Bands vs Solo Artists

[rllink]

Originally Posted by rllink

How do you categorize Bob Dylan?

Originally Posted by Andromeda

I view him as a solo singer songwriter. And a great one at that.

I do too. But I've seen him live twice and both times he had a band.

[Mr. Jelly]

When I think of bands I think of a musical collaboration when it comes to categorizing artists. A solo artist with people playing with them to me is a band technically but I don't see it as a collaboration. In a standard format I don't see a person doing fills and lead breaks as musical collaboration. You could interchange them, and the end product wouldn't be greatly changed in most cases. I guess I would look at duels or trios the same as a band then.

[J Patrick]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

When I think of bands I think of a musical collaboration when it comes to categorizing artists. A solo artist with people playing with them to me is a band technically but I don't see it as a collaboration. In a standard format I don't see a person doing fills and lead breaks as musical collaboration. You could interchange them, and the end product wouldn't be greatly changed in most cases. I guess I would look at duels or trios the same as a band then.

….I don’t see how any group of musicians playing together is not a collaboration…it takes all of them to create the music the listener is hearing….I’ve spent a lot of time as a side man playing with all sorts of musicians over the years and although I’m never going to take credit for the songs themselves I will always claim ownership of the music I help create….to do otherwise would be uninspired and unsatisfying

….fwiw I’ve thrown in with singer/songwriter types that encouraged creative input from their band and some that insist on more personal control…..guess which ones get the most out of their players…I do concur that solo artists who just hire some players to noodle around them are not really collaborating. It’s just that in my experience there are solo artists who make excellent band members as well as great band leaders and do collaborate with all of the musicians involved.

[Mr. Jelly]

I guess I think there are varying degrees of collaboration. Foghat is playing here, and I understand the drummer is the only remaining member. Does a person interject their own artistic vision or understand what the job is asking for and produce that?

[FrankHudson]

We all categorize and label in ways that make sense to us.

BUT

to me. a solo artist is someone playing (or usually playing) alone on stage or a recording with only themselves singing and playing. With "one man band" recordings a gray area I'll still allow as a solo artist. Very minimal accompaniment might be allowed -- backing vocals, sparse 2nd instrument or accompanist.

A band, even if billed as only the featured artist or as XX and the YYYs is a band. A "solo record" with one name on the cover and other players (even if they are "studio musicians" otherwise unassociated with the artist) is not a solo artist to me and even if it's for the duration of a single recording session is for that moment a band.

A solo artist by my definition has a daunting task to entertain and entrance, and I want to honor that with my distinction.

[Andromeda]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

We all categorize and label in ways that make sense to us.

BUT

to me. a solo artist is someone playing (or usually playing) alone on stage or a recording with only themselves singing and playing. With "one man band" recordings a gray area I'll still allow as a solo artist. Very minimal accompaniment might be allowed -- backing vocals, sparse 2nd instrument or accompanist.

A band, even if billed as only the featured artist or as XX and the YYYs is a band. A "solo record" with one name on the cover and other players (even if they are "studio musicians" otherwise unassociated with the artist) is not a solo artist to me and even if it's for the duration of a single recording session is for that moment a band.

A solo artist by my definition has a daunting task to entertain and entrance, and I want to honor that with my distinction.

So you wouldn't consider people like John Denver, Elton John, James Taylor as solo artists?

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

So you wouldn't consider people like John Denver, Elton John, James Taylor as solo artists?

I saw John Denver perform in a small room alone to maybe 40 people. He did that well. To my memory, all his popular oft-played recordings are full productions with other musicians. So, if your question is "Is John Denver capable of performing as a solo artist?" I can answer Yes. If your question is, as a recording artist were his records solo-artist records, my answer would be No, at least in general (could be "not always, or not often")

James Taylor similar, though I've only seen video of him working truly solo. He can do that solo artist thing very well. Most of his biggest selling songs are full productions from my memory.

I don't know if I've ever seen Elton John play truly solo live or on video (maybe once on the old Elvis Costello hosted show he produced?). I don't doubt he could do that, but his huge hits are not solo artist records, not even close. Is Diana Ross a solo artist? Is Jeff Beck a solo artist? Is Miles Davis a solo artist? Yes, I know they've been called that, many times. It's just not how I use the term for reasons I try to explain. Maybe we could agree that solo performer is a term that we'd both agree with, but since I think performance is an art, I'd stick with my definition.

Some people spit their work in ways that makes them hard to generalize about. Richard Thompson comes to mind. He's a great solo guitar artist, tours that way often, records that way a reasonable number of times. He's a great master of making that work. But he's stunning as a guitarist or guitarist/singer in a band context too. With an artist like him, I'd just say that he performs and records in both contexts.

[Andromeda]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

I saw John Denver perform in a small room alone to maybe 40 people. He did that well. To my memory, all his popular oft-played recordings are full productions with other musicians. So, if your question is "Is John Denver capable of performing as a solo artist?" I can answer Yes. If your question is, as a recording artist were his records solo-artist records, my answer would be No, at least in general (could be "not always, or not often")

James Taylor similar, though I've only seen video of him working truly solo. He can do that solo artist thing very well. Most of his biggest selling songs are full productions from my memory.

I don't know if I've ever seen Elton John play truly solo live or on video (maybe once on the old Elvis Costello hosted show he produced?). I don't doubt he could do that, but his huge hits are not solo artist records, not even close. Is Diana Ross a solo artist? Is Jeff Beck a solo artist? Is Miles Davis a solo artist? Yes, I know they've been called that, many times. It's just not how I use the term for reasons I try to explain. Maybe we could agree that solo performer is a term that we'd both agree with, but since I think performance is an art, I'd stick with my definition.

Some people spit their work in ways that makes them hard to generalize about. Richard Thompson comes to mind. He's a great solo guitar artist, tours that way often, records that way a reasonable number of times. He's a great master of making that work. But he's stunning as a guitarist or guitarist/singer in a band context too. With an artist like him, I'd just say that he performs and records in both contexts.

Thanks for the response. I'm learning this topic of categorizing musicians is more complex and diverse than I thought.

I could see that some here do stick to a definition of a solo artist as someone who does just play by themselves and only a accompaniment is that which they provide themselves.

I think a band is a little more self-explanatory, a group of two or more musicians playing together.

But that does leave the artist that I mentioned difficult to categorize. I've seen John Denver play solo just him and his guitars. Actually the very first time and the very last time I saw John Denver play he was just by himself with his guitars. I've also seen him play with two other musicians a lead guitarist and a bass player and a full band including a string quartet and even an orchestra.

So how does one categorize people like John Denver, James Taylor, Elton John, Billy Joel, Kenny loggins, Garth Brooks, Gordon Lightfoot, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, Olivia Newton John and on and on?

Sure maybe they go beyond the technical definition of a solo artist and they do employ a band to accompany them, but I don't see people like John Denver or James Taylor just as a simple member of a band, they are singled out as the feature attraction.

In a band such as the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, to name just a few, I see them all as musicians in a band who are all equal members. Although I believe in a documentary I saw an interview with Glenn Frey and Don Henley of the Eagles and I believe that they were the only two legal members of the band and everybody else were contract employees.

But with the artist that I've mentioned, and as I said, they all employ other musicians meaning they are the boss. I remember hearing the late Pete Hutlinger talk about how good of a boss John Denver was. So the relationship between the main artist and the band accompanying them is different than when a band has all co-equal members.

Maybe we need to come up with a new term for these type of musicians who are the starring or main attraction?

[Bob from Brooklyn]

Why the need to categorize? Was CCR a band or a solo act? Does it matter?

[Andromeda]

Originally Posted by Bob from Brooklyn

Why the need to categorize? Was CCR a band or a solo act? Does it matter?

This the second thread in a row I started where I'm sorry I even asked a question.

[Bob from Brooklyn]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

This the second thread in a row I started where I'm sorry I even asked a question.

It's ok. Everyone has a different way of looking at things.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

This the second thread in a row I started where I'm sorry I even asked a question.

File under "Learning Experiences"?

[J Patrick]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

This the second thread in a row I started where I'm sorry I even asked a question.

What?!?!?!?….surely the failure to reach complete agreement or consensus view are not reasons to regret asking the question. I find it interesting to hear various takes on the subject…..and it’s been civil enough or the mods would have shut her down….

It’s a unique topic that I don’t recall being previously discussed….that alone makes it a topic worth kicking about…the fact that it ties in with pretty much everyone’s personal experiences and recollections gives it broad appeal.

It’s a good topic…thanks for bringing it up.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

Thanks for the response. I'm learning this topic of categorizing musicians is more complex and diverse than I thought.

I could see that some here do stick to a definition of a solo artist as someone who does just play by themselves and only a accompaniment is that which they provide themselves.

I think a band is a little more self-explanatory, a group of two or more musicians playing together.

But that does leave the artist that I mentioned difficult to categorize. I've seen John Denver play solo just him and his guitars. Actually the very first time and the very last time I saw John Denver play he was just by himself with his guitars. I've also seen him play with two other musicians a lead guitarist and a bass player and a full band including a string quartet and even an orchestra.

So how does one categorize people like John Denver, James Taylor, Elton John, Billy Joel, Kenny loggins, Garth Brooks, Gordon Lightfoot, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, Olivia Newton John and on and on?

Sure maybe they go beyond the technical definition of a solo artist and they do employ a band to accompany them, but I don't see people like John Denver or James Taylor just as a simple member of a band, they are singled out as the feature attraction.

In a band such as the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles, the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, to name just a few, I see them all as musicians in a band who are all equal members. Although I believe in a documentary I saw an interview with Glenn Frey and Don Henley of the Eagles and I believe that they were the only two legal members of the band and everybody else were contract employees.

But with the artist that I've mentioned, and as I said, they all employ other musicians meaning they are the boss. I remember hearing the late Pete Hutlinger talk about how good of a boss John Denver was. So the relationship between the main artist and the band accompanying them is different than when a band has all co-equal members.

Maybe we need to come up with a new term for these type of musicians who are the starring or main attraction?

Yes, it gets complicated within different contexts. Obviously there are acts which legally/contractually/majority of the audience-wise are "sole" -- in the sense that if a promoter signed a contract with (let me pick an example from your list) Garth Brooks management it's for Garth Brooks to appear and perform. A few of us might care who the lead guitarist or the bass player is, but the promoter likely doesn't, nor does the majority of the audience. That's obviously different from a band in the sense of let's say U2 or The Beatles, even if he's not performing solo.

Legally and music business wise, there are acts that tour under a "band" name who are owned by only a subset of the bandmembers or even by a manager.

And there are weird exceptions. Since we started with John Denver, one of his show business breaks was playing in the Chad Mitchell Trio as the replacement for -- wait for it -- Chad Mitchell.

Then for physical record collections there's the old debate (height of pedantry now) about how to file records. What do you do with the Animals as the act evolved into Eric Burton and the Animals: file under B or A? Or do you file the Mothers of Invention with Frank Zappa or separate?

So, yeah it's complicated when we talk about it. In some contexts the same term is understood to apply to very different things. But not being primarily interested in the music business, I like my empirical definition of "solo artist" as a musical act consisting of a single performer. Others may find other definitions work for them in the contexts they most often deal with.

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by Andromeda

This the second thread in a row I started where I'm sorry I even asked a question.

Don't take it personally. There always seems to be a snide remark somewhere, so I expect that. When I ask a question, I am asking it because I know that there are different ways to look at things and that is what I look for. Sometimes it's evident a person hadn't really read the question. Or answer a question that wasn't asked. It's all just entertainment. Enjoy!