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?
I'm not sure I understand your breakdown of solo artists, it doesn't follow @chayro 's original post. Are you saying Debbie Harry was better solo than when she fronted Blondie? And Clapton, you don't mention Cream. Was his solo career better? Rockpile is a complicated one. Dave Edmonds is a great talent and is intertwined with Nick Lowe and Rockpile. IMO, solo Edmonds would be greater than the one-off Rockpile. I was lucky enough to see Rockpile live as headliners circa 1980. |
Maybe Monster could also mean popular. Pure Prairie League sure qualifies. Also Brinsley Schwarz, agree with you about Nick Lowe and Dave Edmonds (super talented). I must say I was a Blondie fan from the beginning, seeing the band play in NYC 1976, 77. Debbie's solo work was weak. She had success with dance club stuff. |
