2. music
  3. 181116-1635

Are solo efforts ever better?

I’m sure someone will think of something, but IMO, I can’t think of any artist that went solo and produced a significant amount of material that was “better” musically than what they did with their bands. Paul Simon did some decent stuff, but I don’t think it ever reached the artistic levels of what S&G did together.  Sting, Fogarty, Bruce…  I guess Diana Ross and Beyoncé were far more successful solo, but I think the Supremes and Destiny were more of window dressing for the star and less of a collective effort. Again, IMO. What do you think?  

chayro
edcyn
1,876 posts
 

I'm with lowrider57 when it comes to Debbie Harry and Eric Clapton. I saw Deborah Harry and Blondie at the Santa Monica Civic. They were just plain fun. I still listen to a couple of their albums.

 

As for Clapton, thanks to his work with the Blues Breakers and Cream, he remains my favorite electric guitarist. He's the reason I bought an electric guitar. I got to say, though, that when I saw him in concert he was a bit of a snooze.

clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker
1,582 posts
 

Why should not two heads (or more) be better than one?

tylermunns
601 posts
 

Todd Rundgren > The Nazz.

Michael Jackson > The Jacksons

Bjork > The Sugarcubes.

Neil Young > Buffalo Springfield.

Brian Eno > Roxy Music

simao's avatar
simao
1,836 posts
 

I would push back and vouch for Sting's solo career. The Police were The Police and no one can ever take their genius and influence away from them, but Sting has managed to carve out a memorable and influential solo career more successful and deep than his Police days. Then again, he also has grown up, too. 

toddsyr's avatar
toddsyr
137 posts
 

More to discover