for your suggestion … any particular brand of whisky? I’ve been on this Suntory Whisky Toki lately.
I’ve always been a bourbon man but of late I’ve been convinced to try some Scotch. I tried Macallan 12 and I have to admit, it was divine. I think it cost the guy who had the bottle quite a bit as he gave me only the smallest taste… but I’m looking to pick up a bottle soon!!
In regards to Wings, I’ve been recently thinking about the whole concept of “famous(ish) musician attempts to form a ‘band of equals’, with mixed success”. It’s when the famous person/nominal head attempts to kill their ego by being “just another guy in the band” and is OK letting the drummer field the questions in the interview when the interviewer really wants to talk to them instead. There are some good examples of this.
Another music blog recently brought up Utopia, Todd Rundgren’s side project to show off his proggy side that eventually evolved into a “democratic” band where each member was theoretically equal. This eventually led to the clause that every member would sing lead on their songs. Most people got into or cared about Utopia because it was “Todd’s band”, so I’m sure hearing Kasim Sulton singing lead was not appreciated by most.
Tin Machine, the band put together by Bowie after his “Phil Collins” 80’s period, is another great example of this. I doubt most folks would have cared about this band if someone other than Bowie was singing, but he did his best to put it forward as a collection of equals. Of course, both of these examples happened after each lead had a substantial solo career, whereas McCartney did it only after a couple albums because he really craved that “just a guy in the band” security.
Tin Machine was the first band I thought of when I started reading your comment! I think with Paul it was more fundamental – he wanted to go back to the early days of the Beatles which was obviously impossible without a time machine – so he formed a new band to reexperience those early days where he wasn’t fettered by that Beatles’ fame.
I wonder if the same principle applies to guys who form “super groups.” Probably not as those type bands are reliant on bringing folks in based on their previous fame with other bands or on their own. Something to think about I suppose. Cheers!
Supergroups are an interesting concept in general, as there’s so many levels to it. There’s supergroups that consist of people who are leaving another band, or consist of people that have had a solo career, and sometimes it’s a mix of two. (Bad English is an example of the mix, with people who were just in another band (Journey) and a guy who had a semi-popular band a decade earlier, then had an established solo career (Jon Waite.)) And then there’s the vanity project supergroup, where someone with a negligible music career (if any) figures the sure-fire way to rock stardom is to form a band with the big guys (Johnny Depp’s relation to the Hollywood Vampires comes to mind.) Perhaps the supergroup with members who’ve gone solo may follow my theory above.
I think the main reason why musicians form supergroups is the usually-proved-wrong theory that if we got all the greatest people from the greatest bands together, it will become the greatest band ever with the greatest songs. Of course, bands are not always the sum of their parts, and while a new supergroup may generate a bit of excitement and buzz at first, most often than not they don’t pan out. The “successful supergroup” is a rare exception, and I’d wager that most musicians going into one hope that the outcome will be more Traveling Wilburys (a rare “good” supergroup, though I doubt anyone prefers this band’s material over the solo member’s own stuff) than GTR, who is now more known for their three LETTER J.D. Considine review than their actual music.
Another thing that I find interesting about supergroups is how some were considered such at the time of their formation but that moniker is all-but-forgotten about now. Bad Company is a great example: At the time it seemed like a big deal that their members came from Free, Mott the Hoople, and King Crimson, but none of those three had much impact on the US charts at the time and Bad Company definitely was more successful (but not as “cool”) than the three preceding bands.
One might also mention CSNY in a similar vein to Bad Co. The Byrds were pretty big, but Buffalo Springfield and the Hollies were certainly not as big as CSNY got. I don’t know if they were considered a super group at the time. I’m not sure I can name a supposed supergroup that actually delivered… maybe Asia? maybe Power Station. Interesting stuff!
CSN(Y) can definitely be considered a supergroup, and it’s a good case of one that was a) successful but b) people still know/like the bands that preceded it. But “success” is a low bar for a supergroup. I’d say the three factors into a successful supergroup is 1) It is still remembered, 2) It had a degree of success and 3) It managed to have a second album (if they were trying for it), especially if they retained all their key members.
Rule three is the hardest to achieve, as most of these supergroups are one-and-done. Power Station couldn’t even retain Robert Palmer that long after the recording sessions, going on tour with eternal rock relief pitcher Michael Des Barres. (I think they tried to do a second album but only got a few songs in with him.) CSNY did have a career, though albums are widely spaced, which I guess is a key to long-term supergroup success. Asia was successful to have multiple albums (though key members did depart), and I think is still going with Geoff Downes the only original member. Unfortunately Asia’s success may have gone to Steve Howe’s head and make him think he could have two successful supergroups with GTR (the less said the better.)
Bad Co. may have had been initially billed as a supergroup, but their long career and the prominence of their music on American classic rock radio has erased most of the band member’s prior achievements from the collective consciousness. Free is probably the “biggest” of the three constituent former bands because Paul Rodgers was the lead vocalist and “All Right Now” will be played at least twice a day on your local “Home of Rock and Roll” station. King Crimson only had one song stay in AOR rotation and there’s been so many members that anyone other than Robert Fripp is not considered important. Mott has a few radio songs and Mick Ralphs was indeed a key member, but now people only think about Ian Hunter when Mott comes up or know about Bowie’s involvement.
To end my long-winded Supergroups 101 lecture, if you haven’t already, I’d recommend checking out Ian Hunter’s 1974 book “Diary of a Rock’n’Roll Star”, a memoir of Mott’s 1972 US tour. Good stuff!
I’ll check it out, thanks for the recommendation!
Of course, CSN&Y was presented as a supergroup because they met all the criteria required to be called one. I should know, because I was a fan from the very beginning. And all four of them are a major part of the soundtrack of my life.
For me, Manassas was also a supergroup with Stephen Stills and Chris Hillman. The first Manassas double album is my number one double album of all times. Cheers K.
I love that first Manassas, double LP. I tracked it down on vinyl a few years ago and was very pleased to add it to my collection. I’d agree Manassas was a supergroup of sorts… I know Bill Wyman of the Stones wanted to join… that would have been interesting! Cheers!