[Q] Marketing a band vs a solo artist - opinions?
jy...@videotron.ca
the artist chooses to go under an assumed band name.
Marylin Manson is a band, with its own regular members, but choose to go
under the banner of a solo artist.
Axl Rose will be releasing a solo record if there ever was one - with an
entirely new line-up of musicians to accompany him, and a whole new
electronic sound. Yet, he owns the name Guns n' Roses and has opted to
release this next project under that name instead of his own.
* * *
My question is... what are your theories regarding why these (and other)
people have opted to market themselves as a band or solo artist when given
the choice? Is it purely a marketing decision? Does the band concept
simply seem more familiar in rock circles than the solo artist? Given that
even solo artists usually have a regular touring band as well as co-writers,
does that make going "solo" merely an ego-based decision?
I'm actually more curious about what the record labels' point of view might
be on this. Is a solo artist easier for the record company to deal with
than a full band? Fewer mouthes to feed? Does the record company have any
general preference for one over the other (band or solo artist)? How much
differently are they marketed?
The bottom line is... if you had a choice, how would you do it and why?
I'd love to have informed opinions on this subject.
Jon
Chris Stevens
>
>
> The bottom line is... if you had a choice, how would you do it and why?
This is a reasonable question, but the fact that it must be asked is
quite sad. Yes, there probably are people out there (in both bands and
record companies) who make a conscious decision to form one musical
entity over the other for business/marketing reasons alone. This only
serves to shed a dim light on where this country is with its music
industry. It's a sad day, I believe, when marketing shapes the artist
and not vice versa. I know, I'm naive as hell...this has been going on
for years. But it is still sad.
CS
cybergnat
<jy...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:4L2A3.1211$Bs5....@weber.videotron.net...
>
>
> Jon
>
I have an opinion, but unfortunately I'm not a record label executive.
jy...@videotron.ca
cybergnat <cybe...@rvi.net> wrote in message
news:rt1k7c...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I'd love to have informed opinions on this subject
>
Though I am more curious about record execs' opinions, I did ask for *any*
informed opinion.
Jon
cybergnat
executive opinion, so I didn't put in my two cents worth. It is a long
weekend so that may be why you haven't received much attention to your
question. So I will let you know what I think.
The music industry is just that, an industry. If any business is going to
survive they must put significant wieght on marketing and product
recognition. Marylin Manson gets free press coverage, enough that most of
the informed public knows who you are talking about. The more recognition
the greater market share, therefore to use any other name for the band would
result in a loss of market share. It is that simple. A classic example would
be Wings, how well do you think they would have done if they weren't Paul
Mcartney and Wings?
Dave
<jy...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:eJ9A3.1239$Bs5....@weber.videotron.net...
Watson Davis
>Nine Inch Nails is Trent Reznor, a solo artist if there ever was one. Yet
>the artist chooses to go under an assumed band name.
>
>Marylin Manson is a band, with its own regular members, but choose to go
>under the banner of a solo artist.
>
>Axl Rose will be releasing a solo record if there ever was one - with an
>entirely new line-up of musicians to accompany him, and a whole new
>electronic sound. Yet, he owns the name Guns n' Roses and has opted to
>release this next project under that name instead of his own.
>
>* * *
>
>My question is... what are your theories regarding why these (and other)
>people have opted to market themselves as a band or solo artist when given
>the choice? Is it purely a marketing decision? Does the band concept
>simply seem more familiar in rock circles than the solo artist? Given that
>even solo artists usually have a regular touring band as well as co-writers,
>does that make going "solo" merely an ego-based decision?
>
>I'm actually more curious about what the record labels' point of view might
>be on this. Is a solo artist easier for the record company to deal with
>than a full band? Fewer mouthes to feed? Does the record company have any
>general preference for one over the other (band or solo artist)? How much
>differently are they marketed?
>
>The bottom line is... if you had a choice, how would you do it and why?
>
If you want to get out of your record contract, you have to dissolve
the band (with at most two members remaining IIRC) AND you can no
longer use the name (until the contract runs out several years later.)
When you're a solo artist, your only option is to put your career on
hold for awhile.
In a situation like Marilyn Manson, the lead vocalist is the focal
point of the band but the other members of the band also have input.
This is similar to Jethro Tull, Lynyrd Skynyrd, ZZ Top or Alice Cooper
where the singer is not actually a solo artist but the frontman for a
band. In the case of Alice Cooper, he bought out the rights to the
name so he could become a solo artist but the act was originally a
band.
There are actually very few cases of solo artists performing as a
band; NIN is one example, Steely Dan is close (it was a duo). I
can't think of any others off hand.
As far as the labels go, they don't care what you call yourself or
whether you're a band or a solo artist as long as you sell lots of
CDs.
Watson
atro...@hotmail.com
<jy...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Nine Inch Nails is Trent Reznor, a solo artist if there ever was
one. Yet
> the artist chooses to go under an assumed band name.
>
cd was done all by himself. All the other ones had a lot of other
people. And NIN always performed live with a whole set of musicians. As
for naming a solo project as a band I think it's not much of a big
deal. It's like, some people choose to use their real names and others
have artistic names.
As for the existence of solo artists, there are a lot of them... Mainly
in electronic based music. But the first Lenny Kravitz album was all by
himself.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.