Members philbo Posted May 30, 2012 Members Share Posted May 30, 2012 Personally, I am in both camps: I gig regularly in a blues band, but also gig pretty regularly as a solo act. The solo act brings in more money, but the band (due to outstanding musicianship from the other guys) is more satisfying. When doing solo, I put a lot of energy into thinking about how to hold the song together and still be creative, while with the band I can focus doing creative parts while the band holds the song together. Like yin and yang, I try to stay between these extremes.... An interesting blog about the pros and cons of trying to gain commercial success (i.e. money) as a solo artist vs. band member. http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/one-for-all-or-all-for-one-solo-artistry-versus-the-band-in.htmlI'm with the solo approach - bands don't make sense any more. A duo can still make sense, but you'd better be real close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beatpoet Posted May 31, 2012 Members Share Posted May 31, 2012 And I know plenty of pros (I'm 42 and have been playing pro-ishly for 25 years), but she can't really afford to hire pros for gigs that don't pay. And there's the other catch 22/conundrum, session players can't make a decent few bucks because the solo artist can't stump up the money! Obviously venues paying a fair price for bands would be the solution, but it's sad it doesn't work like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted May 31, 2012 Members Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm with the solo approach - bands don't make sense any more. I say that since 5000 years, but nobody listens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators daddymack Posted June 1, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 1, 2012 Yes that can be said, although he did start singing at a young age while I am a middle age jazz guitarist that used to smoke, the math is there. Taking the time to try to make myself into a presentable lead vocalist is not a wise endeavor, given the time and resources. (& passion, I'm a guitar player)I already attempted this(singing my own songs) prior to doing the project I'm finishing up now, I put a good amount of effort into it but it was not well received. "The music is cool but..... " is what I mostly heard back from people. In fact one of the songs I did myself, and got poopoo'ed, is #1 on my recent music survey, sung by a "real" singer.I'm a "proof is in the pudding" kinda person.Your advice is good (thanks), given the right situation, but I'm looking forward to finishing up this project and getting back to guitar music, my core. While I still have work to do in trying to place any of this material, I plan to start a thread on this subject to see what other members/songwriters might have experienced on this matter.You're right to think "invest in your own self", but let's face it, Dylan was in a different time and he might not have the same impact if he where to come out of the box today. Well that opens another thought channel...the music you are writing...if it doesn't suit you...who does it suit? I write a lot of songs, and in my band, usually, I don't sing all of them, but I could...now, you have to understand, I'm well over 55, smoked for decades, have a very gravelly delivery for blues, but also a fairly 'light' voice for singing back-up and harmony. Some of the songs I write are for that gravelly side, and those are mine to sing, kind of my trademark...the lighter ones, I could sing, but I 'share' them with other band members if they get the feel right. But I generally don't write anything I couldn't sing...if I had to. Not that I can't, but what I write has to come from inside me, first, and has to resonate with me first, or I don't let it go out. Maybe I'm dumb to be that way, but that is what works for me. Over the years I have written a lot of songs, some I think are pretty danged good, some are 'filler', some were stylistic stretches (like a samba...), but all of them ring true to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted June 1, 2012 Members Share Posted June 1, 2012 Why bother about power plants when electricity come out of every plug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kramerguy Posted June 1, 2012 Members Share Posted June 1, 2012 Actually I have, in singing backup on most of my songs, but the fact is I *DO NOT* have the potential to be a lead singer in any way.(range,quality of tone,chops) Not everyone can be that, and I'm not one of them. This is a true admission. , I'm not a young cat, I would have had to start a long time ago. ^This Not all of us CAN be the solo artist. I'm a fair guitarist, I might even say I'm pretty damn good, and I'm coming into my own on bass and keys too, but I will never be 1) younger 2) attractive (physically or "branded"), 3) crave the spotlight, or 4) marketable as a solo artist. I can go into a studio, write a great guitar line to original music, help arrange it, and even do some backup vocals, but in the end, I'm simply a musician, and the OP / direction of the discussion that bands are unnecessary basically tells me that I'm unnecessary (as it applies to pop, since it's been decided that rock still needs bands). I'm not going to cry in my cheerios about it, but it's actually a fair assessment about the state of semi and pro musicians- Better find a niche, or whatever... which is why I'm working on stuff to please myself, and if people like it, they will use it. I've met several people who do nothing but write music and melodies for TV/Film and do very well with it as a secondary income. I could be happy with that. I still play in my rock cover-band, and am happy with that, too. I think my whole point is that we all need to self-asses and be honest with ourselves about what we are and are not capable of, redefine our goals, and build from that, rather than the outdated model of having stars in our eyes, thinking we will "make it" someday.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted June 8, 2012 Members Share Posted June 8, 2012 Doing the band thing is falling out of style? Great. Less competition for my band, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeverTheMachine Posted June 8, 2012 Members Share Posted June 8, 2012 Being in a full-functioning band is more fun, for the rawk! ....... To make it work is more difficult, especially in this day, as the context of this thread suggests. However, if success happens it'll probably be sweeter. A band element will never go out of style, because audiences like to see that. They like to see a group of musicians bouncing ideas off each other. It depends on what kind of person/performer/songwriter you are too. If you're a controlling type of person, then the solo thing would be more suitable. It's much easier to control yourself. If you're a solitary kind of writer, it can be easier to be solo I suppose. Personally, I like writing alone too, but the initial spark of creativity comes from who I'm playing with. I need to know what I can pull off. At the end of the day. If you make good songs that people want to hear, you will be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tomm Williams Posted June 8, 2012 Members Share Posted June 8, 2012 I think there are a lot of folks who simply don't have the skills to work closely with others. I use The Beatles as the benchmark for what can be gained with cooperation. Together they were...............well, we all know the story. As solo artist's they didn't have near the impact. Many members have more musical ideas than one. Listening to their solo work, it all started to sound the same after an album or two. Their group albums had fresh, unpredictable songs every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.