Why are some band front men successful as solo artists whilst others aren't?

[NIK]

Inspired by Paul Weller in the thread I started below I wonder why it is some frontmen are successful away from the parent band whilst others aren't.

For example, there is Weller himself, Robert Plant, Ozzy Osbourne, Brian Ferry to name a few. Whilst Rod Stewart was unusual in that he was already a successful solo artist before the Faces, although of course much bigger afterwards.

Then you have the likes of Ian Gillan and Bruce Dickinson who after some time as solo artists (some considerable time in Gillan's case) seem to scuttle back to the parent band where they remain. Whilst Mick Jagger, arguably the biggest star of them all, has strangely been pretty unsuccessful away from the Stones. Then there is Roger Daltrey who has had a rather strange career in that he has made films as well as records away from the Who, but has been for many years back in the Who, or at least with Pete Townshend (whose own solo career was less successful than as a member of the Who).

Maybe the answer lies in what I read a couple of years ago about Ian Anderson. Apparently he was going to do an anniversary tour under his own name, but was persuaded by management or the record company to use the name Jethro Tull, as it would be more commercially successful. This seemed strange as Anderson always has virtually been Jethro Tull and there were no other ex members in the line up, not even his long standing guitarist Martin Barre.

There was also the Page / Plant collaboration which didn't create anything like the hype that the later Led Zep reunion did, even though it was in reality just adding John Paul Jones (and Bonham's son) to the aforementioned pair who were the main men anyway.
It would seem the brand name carries more weight than the individual names.  I suppose that is why so many bands can carry on without any original members.

Most more modern bands are perhaps even more dominated by one man e.g. Coldplay Chris Martin and three others, Arctic Monkeys Alex Turner and three others, Travis Fran Healy and three others, Franz Ferdinand Alex Kapranos and three others, and many more are like this. Yet the main men, who presumably could easily branch out under their own name, cling to the band name as presumably it is more commercially viable.

[smiths]

Inspired by Paul Weller in the thread I started below I wonder why it is some frontmen are successful away from the parent band whilst others aren't.

For example, there is Weller himself, Robert Plant, Ozzy Osbourne, Brian Ferry to name a few. Whilst Rod Stewart was unusual in that he was already a successful solo artist before the Faces, although of course much bigger afterwards.

Then you have the likes of Ian Gillan and Bruce Dickinson who after some time as solo artists (some considerable time in Gillan's case) seem to scuttle back to the parent band where they remain. Whilst Mick Jagger, arguably the biggest star of them all, has strangely been pretty unsuccessful away from the Stones. Then there is Roger Daltrey who has had a rather strange career in that he has made films as well as records away from the Who, but has been for many years back in the Who, or at least with Pete Townshend (whose own solo career was less successful than as a member of the Who).

Maybe the answer lies in what I read a couple of years ago about Ian Anderson. Apparently he was going to do an anniversary tour under his own name, but was persuaded by management or the record company to use the name Jethro Tull, as it would be more commercially successful. This seemed strange as Anderson always has virtually been Jethro Tull and there were no other ex members in the line up, not even his long standing guitarist Martin Barre.

There was also the Page / Plant collaboration which didn't create anything like the hype that the later Led Zep reunion did, even though it was in reality just adding John Paul Jones (and Bonham's son) to the aforementioned pair who were the main men anyway.
It would seem the brand name carries more weight than the individual names.  I suppose that is why so many bands can carry on without any original members.

Most more modern bands are perhaps even more dominated by one man e.g. Coldplay Chris Martin and three others, Arctic Monkeys Alex Turner and three others, Travis Fran Healy and three others, Franz Ferdinand Alex Kapranos and three others, and many more are like this. Yet the main men, who presumably could easily branch out under their own name, cling to the band name as presumably it is more commercially viable.

With Daltrey the brilliant McVicar was produced by the Who as was Tommy though that was an album first of course. I don't know why he didn't do more as a solo artist and actor that was successful, he was moderately successful solo but nothing to set the world on fire. And he did appear in various acting roles over many years. But yes went back to The Who full time as far as I know.

The brand is the all important money maker and some at least wont take risks when they are on a good thing with the band. On the other hand Phil Collins had both Genesis and his solo career running side by side for years and was extremely successful with both. And he did Buster which I like.

[jimbocimil]

I suppose it's the band that supports the frontmen that's got a lot to do with it. Especially if the frontmen in question are not particularly very good song writers. I mean Ozzy's had amazing guitar players Zakk/Gus/Jake. So did Ronnie James Dio. Both Ronnie and Ozzy had incredible stage presence and charm, but without a solid band backing them they aren't going to be very successful perhaps.

[mr.bluesky]

I guess you could say the same about Freddie Mercury. A few minor solo hits but never scaled the same heights as he did with Queen. Sting had a lot of success as a solo artist as well as the Police. Brandon Flowers minor success as a solo artist but never matched the sucess  that he had with The Killers. I guess a lot of bands frontmen think they can have more sucess going solo but it doesn't always work out that way .

[Malvolio]

Peter Gabriel and Genesis is the only one I can think of where both the front man and the band got more successful after they split (although I'd always view my favourite era of Genesis as being from Foxtrot to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway)
 
Is there another that I've overlooked?

[Marmalade]

If we dig we can find exceptions...

Roxy Music were great but seemed to suddenly run out of steam (or out of drugs). Bryan Ferry was at least as successful, was he not? Though with a totally different genre.

Annie Lennox continues to do all right, although I found the Eurythmics more likeable. Same for Sting. To an extent, Paul Simon. Diana Ross? George Michael? Cher? Michael Jackson seemed to do better once he left The Jackson Five. Was never that keen on Phil Collins with or without Genesis, but Peter Gabriel seems all right, great songs and production. Beyonce does ok now and everyone's forgotten who her girl band was. Lou Reed's ok, though not the phenomenon that were Velvet Underground.

There's a few greats.... Neil Young, Eric Clapton, John Mayall, and back up a bit, Marc Almond.

But the general rule seems to hold in most cases. (I'm ignoring singers that got a start in some unknown band before making their own career). Or Morrissey who is just as depressingly obnoxious but cleverly successful with or without the Smiths. A sort of antithesis to Robbie Williams. Iggy Pop, an icon and almost synonymous with the Stooges.

It struck me with Oasis. A lead songwriter-singer who was good, but thought that was all that was needed, and forgot that what people loved was the band. Probably an unavoidable split. Fleetwood Mac deserve some credit even though their spin off solosist never to came to much, they managed to turn the band's internal angst into one of the best albums ever made. Stevie Nicks made one of the best female ear-splitting songs ever to explode from the best speakers money can buy.... but after that?? not an awful lot!

tbh I don't completely keep track of who's in what band, just if I like the song.

[smiths]

If we dig we can find exceptions...

Roxy Music were great but seemed to suddenly run out of steam (or out of drugs). Bryan Ferry was at least as successful, was he not? Though with a totally different genre.

Annie Lennox continues to do all right, although I found the Eurythmics more likeable. Same for Sting. To an extent, Paul Simon. Diana Ross? George Michael? Cher? Michael Jackson seemed to do better once he left The Jackson Five. Was never that keen on Phil Collins with or without Genesis, but Peter Gabriel seems all right, great songs and production. Beyonce does ok now and everyone's forgotten who her girl band was. Lou Reed's ok, though not the phenomenon that were Velvet Underground.

There's a few greats.... Neil Young, Eric Clapton, John Mayall, and back up a bit, Marc Almond.

But the general rule seems to hold in most cases. (I'm ignoring singers that got a start in some unknown band before making their own career). Or Morrissey who is just as depressingly obnoxious but cleverly successful with or without the Smiths. A sort of antithesis to Robbie Williams. Iggy Pop, an icon and almost synonymous with the Stooges.

It struck me with Oasis. A lead songwriter-singer who was good, but thought that was all that was needed, and forgot that what people loved was the band. Probably an unavoidable split. Fleetwood Mac deserve some credit even though their spin off solosist never to came to much, they managed to turn the band's internal angst into one of the best albums ever made. Stevie Nicks made one of the best female ear-splitting songs ever to explode from the best speakers money can buy.... but after that?? not an awful lot!

tbh I don't completely keep track of who's in what band, just if I like the song.

Good post. Yes Ferry was successful solo and some people I know weren't aware a number of the songs on Roxy Music best of compilations are actually Ferry solo hits. Annie Lennox has one of the best female voices of the last 30 years in my book, Sinead OConnor has THE best voice or did for years and could sing many different genres of music. What I haven't rated is how consistent the albums by Lennox have been, hit and miss for me. Like you I prefer her Eurythmics songs especially the hits which are real belters. She also looked amazing back then, they had showmanship.

Sting has been at least as successful solo as when in the Police and for a long time, I am at this moment listening to his brilliant jazz infused All This Time live album recorded on 9/11 and the attacks totally changed what he had planned for the concert and album. Again though some of his solo albums are hit and miss for me, but so were Police albums.

Paul Simon never reached the huge mountain of Simon And Garfunkel my fave ever group, he hasn't the best voice unlike Garfunkel did but was an excellent songwriter. Graceland was his peak solo for me.

Diana Ross did very well solo and George Michael I rate as THE best British singer of the last 30 years and he vastly exceeded his Wham hits when he went solo, and made some of my fave albums ever like Older which is a masterpiece, Songs From The Last Century and Faith. He was also fantastic live, that man could sing. I was gutted when he died a very troubled bloke.

Cher exceeded her Sonny And Cher fame and hits solo but has always been inconsistent. And Michael Jackson obviously massively exceeded his Jackson Five fame and hits solo, but then not many singers/groups can match his number of hits and record sales, Thriller still being the biggest selling album ever I think. I prefer Collins to Gabriel solo and in Genesis, for me when Gabriel was in Genesis it was all pranching about arty farty with songs 20 mins or more long. Give me their 80s output all day long and I like many of Collins solo hits. He was a really big headed wanker in the 80s but fuck me he shifted records.

Neil Young I love but not with Crazy Horse as its too loud for me, I much prefer his acoustic versions and never more so than his MTV Unplugged, if it had Old Man on it it would be the perfect live album, the problem with Sugar Mountain and some other of his live albums is he talks far too much to the audience. Crosby, Stills And Nash were even worse and its cringeworthy some of the shite they spouted.

I love some Clapton stuff but he has always been inconsistent to me but very successful. What Robbie Williams has or had was a good stage persona, he isn't the best singer at all but he put a lot of effort in live, again his albums have always been hit and miss but some great hits. Oasis were fantastic for their first 2 albums but never reached that level again, Liams vocals were great then, as you probably know Noel only started singing when Liam refused to do so.

Fleetwood Mac from when Nicks and Buckingham joined scaled the heights and Nicks only joined as Buckingham insisted it was both of them or he wouldn't join, he held out for her his partner at the time. It all went to shit with them and all the rest of the band on a personal basis, but they got bigger and bigger peaking with Rumours.

[chrishornx]

I am late to the party here with most examples already mentioned

I would however add a couple of names of solo artists making a success after being part of a successful band

Tina Turner
Donny Osmond
Lionel Richie
Justin Timberlake

and the current number one album artist .....'The Boss' Bruce Springsteen - how could he be missed?

[Marmalade]

Eric Clapton left John Mayall's band in 1966 and went on to join what I seem to remember was known as – rightly or wrongly – the first 'supergroup'. That band's double album, Wheels of Fire (1968) made a lasting impression on me, more than anything Clapton did before or afterwards. He was a very great guitarist, but I only really cared for his collaborative efforts.

John Mayall continued his own path, finding other backing members, producing the phenomenal Blues from Laurel Canyon in 1968. Maybe the biggest winner of the Cream experiment was Ginger Baker. Acclaimed then as "the world's greatest drummer" he became an icon, an amzing character up to his last days. I always felt the epithet "struggled with heroin addiction for many years" was slightly unfair even if it had some truth. Everybody has "struggles" with something. Baker lived to the ripe old age of 80 in spite of large amounts of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. After Cream, he joined up with Clapton and Steve Winwood to form yet another 'supergroup', Blind Faith, though Stevie Windwood was the frontman. Baker was an enduringly interesting character. Yet if I could have a drink with any of them, it would be John Mayall, based on his love of the blues.

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Marmalade]

Neil Young is a remarkable character. His devotion to music per se outweighs that of many (not to mention model railways) and the interest of the many. It's a great loss to the world that none of his projects for purer high fidelity succeeded. I've never really made a big separation between Neil Young and Crosby-Steels-Nash regading who was a member of what band or solo at what time. Neil Young was the enduring winner, but for me the songs of that period, with or without CSN or Crazy Horse were defining songs of the era.

Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere is his best electronic album, with heights only reached on rare occasions since – such as External Link/Members Only. But for acoustic sets, After the Gold Rush, the eponymous Crosby, Stills & Nash album, and Déjà Vu are all part of the same spliff-sharing euphoria of an age to which we can only look back to with fondness.

[chrishornx]

you learn something every day I thought After the gold rush was a Neil Young album

[Marmalade]

you learn something every day I thought After the gold rush was a Neil Young album

Did anythng make you think it wasn't??

[Ahalfa Carling]

I would say that a certain Mr McCartney, former bassist with that 1960's popular beat combo "The Beatles" has been moderately successful, as has/was the other singer in the Band, Mr Lennon.

Ok, Mr Harrison from that band also had a bit of a solo career, as did Mr Star, the drummer (OK, his success was more to with being the voice of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), but none of these were as big as McCartney.

[smiths]

Neil Young is a remarkable character. His devotion to music per se outweighs that of many (not to mention model railways) and the interest of the many. It's a great loss to the world that none of his projects for purer high fidelity succeeded. I've never really made a big separation between Neil Young and Crosby-Steels-Nash regading who was a member of what band or solo at what time. Neil Young was the enduring winner, but for me the songs of that period, with or without CSN or Crazy Horse were defining songs of the era.

Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere is his best electronic album, with heights only reached on rare occasions since – such as External Link/Members Only. But for acoustic sets, After the Gold Rush, the eponymous Crosby, Stills & Nash album, and Déjà Vu are all part of the same spliff-sharing euphoria of an age to which we can only look back to with fondness.

Deja Vu is a brilliant album it gets a lot of plays in my home as does After The Gold Rush but MTV Unplugged is the album I play most of Youngs as I love it.

[smiths]

I would say that a certain Mr McCartney, former bassist with that 1960's popular beat combo "The Beatles" has been moderately successful, as has/was the other singer in the Band, Mr Lennon.

Ok, Mr Harrison from that band also had a bit of a solo career, as did Mr Star, the drummer (OK, his success was more to with being the voice of "Thomas the Tank Engine"), but none of these were as big as McCartney.

Plus McCartney had great success in the 70s with Wings and Harrison with The Travelling Willburys if that's how its spelt. Starr had his own band that featured various rock and pop stars.

[Marmalade]

Fleetwood Mac from when Nicks and Buckingham joined scaled the heights and Nicks only joined as Buckingham insisted it was both of them or he wouldn't join, he held out for her his partner at the time. It all went to shit with them and all the rest of the band on a personal basis, but they got bigger and bigger peaking with Rumours.

Just re-listening to Rumours over b'fast today and it occurred to me that they achieved something I can't think of in any other band.

Many solo artists have channelled their personal emotional traumas effectively into their music, but it has happened so rarely if ever with bands. They usually come out with 'musical differences' (Beatles), or open hostilities, like Oasis. What Fleetwood Mac did was come out with an album of songs where they could all play lyrics like "Go Your Own Way" as well as love songs, heartbreaks, and mean the every word they were singing and playing.

It resounded well with the public. It was very good musically and lyrically, but the emotion behind the songs could be felt (wouldn't quite be the same if say, maybe the Corries sang them). Anyone can remember a traumatic break-up, if not with a partner, with a good friend. The songs were universal.

Is it just a personal opinion or did they achieve something almost unique? Do any other bands come to mind that could channel their internal problems into such brilliantly creative music towards each other – and to us?

[ian cognito]

I don't put ABBA anywhere in the same musical league as Fleetwood Mac, but I recall that some of their later songs reflected the on going break up of internal relationships.

[JamesKW]

Plenty of front men do alright after they leave the band,but most of the stuff they subsequently bring out is dreary,dreary stuff compared to when they were in a band format (even if they were the main component of the band) Weller,Collins,Sting,McCartney,Rod,Knopfler,Costello,Morrisey,Walters,Osborne,Ferry,Sprinsteen etc,. were all better in the band than solo.Even Gabriel did some good solo stuff but he was better in Genesis.

[JamesKW]

In answer to the question maybe the sucessful solo front man goes more mainstream,in the case of Collins,Gabriel,Rod,Ferry in their groups their fans were more male,a specific audience.When they went solo their sound became more diluted to appeal to women as well.In the case of Knopfler, Dire Straits were quite mainstream and he returned more to a specific market when he went solo (so he wasnt so successful).

[Dickled]

Neil Young is a remarkable character. His devotion to music per se outweighs that of many (not to mention model railways) and the interest of the many. It's a great loss to the world that none of his projects for purer high fidelity succeeded. I've never really made a big separation between Neil Young and Crosby-Steels-Nash regading who was a member of what band or solo at what time. Neil Young was the enduring winner, but for me the songs of that period, with or without CSN or Crazy Horse were defining songs of the era.

Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere is his best electronic album, with heights only reached on rare occasions since – such as External Link/Members Only. But for acoustic sets, After the Gold Rush, the eponymous Crosby, Stills & Nash album, and Déjà Vu are all part of the same spliff-sharing euphoria of an age to which we can only look back to with fondness.

In 1974, I went to Wembley Stadium to see CSNY (also on the bill were Joni Mitchell, The Band and Jesse Colin Young). Prior to this although I'd loved the CSN and CSNY albums, I wasn't a particularly massive NY fan, but I think he really stood out that day, and I've been a big fan since. Something I'd love to see released on DVD or online is his performance captured on "Weld", a superb live album he did in the early 1990's.
Talking about a band's front man who appears not to have had a great solo career, I think of Richard Ashcroft, who I think is a superb singer, but appears to be someone who has suffered from a conspicuous lack of success, despite releasing several albums, since leaving The Verve.

[smiths]

Just re-listening to Rumours over b'fast today and it occurred to me that they achieved something I can't think of in any other band.

Many solo artists have channelled their personal emotional traumas effectively into their music, but it has happened so rarely if ever with bands. They usually come out with 'musical differences' (Beatles), or open hostilities, like Oasis. What Fleetwood Mac did was come out with an album of songs where they could all play lyrics like "Go Your Own Way" as well as love songs, heartbreaks, and mean the every word they were singing and playing.

It resounded well with the public. It was very good musically and lyrically, but the emotion behind the songs could be felt (wouldn't quite be the same if say, maybe the Corries sang them). Anyone can remember a traumatic break-up, if not with a partner, with a good friend. The songs were universal.

Is it just a personal opinion or did they achieve something almost unique? Do any other bands come to mind that could channel their internal problems into such brilliantly creative music towards each other – and to us?

I agree about them channelling their emotions at the time into their music, could well of made the songs better than if they had been happy in relationships. As said Bjorn and Benny did the same thing with Abba in the midst of both their relationships falling to pieces with Agnetha and Anna-Frid. Their songs of that time drip with it and in the videos its on the womens faces especially, not that I noticed it as a youth, I just wanted to see the women in skimpy outfits.

In Fleetwood Mac, Buckingham and Nicks came to a point where they at least thought they really hated each other, bitter it certainly was. What may be unique is the amount of partner swapping and generally fucking each other that went on, I wouldn't be surprised if there are future revelations about homosexual pairings up. At one time they had to have 5 separate cars as they couldn't stand to be in each others company until they really had to be. But that was all living the rock and roll dream to excess and fuck me they did that, good on them.

The Beautiful Souths given reason for splitting up was due to musical similarities which made me laugh at the time, that is after I got over being gutted at hearing the news, one of my fave groups ever led by the underrated Paul Heaton. By the time they split he had run out of ideas though in my view.

[JamesKW]

The Beautiful Souths given reason for splitting up was due to musical similarities which made me laugh at the time, that is after I got over being gutted at hearing the news, one of my fave groups ever led by the underrated Paul Heaton. By the time they split he had run out of ideas though in my view.

I thought that would be cause for celebration,I saw them at Finsbury Park (luckily with a load of other bands that compensated)they have to rank in the dullest group I have ever seen.He was better with the Housemartins.

[foreverchanges]

Deja Vu is a brilliant album it gets a lot of plays in my home as does After The Gold Rush but MTV Unplugged is the album I play most of Youngs as I love it.

My favourite live Neil Young album was always Live At Massey Hall 1971 until I recently bought his Tuscaloosa album which includes the best live version of 'Old Man' I've heard as it's done with The Stray Gators.

I would definitely recommend it although the only disappointment is that Old Neil - being the contrary old sod that he is- declined to include the full concert.

[smiths]

My favourite live Neil Young album was always Live At Massey Hall 1971 until I recently bought his Tuscaloosa album which includes the best live version of 'Old Man' I've heard as it's done with The Stray Gators.

I would definitely recommend it although the only disappointment is that Old Neil - being the contrary old sod that he is- declined to include the full concert.

I don't like hearing much talking in live albums and he does rattle on in Live At Massey Hall 1971 where he reveals Old Man. Mind you he talks a lot more on the Sugar Mountain live album. Thanks, I will look into the Tuscaloosa album which I haven't got. A great pity he didn't do Old Man on MTV Unplugged as it would be perfect for me, but its still damn good.