ChatterBank2 mins ago
Why do some singers and musicians decide to have solo careers
�< xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Q.� Do solo careers always work out
A.� They vary, often driven, or not, by the level of commitment of the artist concerned, and the reaction of both fans and fellow band members.
�
Q.� Is it possible to combine band and solo careers
A.� Perfectly possible. A shining example of the co-operation that can make tandem solo careers work with main band output is Queen. Brian May started the unimaginatively monikered Brian May And Friends as far back as 1983, but his first proper solo single 'Driven By You' was a re-recorded version of a Ford cars TV commercial. Freddie Mercury created solo status for himself back in 1984, and released a number of solo works, as well as his duets with Spanish opera diva Monsterrat Caballe. Drummer Roger Taylor was releasing solo singles way back in 1977, and has picked up the threads of his side project The Cross since the Queen sabbatical caused by the dearth of�Freddie Mercury. Bassist John Deacon has yet to release any solo material, but that can be explained by the overall group dynamics.
�
Q.� What are 'group dynamics'
A.� A pop or rock group can resemble a marriage. The success of the relationship depends on the personalities within the group, and their interaction with each other. If you include the necessary artistic temperament required to create and maintain a group, you can have the potential for ego battles and the age-old 'artistic freedom' argument that can lead to solo outings, and the results that can follow.
�
Q.� What results would they be
A.� Usually one of two predictable outcomes�- solo success that is appreciated and supported by fellow band members, or stratospheric levels of jealousy and in-fighting leading to rapid group implosion and associated bridge-burning. For Queen this was never an issue.�The various members enjoyed varying degrees of solo success without ever risking damage to the band itself, a testimony to the strength of their personal and artistic relationships. They are, unfortunately, a minority.
Q.� Who are some of the 'majority'
A.� A couple of famous examples spring to mind. The Supremes were quite happy being The Supremes, until the controlling influence of Motown supreme Berry Gordy decreed that the group were to become Diana Ross And The Supremes. From then on, the inevitable followed - �Diana Ross's solo career took flight, and the remaining Supremes were left to the inevitable downward spiral that was extended only by the strength of their prodigious reputation. Similarly, Rod Stewart, lead singer with The Faces released a couple of solo albums, and decided that being Rod Stewart suited him better than being The Faces' vocalist - and once again the die was cast.
�
Q.� Does the notion of solo outings always mean the end of a group
A.� Not always, no. American hard rock band Kiss's four members all released solo albums simultaneously, to the supreme indifference of their fans. The much-vaunted solo careers were rapidly shelved as Kiss learned the age-old lesson of popular music�- the whole can often be greater than the sum of the parts, and the band carried on for another twenty-odd years, with no more talk of solo works. Phil Collins enjoyed a massively successful solo career while retaining his links with Genesis, effortlessly eclipsing the solo efforts of his fellow band members, and only recently deciding to make the band's lengthy lay-off into a permanent split.
�
Q.� It all sounds a bit of a lottery.
A.� That's because it is. If you are known as Bill Ward, legendary drummer with prototype metal gods Black Sabbath, that's one thing. Having the ego and financial clout necessary to release solo albums does not mean you can rely on similar worldwide success. It may be that drummers who make solo albums (Phil Collins is of course an exception, but then he isn't just the drummer in Genesis) aren't looking for huge sales and a reputation to parallel that of their 'day job' band, but you have to ponder the motivation behind such manoeuvres in certain cases. Band success is no assurance of solo fame.
�
Q.� Does it ever work
A.� It can do. Take for example, The Rolling Stones. Having survived the sort of spats and tensions that would see the most tolerant of marriages in the divorce court, it�was inevitable that band members would seek solace in the quieter back-waters of solo work as an antidote to the roller-coaster of tears and tantrums that have been a hall-mark of the legends' careers. The irony is that front man and identifiable face of the Stones, Mick Jagger has seen his solo efforts fail to emulate the success of the band's material, and a similar fate has befallen guitarists Ronnie Wood and Keith Richards. The supreme irony is the success of drummer Charlie Watts who enjoys critical acclaim with his jazz band side project, and long-standing bassist Bill Wyman, who after years of seeing his material side-lined by Jagger and Richards, managed a solo top ten single in the 1970's with 'Je Suis Un Rock Star', a tongue-in-cheek tale about his relationship with his child bride Mandy Smith.
Q.� Is there a lesson to be learned from this
A.� It's simply a case of enjoying success with your band, and if your solo career takes off, it's because your material is good enough, either for your existing fans to enjoy, or because you appeal to an entire new section of the audience. Looking for fame and fortune based on who you are, or more accurately who your group is, can be a path to a ruined reputation. Maybe it's best not to take it all too seriously!
�
If you have a question about anything musical, click here.
����������������������������������������������������������������������By:� Andy Hughes.