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?  

chayro

Showing 1 response by onhwy61

Sometimes it's not that clear cut.  Brian Wilson post Beach Boys may have an artistic edge, but certainly not popularity.  Frank Zappa post Mothers Of Invention by volume alone overwhelms the earlier work.

Nile Rodgers production work after Chic is vast and very impressive.  Bill Nelson's work post BeBop Deluxe could be obscure, but reached heights that the band did not.  Janis Joplin was certainly most popular as a solo artist after Big Brother & the Holding Company.  Elvis Costello as a solo act has released a number of superb recordings throughout his long career.  Curtis Mayfield achieved greater fame as a solo act than with the Impressions.  Finally, Mick Taylor's s/t debut album is far better than his output with the Rolling Stones.  The songs weren't up to the Jagger/Richards level, but the performances were better.  Unfortunately, he never reached that level again.