Taking Sides: Isobel Campbell v. Linda McCartney

This is a tough one. I'm going to have to think about it.

i think a more telling comparison would be between linda and looper's wife. i saw looper live and she didn't do much and if she was responsible for the visuals then she is incredibly lazy.

I'm not sure either is deserving of critical respect. However, Linda inspired legions of vegetarians while Isobel brought hairslides back into fashion. Which leads us to... nowhere. Isobel seems to do more in her band, but I hate her solo albums and the democracy of B&S just make them so awful these days. They are/were both passengers .

concept of "passenger" = concept of those who fail entirely to grasp nature of group dynamics: groups don't just exist on-stage, after all, and may very well need foax in 'em whose role off-stage (buffers, bez-ism, blowjobz, whatever) is SO URGENT AND KEY that when they demand on-stage presence and action, this is granted w/o a thought.

>>> concept of "passenger" = concept of those who fail entirely to grasp nature of group dynamics

Sorry, I don't really agree. This is just wilful. Group Dynamics != Pop Group Dynamics. If what you say is true, then every band should have all their spouses, partners, best pals, kids, lawyers et al on stage with them, and the group would be a lot bigger than the audience.

They come on-stage because they want to be there, obviously- unlike most wives or lawyers or pets. BUT their role off-stage is so important that this desire as they express it is acceded to as being less toxic than their departure from the entire operation, or in fact non-toxic, OR indeed rationalised as being in itself desirable. All the most important relationships within a group are not entirely musical: if the musical ones don't adapt to this FACT OF LIFE, then they come a cropper. Which of course they often do.

(ps I make no judgment as to the qualities of the good ladies at the top of the thread in ref all this...)

Back to Mrs Looper, I'd disagree with her being a passenger (however defined) - the one time I saw the band I was really impressed with the visuals and thought they really added a lot to the whole experience.

What Mark S is describing = ... passengers.

Passengers who if you chucked over the side, the ship would immediate list over massively taking on water, and limp a few pitiful miles before hitting an iceberg just as the engineroom burst into flame. "Passengers" whose presence is essential for the thing to work w/o them actually contributing anything an outsider can here.

can here can't there/HEAR, dear dear, my dear, my my, hear hear.

Both of them are but mere amateurs in the irritation stakes when compared to the horror that is THE EVIL KATE RADLEY, SHE WHO IS CLEARLY EVIL AND MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After watching Wingspan, I learned that Linda actually made contributions when the songs were crafted (e.g, the reggae bit in "Live and Let Die") aside from providing vocals and wearing mismatched argyle socks.

Some argue that Linda's presence in Paul's music was a foundation for his sound, that her vocals and keyboards were integral and necessary. Some argue this. I don't.

So I'm guessing that Linda had more valid contributions to make than most ever really knew; She was the passenger who brought along the best mix tapes.

Regarding critical praise: "wild praire" should go head to head with Isobel's solo stuff and maybe then the truth shall be known.

As is noted by Catty in the above post, the music itself is (or ideally, probably should be) the final arbiter of a debate such as this. Whose presence in their respective band is most essential?

I think, in this case, the argument is most certainly bent in Linda's favour. Both she and Denny Laine have extremely nasal singing voices, and together, their harmonizing behind Paul's sonorous tenor provides a texture which is unmistakeably Wings-like, especially when combined with the famous Wings Minor Harmonies (tm). In addition to vocals, Linda added her (admittedly rudimentary) synth knowledge to the band, resulting in goofy filter trickery such as is present in entirely incongruous places, like on the end of the choruses of "Helen Wheels."[1] These things make up part of the bombast which is the sound of Wings, something which is unique and highly recognizable. Sure, Paul did plenty of weirdo synth in his day, and probably could have gotten some other nasally-voiced female to sing slightly off-key high harmonies (since that's exactly what he and JL did on the original "Across the Universe"), but Linda was the embodiment of both those qualities, conveniently located in the form of Paul's wife. In addition to this, the songs which she wrote for Wings were unique in that they were often noticeably different from the rest of the largely Paul-written body of work, in the same way that Denny's contributions make the albums complete.

Meanwhile, Isobel Campbell, while certainly having a bit more musical proficiency, continues to churn out highly unremarkable songs from any standpoint with B&S, and sings with a voice that could belong to any random 20-something female having had no vocal training. Her contributions could be anyone's; Linda's could not. Linda wins! Finish her!

[1] Speaking of which, if you can locate the "Helen Wheels" promotional video, not only can you see Linda doing the aforementioned knobtwiddling, but you can also see Paul, Linda, and Denny try to look their best while standing up in a speeding convertable to lip-synch and nearly falling out... twice.