Artists with their bands or solo?!
Question: Examples being Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Lou Reed/The Velvet Underground etc..
Which do you usually prefer?
Please give examples and explain.
Thanks :)
Answers: Examples being Iggy Pop/The Stooges, Lou Reed/The Velvet Underground etc..
Which do you usually prefer?
Please give examples and explain.
Thanks :)
I usually prefer the band but like the solo stuff. Although I haven't heard anything by Lou Reed besides some of Transformer I can't imagine him topping the Velvet's stuff too easily.
Tim Armstrong's solo album was surprisingly good but I don't know about better than Rancid! It was really cool though that he really did just plain ska without punk, let some of the kids know what actual ska sounds like, I think a lot of people didn't know it was around in the 60's long before ska-punk.
Although, Jesse's band Common rider after Operation Ivy was probably at least just as good. Other than that I guess I basically always like the group better.
Edit:
I just saw you asked for examples so here's a lit of bands and subsequent solo projects I didn't like as much.
-Sex Pistols - PiL (Johnny Rotten)
-The 13th Floor Elevators - Roky Erickson (very honorable mention though)
-Buzzcocks - Pete Shelley
-The Beatles - all of 'em
-Alice Cooper - Alice Cooper
-The Yardbirds - I prefer them to all three of their famous guitarists later careers
-The Stooges - Iggy Pop (although he did great solo, and Lust For Life is as good as any Stooges album, it's hard to match the Stooges flawless catalouge)
-The Voidoids - Richard Hell (he only did a few tracks, some were good but not Voidoids good)
-Generation X - Billy Idol (the best example yet!)
-The Clash - Joe Strummer and Mick Jones various projects were interesting and occasionally great, but come on, it's the Clash!
-Black Sabbath - Ozzy Osbourne (comparable at points, but Sabbath has a more consistently awesome output)
Another tie though would be that between the New York Dolls, Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers, and just Johnny Thunders I couldn't tell you which was the best. And I hear one of the other members, had a good solo career.
Usually I prefer the band because when a member goes solo, they do something a little different from their band's work... And if I like the band, then going in a different direction probably is not better.
Example: Much as I love Frusciante and his awesome guitar hands, I prefer him with the Peppers... His solo stuff isn't bad, but it just isn't as good as the Peppers.
However, there is one exception to this for me. I do prefer Tim Armstrong's solo heavy ska/reggae album over Rancid. But I still LOVE Rancid.
I generally prefer the bands as a whole because that's what I usually get into first. But it all depends. I love motley crue but I am not crazy about Vince's solo stuff but I really dig Nikki's Brides of Destruction. I loved Jerry Cantrell both on his own and with AIC. I love Posion. I dig Bretts solo stuff and C.C's. I was OBSESSED with GnR. I hate anything that Axl has to do with now but I love Slash's snake pit.
I like that bands more because if they go solo that means they think they are better than everyone else that was in their band. The last person took all my examples so i have nothin for u besides those. sorry bout that. But it also is better in a group because if they are solo their fans worship the guy who is solo even tho the band helped him achieve his stardom.
The band for sure. I am a korn fan and am ready for the thumbs down that everyone gives on my opinion about them . I've liked them since the beginning, and always will despite their new album's HUGE disappointment. Their music is sooo true to life. It's like I lived the sh*t that he's talking about in most of the songs. Jonathan's solo stuff is all accoustic. I do like it, even though it's alot of the same songs, it's just not the same. , I was a huge SOAD fan, but I have to say that Serj's solo work is VERY disappointing.
I also usually prefer the band over the former band member gone solo artist, though there are some exceptions. And I also find myself in agreement with the reasons and examples that Circus Peanuts and svg7373 gave. It is usually the band as a whole and their music that draws me in, though when a member goes solo I usually try to give him/her a shot.
A lot of times you will also find that while a band attained renown, success and longevity while being together, the solo artist may not. Sometimes it's because the solo artist pursues a direction different than what made the band a "household name", sometimes it's because the solo artist just doesn't have what it takes to survive on his/her own. Such as the case with those artists that pursue solo careers hoping to ride on the coattails of the name and fame of their old bands.
I loved Black Sabbath, but I think I love Ozzy Osbourne just as much without Black Sabbath. I loved Rob Zombie when he was with White Zombie, but I like still like him without White Zombie. Those are just a few that I can think of at the moment, in addition to what others have already given.
in general, artists with their bands are better, and besides that many people who do solo work on the side of or after work with their band may recruit former bandmates to take part in the work...some people who were obviously better with the band than in their solo work are mick jagger and freddy mercury, who both released subpar efforts solo, as well as steve perry and sting, who both had decent solo careers but nothing like the work with their respective bands...the only major exception i can think of is tom petty, whose solo work(even though a member of the heartbreakers has contributed to every one of his solo albums) definitely rivals his work with the heartbreakers
I usually prefer the bands. I honestly don't know why.
I guess, if I have warmed to a particular band, and then one of them goes off to pursue a solo career I feel slightly let down. -shrugs-
Bauhaus - David J, Daniel Ash and Peter Murphy all had solo careers.
While I am very fond of the work they did solo, it just doesn't compare to the work they did with Bauhaus.
Peter Murphy in particular always seemed like a less-fabulous version of Bauhaus.
The Beatles - George Harrison and John Lennon [I haven't heard much of the solo work of the other two].
While I'm /very/ fond of their solo work, Harrison's in particular - again, they just don't compare to the Beatles.
Them - Van Morrison. This is an example of a solo career that I prefer to the band. Obviously Them didn't release much, so it may be an unfair comparison but I still think that even the first Van album beats the Them album.