Paul McCartney & Wings - Wings At The Speed Of Sound (Full Album) 

What about the guitar solo ?

fantastic change of tone at 34:59

To me that song is total album filler - but if someone else loves it all good.

"Time to Hide" is my favorite. Personally I find "Wino Junko" to be a weak rewrite of the much superior "Medicine Jar" from Wings previous album "Venus and Mars."

I love " Wino Junko". I never considered it to be 'filler'. But then, I'm a Beatle "junkie". Lol.

me too

One of my favorites too.

Geez Walker, that's a big call. :) I agree though that some of Macca's albums sound better now than they did at the time, simply because they had strong melodies and people appreciate his craftsmanship more because we rarely hear pop songs with really great melodies nowadays.

Over the years of listening to music some of the best songs told a story. Richard Marx's song 'Hazard', Warrant's 'Uncle Tom's Cabin', Band on the Run by Wings, and there're a few more, but those songs change the music industry, and to be honest I haven't heard any in the past ten years that tell me a story but yet still sound like a unique and well written musical masterpiece. Who knows maybe someone will again one day soon. McCartney had a talent much like John Lennon that gave the Beatles a team coupled with Harrison and Ringo who could take songs and make them special. alone all four did just that over the years. Anyhow I am rambling. I want something similar now that once rushed through the 70's and 80's...soul, pure and simple. The words meant something special.

I love bands that can tell a story and still make the song sound great. Warrant did it with Uncle Tom's Cabin, Rush with Tom Sawyer, Richard Marx with Hazard, and to be honest there are several more. To me a great story told from song to song on an album is a treasure. One song is great, an album is awesome.

Coming in June I have heard and Venus and Mars! I also can't wait until Wild Life/Red Rose Speedway and London Town/Back To The Egg get the McCartney Archive Collection treatment!

It all sounds so unnecessarily critical. I can take the greatest of bands or albums and find something not to like about it --- or mention something's that it does not have --- and make it look like a failure. I consider any band or artist to be close to a great band if they can produce either 6 very outstanding songs that made the radio or 10 - 12 overall great songs off their albums if they are not a pop/radio act. In my opinion, McCartney from his albums in the 1970's alone, has at least 40 GREAT SONGS! He and his song writing amazes me.

It is not so critical when cushioned by the fact that at one time previous, Paul was in a band that produced next to no filler. Add to this that he came bounding out of the Beatles bragging to the world that he was going to create music that would 'put the world on its ear'. Didn't happen. Then in 1973, he was asked why he didn't produce more songs like 'Hey Jude' and 'Yesterday'. He replied along the lines that since he is already selling well as it is there seemed little point in working so hard. I love Paul!! But I am considering him objectively while you appear to be doing so subjectively.

hungfao It takes a lot of chutzpah for you to claim objectivity in the world of music and relegate mine to pure subjectivity just because I like his music more than you do. It’s obvious music critics want to make John the hero because it makes them look more cool, not unlike how they fawn over anything avante garde no matter how grating their actual music may sound, as in punk, for example. I hate the word “filler” by the way, because it’s a cheap way to dismiss what most do not even know. Most great songs take many listens to even know what you have there and the critics never do. I maintain Paul has way more “great songs” “beautiful songs” than John and I love John. And way, way more than you or his critics dare give him credit for. You want a list, just from the seventies?

It sounds like you have other is many other issues to deal. No one even mentioned John and I wasn't making a comparison between the two. I could, but then that falters into subjectivity, like you do. I am taking Paul's entire body of work alone. I stand by my previous comments. That you 'like' his music better than myself or anyone, for that matter, makes you approach from the subjective. As far as chutzpah?? I guess that I have been around since before the Beatles, own practically everything Paul has done (including numerous bootlegs), write my own music quite successfully and have played in well-reviewed bands in my time may possibly give me a bit of a gloss. That you would maintain that Paul wrote way more 'great' or 'beautiful' songs is, frankly, rather heartless and short-sighted anyway since John's career was ended in 1980. Or maybe you didn't consider that in your obviously emotional response.

hungfao Ok, here is one difference. You weigh lyrics far more than I do as to what makes a song great. I recall one critic calling Morse Moose one of the worst songs he’s ever heard and then went on to explain that the lyrics were ridiculous. Meanwhile, I always loved the song and hardly ever considered what he was saying as all that important. The odious critics have always been incessantly harsh upon McCartney and I have my reasons for resenting their snobbishness. Go to Wikipedia, entry “Wings at the speed of sound.” Here is a quote: [ Around the time of the studio sessions, McCartney was facing criticism for Wings simply being a vehicle for himself. He encouraged each of the band members to contribute a song during the sessions, though this would become one of the reasons for the criticism of the album.] There you have it. Paul cannot win with the critics and with a public who thinks to highly of their own biased opinions. They hear “My Love” and “Silly Love Songs” and they think they have McCartney’s body of work all sized up. Wrong! I also take issue with you looking for the bad songs and using that against him more than considering the high volume of excellent musical compositions. There are less than 5 or 10 bands in rock history that can stand up to criticism if they are judged primarily on the number of bad songs critics can find on their entire music catalog. I can tell you Led Zeppelin sucks under that criteria, and surely the Stones and many others. I reiterate, McCartney amazes me how many great songs he wrote and recorded.

Get Firefox and one or 2 or their extensions, you can download it ,, ;)

***** That is brilliant news, George. Wife is overjoyed and I'll probably be in her good books for the rest of the year ~ well, perhaps, until bedtime anyway ,,, :-) Thanks again mate.

Don't you just love it when people pretend to know something they don't.