Solo Artists VS Bands

[Benji]

This isn't a poll because I want actual opinions and conversation on this. A few weeks ago I spoke to Liam about this, but I just thought to question the uh... intelligent debate of EWB.

Bands make catchy songs, they make proper rock songs, but why is it that solo artists write songs that get closer to your feelings and inspire that gooey centre inside us all (even mudda, hard as he is )?

I personally think it's down to the creative process, in a band you're working towards a more rounded sound, something that all the members like which makes it catchy, you have to satisfy all the instruments and band members properly or someone will get pissy, so lyrics change (see "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for an example, that song went through more than a hundred variations until it got to the semi-grumbled Cobain version we know and love).

As a solo artist you have more freedom, so you can talk about emotion properly and generally an acoustic sound is far more endearing to the songs they sing (although as Chris Cornell among others has shown, you can still use full on band sounds but keep that solo artist sound).

What do you think? Is it down to creative freeom? Do you even agree with my original question? And yes I know their are exceptions, but I'm talking about as a general rule.

[Skummy]

I think it is down to creative freedom, and what the individual feels comfortable with, but a lot of it's down to record labels. Sometimes a label will want to sign a singer just as a solo artist, in which case they're given full creative control. That's more rare these days, though.

With a solo artist (and by that I mean Will Oldham, Damien Rice, Jeff Buckley, Damien Dempsey et al, rather than James Blunt and his ilk), you tend to hear the sound cultivated around the lyrics, and to sound exactly how they want it to. And, on a more personal level, lyrics that they feel more comfortable singing than they would in a band. It sounds weird, but that's often a factor.

Or maybe it's just because, historically, solo artists were always the ones recording that kind of emotive music, and that's kind of been cemented in the collective conscience of musicians the world over, and they find themselves pulled towards a band if they want to achieve one sound and a solo career for another.

It's a huge variety of factors, really, isn't it? Maybe it's just that solo artists tend to be more inclined to acoustic music than most bands, and that just naturally emphasises the voice, making the lyrics the forefront of the song?

If I had to choose between solo artists or bands, though, quite simply, I couldn't.

[VerbalPuke]

I'm not much for solo artists, but one theory could be that there is something a bit more intimate about a solo artist. It may be easier to feel a connection with a beautiful song written by one person, as opposed to a beautiful song written by a whole group, where your connection is not to one person but the whole group. I guess it's easier to feel a heartfelt connection to just one person, say a Sinatra, as opposed to a full blown rock group where the members are not as easily identifiable (with exceptions of course).

Of course, I could be talking out of my ass here. I'm not the greatest authority on this kind of subject, but this was the first idea that came to my mind.

[Ananas]

I'm not much for solo artists, but one theory could be that there is something a bit more intimate about a solo artist. It may be easier to feel a connection with a beautiful song written by one person, as opposed to a beautiful song written by a whole group, where your connection is not to one person but the whole group. I guess it's easier to feel a heartfelt connection to just one person, say a Sinatra, as opposed to a full blown rock group where the members are not as easily identifiable (with exceptions of course).

Of course, I could be talking out of my ass here. I'm not the greatest authority on this kind of subject, but this was the first idea that came to my mind.

[VerbalPuke]

I don't know if Sinatra was necessarily what Benji was getting at, but I think that considering the fact that he only interpreted songs (not wrote them), it was more his pitch perfect tones and powerhouse baritone voice that people were so drawn to. He also had an unpretentious, laid back approach to his song interpretation, which seperated him from some of the crooners of previous decades.

Honestly, I only used Sinatra because he was the first solo artist that came to my mind when typing that out.

[ChuBalso]

This isn't a poll because I want actual opinions and conversation on this. A few weeks ago I spoke to Liam about this, but I just thought to question the uh... intelligent debate of EWB.

Bands make catchy songs, they make proper rock songs, but why is it that solo artists write songs that get closer to your feelings and inspire that gooey centre inside us all (even mudda, hard as he is )?

I personally think it's down to the creative process, in a band you're working towards a more rounded sound, something that all the members like which makes it catchy, you have to satisfy all the instruments and band members properly or someone will get pissy, so lyrics change (see "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for an example, that song went through more than a hundred variations until it got to the semi-grumbled Cobain version we know and love).

As a solo artist you have more freedom, so you can talk about emotion properly and generally an acoustic sound is far more endearing to the songs they sing (although as Chris Cornell among others has shown, you can still use full on band sounds but keep that solo artist sound).

What do you think? Is it down to creative freeom? Do you even agree with my original question? And yes I know their are exceptions, but I'm talking about as a general rule.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I think that to a point, solo artists can have more freedom and go off on random albums and do a bit more as they feel...Of course that depends on their record label.