Bands vs. Solo Artists

A simplistic binary opposition that doesn't really work for classical music (and jazz is a special case as well). But when it comes to most other types of music, my favourite acts are almost systematically bands. Part of me cannot help but irrationally suspect solo artists of narcissism, which is one of the 'aesthetic' traits I am drawn to the least.

Not even close. IMO although there are many good, great, and excellent albums out there credited to solo artists, the highest highs in music are generally really only achievable through musicians collaborating together and playing in ensemble.

Not even close. IMO although there are many good, great, and excellent albums out there credited to solo artists, the highest highs in music are generally really only achievable through musicians collaborating together and playing in ensemble.

Technology lol

For rock music, I guess mainly bands (though with some key exceptions). For pop/r&b, solo artists rather than groups. Also, how do you count "bands" like the Fall or Red Krayola, which take shape around a particular artist (who does most the songwriting etc.), and have had many lineup changes over the years?

Yeah, that's a tricky case scenario.

(not trying to punch holes in the premise, those just happen to be two of my favorites!)

I listen to a lot electronic music and rap and soul and R&B and jazz, and don't really listen to rock, so solo artists beat bands easily.

And of course jazz and soul especially have bands playing behind the solo artist, which are just as important as the leader, but I don't care about them always having the same musicians or being otherwise cohesive units as long as they play well together.

Jazz is 'band-like' in that each musician's contribution is audibly essential to the whole. Even with stronger jazz personalities, I almost never get the sense that it's just The Miles Show, or whatever, whereas plenty of solo pop artists elicit that reaction from me.

xp

Not even close. IMO although there are many good, great, and excellent albums out there credited to bands, the highest highs in music are generally really only achievable through a single musician pursuing their unique creative path, freed from the need to compromise their vision that inevitably comes with collaboration.

^^^ relevant dn.

This is a tricky one. When I was a teenager, maybe into my early 20's, I think the idea of a band was more important to me than the actual collusion of musical personalities. Give me a cute, non-descriptive name, or a studio construction that emulates (or at least refers to) the sound of an ensemble... and that might even have been preferable to an actual band if that makes sense.
Ultimately, I think *real* ensembles were regarded a little suspect, then. If they we're actually playing together in a room, it was old-timey music. I wanted to sense that I was listening to a construction and not a real-time performance. Call it "Arthur Russell" and you would have lost me. If the name is colorless and boring, the music might be too...

I'm far removed from that now, of course. If anything, calling it the guy's real name makes me think "this might be serious music" and calling it something cute makes me think "this might be more for kids." I value the organic collusion of musicians playing together in a room- the drummer is often my favorite player. I also really love solo performers in the true sense of being unaccompanied etc. Would say I gravitate more to one-off "projects", whether solo or collaborative, over artists or bands

I VOTED

Dang, I would have initially thought solo artists because I don't really care about rock bands, but when instruments are played it turns out bands are the way to go. Even in jazz, it usually works out better when there's a working band with an identity and a lifespan longer than the studio date (like the Jazz Messengers, various Miles bands, the Bad Plus, Robert Glasper Trio, Ellington, brass bands, even John Zorn groups where he's the auteur but the personnel are consistent {even if it's only a studio band}).

Electronic music is the solo human's domain though, there's a definite divide there and that's the great thing about it. I'm abstaining.

Electronic music is the solo human's domain

I thought the same thing at first but how could I ever do without Kraftwerk, Tangerine Dream, Autechre, Underworld, Boards of Canada, Orbital, etc.

Multiple instruments are better than one instrument. Bands win.

Bands underneath the iron unbending will of a demonic, single-minded bastard of a leader

I'll take that as a confession.

Sometimes one of the other members gets to write a song and we all tolerate it

Sometimes a song comes about through natural collaboration and consensus and sometimes that song is even half-decent

Even with my favorite solo artists, the stuff that I treasure the most as their best/my favorite work usually still involves a key band or group of musical collaborators. Hard to think of a solo artist whose work I love regardless of who theyre working with. So, bands I guess.

The best solo artists, the real "demonic, single-minded bastards", are their own band, and operate as such. Todd Rundgren is his own band. Haruomi Hosono is a band. Scott Walker is a band. So, bands.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.