Solo albums....good idea or not?

JerryHandbag

Just wondering what peoples opinions are on this.....band members releasing solo albums. Now I'm not talking about leaving a band and turning to a solo career as such (a la John Lennon or Richard Ashcroft), I'm more talking about the Thom Yorkes of this world....band on hiatus, time to release my long awaited solo album.

What put it in my head was reading this week that Kele from Bloc Party is releasing one soon, and he says its gonna be very electronic, and I thought, well wasnt Bloc Partys last album very electronic too....is it gonna be that different?? In other words whats the point!!??

I listened to Julian Casablancas effort there the other day and wasnt very impressed, although his bandmate Albert Hammond jr released a fine solo album a few years ago. We will no doubt see Noel Gallaghers first solo album soon (and maybe one from Liam too as a retaliation )

My point is, if a guy (or gal) is gonna do a solo album, it should be a TOTAL departure from their bands sound, for example James Dean Bradfields solo record, if you never knew he released one and heard it on the radio, you would just presume its a new Manics song or something....I must admit I really like the idea of Paul Banks (Interpol) releasing his version under a different name, Julian Plenti, and apart from 2 or 3 tracks its much different that your typical Interpol sound.

So are these a good idea? Or just band members getting bored and indulging themselves...

Waterloo Sunset

They always concern me a little bit. It often makes me wonder if the artist in question doesn't enjoy an aspect of the band they're in or the music they're doing in the band.

Sometimes it seems to change something indefinable in the band, and they're never quite the same after

loveissucide

JerryHandbag wrote: »

So are these a good idea? Or just band members getting bored and indulging themselves...

It depends. They sometimes become a source of creative rejuvenation from having worked in a different environment(Radiohead after Yorke and Greenwood did solo work which further explored various aspects of Radiohead's sound, Super Furry Animals after Gruff Rhys managed to experiment with his songwriting on solo records), and with a different set of expectations. Other times they mark the beginning of the end(Blur after Graham Coxon began to work on solo material, The Strokes), as various creative elements start to outgrow the band from which they came. I personally would view them as being a good thing on the grounds of making it possible to create completely different work with a different set of expectations.

loyatemu

Gruff Rhys' (Super Furry Animals frontman) two solo albums are excellent, as is his Neon Neon side-project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyuhOUQs_-I

JerryHandbag

loyatemu wrote: »

Gruff Rhys' (Super Furry Animals frontman) two solo albums are excellent, as is his Neon Neon side-project.

Wasn't aware he released solo albums....its hard to keep up!! Was just listening to Neon Neon this evening, brilliant record although I think I read somewhere that its a once-off, they wont be doing another one which is a great shame.

loveissucide

And it coincided nicely with SFAs return to form with Hey Venus and Dark Days/Light Years.:)

nommm

They're a good idea. It gives them an oppurtunity that they probably wouldn't make with their own band.

_sparkie_

i know it wasnt a solo album but it was a departure. look at ben gibbard from 'death cab for cutie' and the work he did with 'the postal service'. i think it is one of the best albums of the last 10 years and it was so different from anything death cab were into at that time. so no, i dont think they are all a waste of time. as long as the artist is doing to album for the right reason and not just to get back at the band after breaking up or looking for a way to spend some time while the band is on a break.

FewFew

It's usually a good idea. The only time I think it's a bad idea is when it's a largely uncreative band member just trying to cash in on his/her band's fame.
Most bands are either a collaborative effort or there is a lead songwriter or songwriters. If it's a collaborative effort it's about valuing other opinions and respecting your bandmates. Sometimes things don't go the way you want or sometimes the songs don't reflect your feelings, rather they're an amalgamation, a representation of the band. In this case an artist may want to create something more personal.

If the band follows a main songwriter then other band members can have a potential that isn't fully tapped. You see it all the time, when a band member really likes another genre of music but the band aren't going to drop their electro ways just to make a reggae album to satisfy the drummer etc.

So, really... if it's ****e then it's a bad idea, if it's good then it's a good idea. What kills me is when some mediocre tripe gets hailed as genius just because the artist comes from an excellent band.

If the solo artist values the band enough then he won't let his solo work jeopardize the band. If he/her starts neglecting the band then he/she obviously wasn't very happy where they were.

Kold

A band is a collaborative effort whilst when it's just yourself you have full control over the music you're making. Don't see what could be bad about that.

The Eraser was a savage album and it sounds nothing like Radiohead.

jill_valentine

On the one hand, yeah, having free rein must be a nice novelty for somebody used to working as part of a group, but on the other hand, it can tilt towards indulgence without a few other strong personalities to temper an ego - Billy Corgan, good God, Billy Corgan. Somebody once argued to me that Darcy Wretzky was the most valuable non-Billy pumpkin, if only because she was so freaking difficult to work with that it generated a few creative sparks. I think having a few rabbling voices can generate some interesting ideas, and occasionally, prune out some of the really stupid ones before they get too far. Forty three minute harp jams FTW!

Was reading an interview with Win Butler a while back, somebody asked him if he'd ever go solo. His response was to the effect that making music on his own wouldn't interest him one bit. He couldn't imagine that he'd ever make anything better on his own than they do as a group without a bit of friendly creative conflict to drive it forward. For him, the whole point of music is that it's a collaborative process, rather than just a thing to be made and done with. Then again, he is married to one of his bandmates and related to another, so I suppose he sort of has to say that.

But then again....Thom Yorke's solo album, as noted, is great. Emily Haines and Jenny Lewis' solo albums are significantly better than their band output, IMHO. I know there's a few other examples, but all have deserted me for now.

I think it's worth trying at least - if not, necessarily, releasing.

rcaz

I think solo albums sorta sort out the wheat from the chaff. They let you see who's really for their love of making and ability to make art, and who's just along for a ride with a band.

Kold

Oh, has anyone mentioned Morrisey? God his solo work makes him that much more punchable.

Blackpitts

i think that releasing solos is a very good idea, it helps the artists to get rid of that creative tension coming from the compromises with other member of the band. Usually this tension is the main reason of bands breaking up, so a little bit of experiments on our own can only do good to all of them.
I'm a huge fan of radiohead and interpol and I LOVE both solo albums by Thom Yorke and Paul Banks.

Spiritoftheseventies

Never went mad for Morrisseys solo stuff to be honest. Last of famous International playboys and Suedehead were two notable exceptions but overall he worked better in the smiths.
Ian Brown I would think is someone who has carved out a decent enough solo career for himself.