Fresh Question #30: Band or Solo

[Nightwing]

Where are the fans at!! There??! Okay good! Hello!!!! I mean, hello. It's new Fresh Question time, so if I haven't made you deaf just yet, feel free to dig in.

The only thing I look for in music is if the musician is trying to share something about life with me. "What do I get from this?" Personally, I find that sometimes happens better with solo artists instead of with bands or groups. But that's just me. So with that said:

Which do you like better, bands or solo artists??

[Mynd Hed]

Well, I think everyone's going to say it, but I have to as well: I'll listen to whatever's good.

That said, I think that a really good band has the potential to be better than a really good solo artist. I'm of the school of thought that feels that collaboration is one of the most powerful tools at any artist's disposal, and all a band is, is one big musical collaboration spanning many years, many albums, many concerts.
I love to see how the different band members push and pull off of each other to (hopefully) create something that no one of them could possibly have created on their own. Sure, sometimes "too many chefs ruins the soup," but in most cases I think the more talent a band has to draw from, the better.
Of course, bands have their down side, too. We can all think of a time when there's been a great band we love, but it has that ONE weak-link member who just isn't quite up to the talent level of the rest of the band.
There are also instances when one member seems to seize total creative control of the band. This can have some very good results (think Roger Waters' Pink Floyd) but I think it's never as good as what the band COULD have come up with if everyone had had a little more input into the direction the band takes.

I also find it interesting to follow one person's career as they move from band to band and project to project, seeing what they can do when paired up with different people in different environments. Audioslave is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, Dan the Automater's career being another.

[Good Ol' Batmanuel!]

Well, bands and solo artists both have bands, so... (I dig. I just found it a somewhat funny question) Actually, I first thought of guys like Joe Satriani and Steve Vai, who are both solo artists, but have awesome bands! So, unless it's a true accapella group or something, I guess I like them equally!

[James]

Musically, I prefer bands, I think there is a better balance and quality when you have a vision shared. When one controls the whole outfit and production I think it can get a little self absorbed and away from any real message.

Of all the people I have enjoyed who have done bands and solo work, with the exception of Bowie, I think I have prefered the group efforts - and that goes for the message behind the song too.. I refer to Pixies/Frank Black, Throwing Muses/Kirsten Hersh, Belly/Tanya Donnelly, Blur/Graham Coxon... I found the messages 'shared' which I have embraced have normally come from group projects...

That said, I find the work of Aimee Mann and Bowie often deeply touching, but I think that's more to do with style than whether they are solo or groups. In the end, most groups songs are written by one member, in the end it comes down to how you prefer the message to be conveyed. I think it comes down to performance rather than one form offereing a more expressive delivery.

[Magentabeams]

I like band better. I would say solo but, alot of solo artist don't write their own songs and atleast play one instrument.

Sarahanne

[HelloKittyKat]

It makes absolutely no difference to me. Why should it ?

[Barb Gordon]

Well I think that overall I prefer band. Sure there will be some particular singers I like, but in general bands are the best. There's just something about the fact that they play instruments and/or sing that's so much more interesting. I'm not really interested in people like Spears or N*Sync and the like because all they do is sing, nothing else. There's almost no emphasis on the fact that they have a band in the back as well. A band with one main singer is cool, like The Calling or something. Most bands have one or two main singers, but they normally play instruments as well and the whole group is shown and they all matter. Not just one person is the one on the page getting all the glory because others are doing hard work too and without them there wouldn't even be a song.

~Barb

[G. Wen]

Both are capable of creating great music, so I like both.

[Mynd Hed]

I agree that acts where all the person does is sing and get other people to write their songs and play instruments at their live shows is lame. However there are also some good solo acts like Moby where one person will write the songs, play most of the instruments, do a some of the vocals, and mx the whole thing by his- or herself. I think that's VERY respectable and almost always makes for better music than acts like Spears or Nsync.

[electricsheep]

Whatever strikes a chord with me, no matter the genre, I'll listen to. Whether it be a solo artist or band. It makes no difference.

Writing, musical ability, and creativity are what makes good music. Solo or band, it's the talent that counts and I can't say I prefer one over the other...

[HelloKittyKat]

This would've been a better question if we were talking about people from bands who became solo artists

[cross blues]

a lot of artists who become solo after being in a group sound just like the group. If a band wrote their own songs, the solo artist probably would continue that. If other people wrote the songs, I think that would continue as well. justin and especially jc from nsync are horrible as solo artists. they are nothing without the group. for kelly (dc) I think the solo career is better since she has the best voice of the group. chris cornell sounds a lot like soundgarden, but obviously not as good. but like a lot of people were saying, I listen to whatever's good.

[ZorBrak]

BANDS. I mean just look at all the solo artists that are SOOO arrogant.