Jump to content
Vitne Eveille

Poll: Band or Solo Artist - Is one more "legitimate" than the other?

Band vs Solo Artist  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you see one as more "legitimate"? Please explain why in the comments!

    • Band
      2
    • Solo Artist
      0
    • Doesn't Matter
      13


Recommended Posts

I'm asking this question out of curiousity.  I've come across numerous people in the past who have told me they pay significantly less attention to solo artists as opposed to bands.  But at the time I never asked why.

 

How do you feel about this?  In rock music, are solo artists just generally viewed as inferior to bands?

 

Note that I do NOT mean a full-on rock band vs a singer-songwriter (singer and acoustic guitar).  A good example of what I mean is a solo artist like Gackt vs a band like The Gazette.  Generally rock-band style instrumentation, both of them.

 

In some cases, I'm sure it is because that fan was a fan of that solo artist's band before they became a solo artist.  Or maybe they just think bands are more interesting, or somehow more legitimate? Assuming a band and a solo artist are in the same genre, does this "bands are cooler than solo artists" idea hold any weight whatsoever, or is it just some strange stigma?

 

I don't believe so, but I'm really interested to find out others' views.  For example I love Gackt, but I have little interest in Malice Mizer.  I love Motley Crue yet I also love Vince Neil's solo stuff.  I'm a Billy Idol fan, but I'm not so interested in Generation X.

 

Thanks for your insight!

Edited by Vitne Eveille
Clarification!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gackt is full on rock!? Naw bro. 

 

But in regards to the question asked I have personally never cared if an artist was solo or with a band.  I only cared about the music they put out. Actually most black metal bands I listen to are solo. 

Edited by Hakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Legitimate"? As in a legitimate musician?

 

As long as the music is good tbh I wouldn't care if it was a full-on band or a soloist that dropped it.

 

Although for a soloist that had help producing the music, I would check the liner notes and see who the other producers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hakari said:

Gackt is full on rock!? Naw bro. 

 

But in regards to the question asked I have personally never cared if an artist was solo or with a band.  I only cared about the music they put out. Actually most black metal bands I listen to are solo. 

 

Some of his songs are pop and stuff, but I'd say many of his songs are rock.  Of course, everyone's definition is different.  But in this case I'm using him as an example because I feel like a lot of people seem to associate "solo artist" with "he just sings and plays guitar" - Enough people here should know what Gackt does, so I thought he was a worthy example :D

 

Thanks for the reply!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JukaForever said:

"Legitimate"? As in a legitimate musician?

 

As long as the music is good tbh I wouldn't care if it was a full-on band or a soloist that dropped it.

 

Although for a soloist that had help producing the music, I would check the liner notes and see who the other producers are.

 

That's why I'm curious.  I doubt it is in terms of being a legitimate musician, but some people seem to dismiss a solo artist simply because they are a solo artist.

 

Well-said, thanks for the response!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction between solo artists and bands don't matter too much to me. If it appeals to me, it appeals to me.

The problem I have with using "legitimate" to describe anything is that its impossibly vague. With a definition that nebulous, you can retrofit it to suit any argument you like. A lot of it probably does have to do with what artist or band we were exposed to first, and if we had to lose one to gain the other that could create strong feelings about the whole situation. But it comes down to if the "new" act or the "old" act appeals to them more and they will build their worldview around that.

I'll use Gackt as an example again. When he originally left Malice Mizer to do his own thing, some MM fans were pissed and boycotted the new project. But as MM lost steam and Gackt gained momentum, these detractors were silenced until they were no more. There are still people that don't like Gackt, but no one will ever use the reasoning that it's because he "destroyed" his band for his solo career. We've all made peace with Malice Mizer's fate. Same thing with Miyavi to be honest - he left Due le Quartz and fan girls were not happy and did not follow his solo project in a different style but he ended up gaining more new fans than he lost old ones. Now his solo project is more successful than that visual kei band ever could have been.

 

tl;dr - Legitimacy is a useless metric that is too subjective to even have a conversation about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


All that matters is the music. I don’t care whether it came from a band or a solo artist. I’m not go to be rocking out to a song and then discover it came from a solo artist and all of sudden decide it sucks because of that reason, or vice versa.

 

I’ve loved the work of bands and then discovered one of the members goes and does a solo project, only to be disappointed upon listening to it. Likewise I’ve discovered great material by solo artists, not knowing they were “solo artists”, then and I go check out their work with their proper band and it’s mediocre or plain out sucks.

 

Honestly this is the first time I’m hearing of anyone viewing one as inferior or greater than the other solely based on the merit of whether it came from a band or solo artist. 

 

The funny thing in music is solo artists aren’t technically solo. They usually gather other musicians to fill out the other roles needed, Ie, vocals, bass, drums, keys etc. They also seek help writing lyrics, composing, or producing. However, solo artists do call the big shots and have the final say on decisions since it is their project, and name on the line. How much outside help the solo artist gets really depends on the artist themselves, and whether they are talented or comfortable enough to step up to all of the roles needed.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think, as a general rule, that I take bands more seriously than I do solo artists in rock. That isn't to say that I think solo artists are 'illegitimate' or anything and this is not a hard and fast rule either. Hyde is a good example of this. I love a lot of (if not most of) his solo work but I still don't take it as seriously as I do L'arc~en~ciel. This may be because it is a side project, rather than the main project like for Gackt or Miyavi, but it may also be because the overwhelming majority of rock and vkei acts are bands. 

 

On the other hand for Alice Cooper, one of my favorite musicians of all time, he is a solo artist first and foremost in my mind. Even though "Alice Cooper" began as the name of the band, it became clear that what drove the band was Alice (Vincent). He went solo because he wanted to stay true to their theatrical, Vaudevillian stage show that made them famous and the rest of the band wanted to stop with the theatrics. While he could have gotten together a new band, he didn't really need to.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is, it depends. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×