February 1, 2012 One For All, or All For One? Solo Artistry Versus the Band in the Age of Social Media
Written by Paul Adler
The music industry today seems, to the casual observer, a veritable “Chicken Little” scenario, with all its members and participants, heads craned piously upward, scurrying about as if the sky were falling—the firmament of their reliable, decades-old business model crashing about them. From the haughtiest record company executive to the lowliest basement-dwelling ensemble, everyone in the music business is struggling to shore up their respective rungs on the industry ladder. However, as apocalyptic as the situation may seem, this can be an exciting time for newcomers to the music industry; we’ve all heard of the myriad merits of self-promotion and utilizing the internet, of the tales of insta-stardom, courtesy of YouTube. Many involved in music have conjectured this might be a viable business model for the nouveau-cottage industry of the music business as it stands in 2012—that the model of the self-promoted solo artist has become far more conducive to success than than of the traditional band.
When one considers the dichotomy of the solo artist versus the traditional band setup, the former might start to look slightly more appealing in light of the collapse of the music industry’s overall business model. Consider the ubiquity of online utilities available for self-promotion and contrast this notion with the stereotypically “traditional” path to success as an outfit or ensemble, paying special mind to the logistical and pragmatic difficulties of achieving tangible success as a band. The reality of the new music industry is, simply put, that being a solo artist might just be easier than putting oneself in a band setting. Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the meteoric rise of solo artists spanning all genres of contemporary music. From EMA to The Weeknd to St. Vincent, Owl City, and yes, even Justin Bieber, we’ve seen solo artists emerge and set themselves apart from the milieu, garnering cults of personality by using social media and a variety of online tools to popularize themselves (before being picked up by record companies, that is).
On the subject of the so-called “cult of personality,” it seems dually fitting that we should see a shift in the collective attention of the music-consuming portion of society to more solo artists as social media shifts, simultaneously, toward more overtly egocentric platforms (see: Facebook, Twitter). Add to this the relative ease with which many DIY artists record, produce, disseminate, and promote their music and the appeal of being a solo artist becomes obvious.
In contrast to the facile nature of existing as a solo artist, being in a band can prove a somewhat trying ordeal. Think of a band as a relationship—the members are all significant others with their respective shares of issues, conflicts, and obligations. Forming a band is akin to dating, with potential members comparing interests and skill levels, seeing if their personalities mesh, and considering any logistical problems having to do with being in the band itself. Whereas solo artists have only themselves to consider and worry about, each member of a band needs to be concerned about the other members: will [name here] be able to make it to practice today? Does [name here] know all the music? We have a show, Friday! Is [name here] going to have his equipment ready and be able to get to the venue on time?, et cetera. Furthermore, should a band find themselves lucky enough to get picked up by a label or signed to a booking, management, or promotions company, these companies will then be privy to these “family matters,” so to speak, and no music industry professional likes dealing with a prima donna outfit of quarrelling members who can barely manage their own affairs, let alone ensure that the group as a whole has the capacity to move forward.
Should the band itself fail, a breakup can be just as messy as the breakup of significant others, with parties taking sides, disputes over shared property, and other various pitfalls. This point can be especially valid in light of the fact that a solo artist never has to break up with his or herself. Being in a band with the goal of commercial success is a full-time job, with each member’s financial, logistical, and personal responsibilities to the group itself; conversely, solo artistry can run the gamut from being a hobby to being a career, and doesn’t involve the “relationship” aspect one can expect in a band setting.
What happens when band relationships turn sour…
However, there are indeed two sides to the proverbial coin in both the band and solo setting. While problems similar to those one would encounter in a romantic relationship are liable to arise within a band, it would seem the old addage that “two heads are better than one” would be readily applicable as well. Should they utilize the strength of their numbers, the traditional band setup stands to provide advantages a solo artist would be hard-pressed to find, such as having additional manpower to cover tour, recording, and merchandise expenses, or to promote the band itself. A solo artist would also be at a significant disadvantage in terms of self-promotion, as one would assume creating awareness of one’s music would be more easily and efficiently done by five or six people, versus one person. The collective creative brainpower of a group of people versus a solo artist could be seen as another perceived advantage to the band setting, although it would seem that many solo artists have a specific “vision” for their craft, while bands tend to make their writing genre-specific because common tastes are usually a touchstone between members.
From an overarching standpoint it would appear that, especially with regard to the past decade, the model of the solo artist has become the norm and the traditional band setup has become the exception. We are no longer experiencing a mode of popular culture that hinges around rock music; successful music, even pop music, that used to rely on the tenets of rock has given way to popular music that relies on undertones of hip-hop and electronica. In the 80s and 90s, groups and solo artists that achieved success used rock as their medium (see: 80s hair metal bands, Madonna, Pat Benetar, Nirvana, Michael Jackson)—now, success comes through musical stylings other than rock (see: Skrillex, Britney Spears, Nicki Minaj, Kid Cudi). By and large, there has been a noted change in the tastes of our culture.
Think of the past year, in which we’ve seen many solo artists emerge, but few bands, and the bands that have achieved some tangible levels of success have either faced a years-long uphill struggle or have, in plain view, been assembled by record labels. These are groups like Mumford & Sons and Foster The People, who’ve worked for years to achieve some modicum of commercial success—these are also groups who (like Paramore, when two of their main members released statements regarding their respective departures) were exposed, via a mordant blog post, as an outfit built deliberately by a major label around the solo artistry of their frontwoman. These bands are the exceptions. More common have become tales of solo artists striking pay-dirt as a result of their own work ethic: Adam Young of Owl City self-produced and sold over 200,000 units from his parents’ basement before being approached by Universal Republic in 2008; The Weeknd has self-released three separate mixtapes over the past year, garnering international attention in addition to being short-listed for the Polaris Music Prize and collaborating with Drake on more than a couple songs.
Besides the obvious nature of dealing with finances—one artist clearly earns more, proportionally, than a group of four or five—it should be clear, at this point, that the more viable business model is that of the solo artist, especially when taken in light of the sociocultural and economic developments of the past decade. Social media and our collective cultural shift away from music in which a more traditional band setting is a requisite have helped to set the stage for the solidification of the solo artist as the recommended model for achieving commercial success. However, this notion is not meant to detract validity from the traditional band setup but should be viewed as an informed caveat to those who wish to pursue music as performers; it should further serve as a reminder that we, as conscientious members of the music industry and the music-consuming community, need to pay close attention to the direction in which cultural tastes are moving and learn to exploit these trends in favor of propelling the industry, as well as the craft itself, forward.
—
Paul Adler is a freelance writer, blogger, musician, and former liquor store employee. Connect with him on Twitter or Tumblr.
Indie Ambassador TV is an educational series produced by Indie Ambassador. Through our video panels, industry profiles and articles, artists and music professionals can educate themselves on general business topics, new technology and current industry trends.
Music Social Media tagged social media, social shift
Reader Comments (6)
Very interesting article. As a pop/rock solo artist, I often wonder if I should present myself as a band (and what would I call it?) or just stick with my name. I think about this every day.
On another note, you said, "Foster The People ... worked for years to achieve some modicum of commercial success." According to Wikipedia at least, the band only formed in 2009 and it was Mark Foster who wrote and recorded "Pumped Up Kicks". It seems to me that Foster The People is an example of a solo artist whose success was independent of the band. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
An inspiring article for all solo artists out there.
If you have a backing band, leadership skills become important, particularly having a clear idea of where you want to get to and believability.
Sam - using your name is fine however your name alone will not mean much to someone looking for a gig or new music like yours. Your name plus a "hook line" to pull in fans is much better - a short snappy few words that describe what you do succinctly. You only have a few seconds to grab a future fan's attention.
Eliza
The Fan Formula
Sam,
You're totally right, man; I kind of just culled the names of those bands from acts that seemed both popular and topical and while I do know a fair amount about Mumford & Sons, as well as nearly all of the other artists I named in the article, I apparently should have researched Foster the People more thoroughly. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
-P. Adler
This is a very interesting and thought-provoking article. As a solo recording artist, I chose to go the route of a "band" name primarily in order to leave my options open in the future while still having creative control of writing and recording now.
Having been in a good handful of bands before creating The High Cell, I can attest to the fact that sometimes, it's just too difficult to force cohesiveness. Then again, I don't think there's a "right or wrong" answer. It's just a matter of each artist finding what works the best for them as an individual.
Some of my favorite music of all time was created by what i believe is a combination of musicians who's sum was greater than the perceived value of the individuals. Would Led Zeppelin have created such timeless music if either Jimmy Page or Robert Plant weren't in the band? Not in my opinion. At the same time, would Nirvana have existed if Kurt Cobain had any random collection of warm bodies around him? I'd personally say yes (and in all fairness to Dave Grohl, the same can now be said about the Foo Fighters).
What it all boils down to, is that you just can't force things to work. If you're in a band and everyone is all on the same page, great! But if things aren't working, you as an individual need to take the initiative to put yourself in a position to succeed and stay true to your goals. For me, the philosophy that Bruce Lee followed as he pioneered the concept of "mixed martial arts" back in the day applies to just about anything. Don't blindly do what you are "supposed" to do. Simply use what is most effective for you, and discard the rest.
- Mike
The High Cell
This is great article for discussion, especially in the city I live: Nashville TN. I've compared building a band in Nashville to dating a stripper. Even it's comprised of close friends, someone that can get your drummer more cash in his pocket or if they get offered to go on tour with a music act they don't even like, you're probably going to lose them. And honestly, as their friend, you should support their career move to leave you for something else if they see a better potential for success without you.
I'm a pop/rock solo artist with a band mindset, and I'm a multi-instrumentalist songwriter. So I just write and recorded what sounds like a well produced full band. And I promote myself under the name "CRASH LIKE THIS," which sounds like a band name, but I just call it my music. My personal name isn't that marketable anyways, and also has a lot of "noise" when searched for online (surprisingly many other people also have my name). I just have friends play with me on live shows, and it's cool because even with some of the same songs, people get to hear different versions as I play them with various friends. If I'm alone, theres always a tambourine under one foot, a shaker on my other heal, guitar in hand, and the occasional use of a vocal harmonizer pedal. Anyways, I recently found Music Think Tank, and have been very impressed by the articles. I enjoyed this one, for damn sure.
CORRECTED: This is a great article for discussion, especially in the city I live: Nashville TN. I've compared building a band in Nashville to dating a stripper. Even if it's comprised of close friends, someone that can get your drummer more cash in his pocket or if they get offered to go on tour with a music act they don't even like, you're probably going to lose them. And honestly, as their friend, you should support their career move to leave you for something else if they see a better potential for success without you.
I'm a pop/rock solo artist with a band mindset, and I'm a multi-instrumentalist songwriter. So I recently just wrote and recorded what sounds like a well produced full band EP. And I promote myself under the name "CRASH LIKE THIS," which sounds like a band name, but I just call it my music. My personal name isn't that marketable anyways, and also has a lot of "noise" when searched for online (surprisingly many other people also have my name). I just have friends play with me on live shows, and it's cool because even with some of the same songs, people get to hear different versions as I play them with various friends. If I'm alone, there's always a tambourine under one foot, a shaker on my other heal, guitar in hand, and the occasional use of a vocal harmonizer pedal. Anyways, I recently found Music Think Tank, and have been very impressed by the articles. I enjoyed this one, for damn sure.