Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Friday OT - It's Murder By Numbers, One, Two, Three

Angie

Angie

Tugboats and arson.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
28,715
13,843
113
IA
I'm not sure I can explain this very well, but here goes. Yesterday I was making a playlist of 80s alternative stuff (harder than it sounds when the oldest you ever were in the 80s was grade school).

I was listening to The Sugarcubes, and started thinking about how much more successful Bjork was solo than she ever was with them, and how that's quite often a rarity in my low-grade observation. Got to Til Tuesday, and realized the same about Aimee Mann.

I then started thinking about it on a macro scale, trying to narrow down the basic math of going solo. Here were a few examples I could think of:

Any of the Beatles - far more successful together than solo

Phil Collins - I think maybe more successful solo than with Genesis?

Sting - I can't find good data to back up if he was more successful solo than with The Police ("Synchronicity" was a #1 album while he never had any solo #1s, but that's the best metric I can find - certainly more longevity solo)

Mick Jagger - didn't even come close to The Stones solo

Michael Jackson - far more successful solo, but arguably the Jackson 5 was just built around him to package him

Justin Timberlake - same as Michael

Beyonce - see Michael/JT

Scott Weiland - definitely more successful w/STP

Robert Plant - never came close to LZ

So, what I've seemed to narrow down (without putting a ton of research or thought into it) is that it seems like an artist is more likely to be more popular solo than with their band if they meet one of these two criteria:

1. The band from which they originated was small-to-middling success; or
2. The hugely successful band from which they came seems like it was mostly built around them already

OK, I don't know if any of that made sense. Mostly it was - can anyone prove or disprove my math? What examples do you have that fit or break the mold?
 
  • Like
Reactions: coolerifyoudid and cyclones500
First person I thought of was Eric Clapton. You could make an argument either way, although I'd offer his greatest success was solo. I much preferred him when he was in Cream. The Yardbirds, well.....I mean I'm old, but not quite that old!
 
David Lee Roth, better with VH, Sammy was better solo. Sometimes it's just how accustomed we are to them and how big the band was.
 
On a related note, I thought about Van Halen.....when they first came out my buddies and I were in awe. Eddie playing guitar was a revelation, and these guys rocked. Then they got commercialized, added the keyboard, and it wasn't nearly as fun. And of course David left and Sammy arrived.

Would be interesting to know if CFers prefer David to Sammy, or vice versa.

Sorry Angie. Didn't mean to derail the thread. :oops:
 
SCyclone said:
On a related note, I thought about Van Halen.....when they first came out my buddies and I were in awe. Eddie playing guitar was a revelation, and these guys rocked. Then they got commercialized, added the keyboard, and it wasn't nearly as fun. And of course David left and Sammy arrived.

Would be interesting to know if CFers prefer David to Sammy, or vice versa.

Sorry Angie. Didn't mean to derail the thread. :oops:
Click to expand...

Derail away! I am not sure how sustainable to a thread this idea is - it was just something I was thinking about yesterday!

I think Dave was annoying AF and not that talented, but he made VH more fun.
 
Dr. Dre - was much more successful solo than w/NWA. But I think they maybe fit #1 in my list - they were commercially popular with rap fans, but that was a really small subset when they first dropped. Dre took rap mainstream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CYdTracked and coolerifyoudid
Elliott Smith comes to my mind.

Heatmiser was definitely small indie and was just breaking out when Elliott left. Elliott was significantly more popular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
I would argue Toby Mac is more successful solo than DC Talk was as a group. Probably partly due to the fact that in the 90s Christian Music wasn't exactly 'mainstream' by any means.
 
Freddie Mercury never touched Queen's massive success. I'm not entirely sure about Paul Simon vs S&G, but he is certainly the one who isn't the punchline of jokes about Simon & Garfunkel.

Neil Young? Not sure if he was more successful in CSNY or solo...
 
Keeping it with the 90s indie vibe, I would say that Pavement still rate as more popular than Stephen Malkmus (with or w/o the Jicks).
Personally, I enjoy Stephen's non-Pavement material more.
 
Gwen Stefani. I didn't like her solo stuff, but she's a way bigger "brand" solo than No Doubt ever was.

Joan Jett had a better solo career than the rest of The Runaways.
 
One way to find these, at least for the older ones, is how they were billed:

1. The Supremes
2. Diana Ross and the Supremes
3. Diana Ross solo and simultaneously (at least for a little while) the Supremes w/o DR.

1. The First Edition
2. Kenny Rogers and the First Edition
3. Kenny Rogers solo

1. The Stone Poneys
2. The Stone Poneys (Featuring Linda Ronstadt)
3. Linda Ronstadt solo
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclones500
Entropy said:
Keeping it with the 90s indie vibe, I would say that Pavement still rate as more popular than Stephen Malkmus (with or w/o the Jicks).
Personally, I enjoy Stephen's non-Pavement material more.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of them, as well. I also enjoy him more solo! But I think they were more commercially successful together.

In a similar vibe, Jenny Lewis vs Rilo Kiley is one I can't pinpoint - they're both niche (but fantastic), I'm just not sure who is bigger.
 
One of my passing thoughts last night was Steve Perry - a perfect example of how not everyone should go solo. He had a couple of modest hits, but never sniffed at Journey's success.

There's also a conversation about which music was better. Like @3GenClone mentioned with Gwen Stefani - I think No Doubt is far better than her solo stuff, but she's done better solo. I put Sting similarly - with Police, they were pushing boundaries and changing the sound of music. Alone, he made **** that everyone's moms listened to for the Three Musketeers soundtrack.
 
MeanDean said:
One way to find these, at least for the older ones, is how they were billed:

1. The Supremes
2. Diana Ross and the Supremes
3. Diana Ross solo and simultaneously (at least for a little while) the Supremes w/o DR.

1. The First Edition
2. Kenny Rogers and the First Edition
3. Kenny Rogers solo

1. The Stone Poneys
2. The Stone Poneys (Featuring Linda Ronstadt)
3. Linda Ronstadt solo
Click to expand...

I was going to swoop in with Kenny Rogers. Although he shifted genres, so that's another wrinkle to consider.
 
SCyclone said:
On a related note, I thought about Van Halen.....when they first came out my buddies and I were in awe. Eddie playing guitar was a revelation, and these guys rocked. Then they got commercialized, added the keyboard, and it wasn't nearly as fun. And of course David left and Sammy arrived.

Would be interesting to know if CFers prefer David to Sammy, or vice versa.

Sorry Angie. Didn't mean to derail the thread. :oops:
Click to expand...

Diamond Dave all the way!

I once heard somebody described VH with DLR as a young punk who partied and hooked up with a different woman every night. With Sammy, it's the same guy after he settled down, got married, and had a couple of kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyclones500 and Angie
Lionel Ritchie was bigger solo than with the Commodores. Never listened to the commodores so cant say which is better.
 
Here is a trickier one. David Coversdale.

Deep Purple and Whitesnake were his two big ones. Bounced around a little also and I think tried solo a bit. Where was he better.

I will give it to Whitesnake for this reason.

upload_2020-4-10_8-51-52.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom