Talk:Red Rose Speedway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original double album[edit]

There are varying accounts as to why the original double album was not released, from "Paul wisely decided to siphon off the extraneous material... and boil the sessions down to one highly commercial disc" (Shaffner, 1977) to "EMI was quick to quash" the double album (Rodriguez, 2010). I think the article needs a definitive account as to how and why the album came out as a single disc. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Record companies are typically wary of double albums from a sales standpoint whereas McCartney seems to have a low opinion of the album from an artistic standpoint. I think it would be inaccurate to imply that EMI rejected the album because it wasn't good enough. For one thing, the Beatles 1967 recording contract required EMI to release their recordings as submitted so any change would only be a suggestion, not an outright rejection. I found a few quotes that could possibly be worked into the article.

"After I heard Wild Life, which was Wings' first album, I thought: 'Hell. We have really blown it here.' And the next one after that, Red Rose Speedway, I couldn't stand." (Paul, 1977)

"Red Rose Speedway was such a non-confident record. There were some beautiful songs that would sound much better now... Originally the album was going to be a double as we had about 30 finished songs. But we had this manager at the time who kept yelling 'Now you want a single out' and all that rubbish. It was a terribly unsure period." (Linda, 1976)

"Paul got very nervous having to give everyone in the band a part to play. Sometimes he wouldn't want guitar on a track but Henry didn't like sitting around the studio. Because of that Paul started putting things on tracks on the Red Rose Speedway album just to keep everyone happy, things he normally wouldn't put on the track." (Linda, 1976)

Paul doesn't go any further with his comments on Red Rose Speedway so there's not much to go on there and it's unclear who "this manager at the time" was that Linda referred to. Probably Al Coury at Capitol Records. Piriczki (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you're saying. From the sources I've got, though, there's no doubt that EMI's opinion counted for a lot in the decision to go with a single LP. At the same time, I think it's only Rodriguez who pushes it out that far (hence, "The decision came about through EMI, however …")
I haven't yet looked in relevant books by Howard Sounes, Alan Clayson and Bob Woffinden, but here's what I've taken for the second half of that sentence ("in addition to believing that the material was not of a sufficiently high standard, the record company were [was?] mindful of the modest commercial performance of Wild Life and Wings' early singles"):
  • Peter Doggett, You Never Give Me Your Money: "EMI Records advised him not to release a proposed double album, Red Rose Speedway, because the material was substandard. McCartney must have been irked when Yoko Ono released her own two-record set on Apple."
  • Madinger & Easter, Eight Arms to Hold You: "Paul and Wings had recorded such an enormous amount of tracks that he wanted to issue a two-record set. However, EMI was less than thrilled with this idea, particularly after Wild Life had made such an unimpressive showing and the three singles that were issued in '72 did less than boffo business. The other reason was simply that not enough decent material was available for a solid double album …"
  • Bruce Spizer, The Beatles Solo on Apple Records: "[The double-album] idea was discouraged by EMI, which had experienced disappointing sales with Wild Life and the three Wings singles. Paul eventually settled for a single record LP, but not before preparing acetates of proposed double sets."
With that Paul quote from 1977: I'm always slightly wary of McCartney's recollections; of course they count, but he's incredibly inconsistent with his version of events. Aside from what the above sources say, I guess I find credibility in the extent of EMI's role (not rejection, but certainly a strong suggestion) because of the reports of Glyn Johns' frustrations – in Badman (quoting a contemporary statement from Johns), Clayson and especially Sounes, where there's a present-day interview with Johns. From those sources, I get a picture of McCartney procrastinating and being indecisive, yet not listening to Johns' opinion, and his bandmates failing to challenge or question him. So, to then read that EMI might have said to him late in 1972, "Look Paul, this double LP-thing just ain't gonna fly …", well, it does seem to tally.
As I'm sure you know, I'm a huge fan of Schaffner's book, but I cat help thinking his comment ("Paul wisely decided to siphon off the extraneous material"), while not incorrect, might be glossing over the issue slightly. Part of that Linda quote appears in Spizer, and I'd been thinking of setting it as a box quote under Recording – it's quite revealing. JG66 (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on Shaffner. The other sources are excellent. Sounes offers some insightful comments from Glyn Johns. Man on the Run by Tom Doyle has some quotes from McCartney on Speedway but again they are somewhat vague other than saying he didn't think he had "loads of top material." The Beatles Bible web site has some comments from Laine and McCullough in favor of the original double album but I don't know where they came from. Piriczki (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piriczki: Okay, so are you saying that you're okay with the current wording now? As mentioned, the opening phrase, "The decision came about through EMI", comes from Rodriguez. (His statement on the record-company involvement is the strongest: "But EMI was quick to quash the grandiosity of those plans, justifying their decision with an array of reasons including the commercial failure of John Lennon's most recent release.") I agree with you that the idea of EMI rejecting half of the tracks is pushing it, and in fact I'd say I've underplayed Rodriguez's contention by saying "came about through". But if you want, we could say "The decision came at the urging of EMI", maybe?
Re Johns: yes, good stuff in Sounes. Some of those comments definitely belong in the article. Spizer mentions Laine and McCullough's disappointment, giving their reasons, so I'll add that too. JG66 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current wording is OK with me. Reading through the Doyle book it seems very derivative of other books, especially Giuliano. Maybe not a recommended source. Piriczki (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Rose Speedway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Rose Speedway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red Rose Speedway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Rose_Speedway&oldid=1205026161"