This has surely been fueled by the new technologies which enable one musician to record and mix all the instruments (real or sampled ones) from the comfort of their home studio.

 

While it surely has its positive side enabling easier release of music, I'm one of those who think that much of the great music from the past came to being thanks to the chemistry of different musicians playing together and feedbacking each other's creativity. Anyone who has played in a band has experienced those magical moments when all the members seem to "click" in a synchronized state of mind and some amazing music comes out. What started as a jam may produce a sudden fragment of wonderful music which can then be taken and developed into a proper song.

 

One-man musicians can "jam with themselves" by recording tracks and then improvising on them with another instrument to try to come up with ideas, but the recorded tracks can not react back and change themselves while playing. There is no feedback possible.

 

Do you think the abundance of modern one-man projects is a good thing or does it tend to lower the creativity level in modern prog?

If music is good, it doesn't matter if it's done by 1 person or a band.

I have not heard the album but of course I can not disagree, that goes without saying.

I was referring to the phenomenon as a general trend. 

 

When recording a one-man album I do listen to each stage of the recording and feedback what I hear and change things as necessary, tracks will be completely restructured and rewritten if a later idea warrants that change, just as a writer will self-edit a piece of prose that doesn't work or needs to be rewritten or a painter will correct or discard a painting that doesn't work. No one would claim that a novel or piece of artwork suffered from not being a collaboration or group effort.

 

There is no denying that one man projects do not have that collaboration creativity, but then all Classical compositions are one-man projects and no one would say that Bach, Mozart or Bernstein et al lack creativity. The difference between classical compositions, band tracks composed by one man and modern one-man Prog is not the creative composition, it is the playing and interpretation. No two recordings of a classical composition are the same, yet all recorded albums are judged as a single one-off performance and a single one-off composition.

 

 

I dont find it a problem at all.

There will still be the urge to be able to play live, so there will always be a lot of Group based music created.

Its like with Films, they dont take anything from Acting, they just ad another way of doing things.

Photo not ruining the greatness of oil painting, ect ect.

 

Actualy what the new techs development does, its opening up new genres, but we still got a load of acustic instruments played, after the development of electric guitars.

I have played in band (amateur level) and have experienced them so I guessed that most other people who have played and jammed in band must have too. You may be jamming with a riff on guitar and suddenly the bassist may come with a different bass line which would never have occurred to you and yet fits perfectly, that new bass line triggers you to try some variations on what you were playing on the guitar, the keyboardist may jump in with a quirky arpeggio which again is not the kind of thing you would normally think of, then the drummer finds a different rhythm which somehow fits more nicely than the one you had started with, that triggers some other idea by some other member etc.

One-man compositions / performances can of course be as great as any band effort, but they can never have the particular property of capturing in some magical amalgam the different personalities and influences of the different band members. You may modify and re-do whatever you want but it will still be your composition, arising from a single brain. Different inputs do not necessarily mean a better composition, of course, but they can provide an additional dimension of richness when they get it right.

an example:  http://zero-the-hero.bandcamp.com/track/raindrops" rel="nofollow - http://zero-the-hero.bandcamp.com/track/raindrops  : this is the second (middle) part of this song:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkdcZ3MdxMI" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkdcZ3MdxMI  . I decided to keep both (I cut first and third part in my "final version", because I can't sing so well ) , but band work in arrangement has been so deep that they are two different songs.

 

But the question was :

Once again I have all respect for one-man musicians but similarly I was just wondering if this is becoming also a trend in music,  where more and more musicians will be happy enough to produce their own work by themselves and the concept of band music will eventually fall into oblivion, somehow limiting the richness of the musical output we as audience get.

For sure we are still far from that, but if the trend becomes stronger and stronger could it be a reason for concern? or not?

Reflecting about this was the purpose of the thread, not putting in doubt that one-man musicians can produce outstanding music (as stated by Dean this has been the norm for centuries) but reflecting on the potential effects if this direction confirms itself as a trend within the prog music world.

Just to clarify things further, what I described above is just normal business in band playing, most of the times it will not result in anything magical. But every once in a while the different musicians will get in a rare state when what they play seems to just fall all into the right place with eachother, a rare state of chemistry where you get transported beyond what you can normally play, where you seem to be able to play better than what you rationally ever thought you could, just because what the other guys are playing gives you an extra dose of inspiration. And when what the different guys get to play comes together nicely, then you have one of these magical moments.

In our case I experienced this in very rare occasions because we were not talented musicians but I can imagine that in case of talented musicians this is much more likely to happen. In the very few cases when I have experienced this feeling, what was sounding was something I don't think I would have ever been able to put together myself alone. 

What I'm referring to is similar, good musicians surrounded by good musicians may be able to come up with stuff which none of them would have been able to individually. Not necessarily meaning better or worse but different, richer in some sense.  

That wasn't what I described - I've never worked remotely, the guest musician and I have always been in the same place at the same time. I need that personal interaction if I am working with another person - if they do something I don't like then I will tell them, if I do something they don't like I need to be told.

 

By saying you were referring to the magic moments of inspirational feed back when you are comparing how one-man bands work with how group bands work then you have to take the one-man band methods of working and developing ideas into consideration otherwise you are simply presenting a biased view with no chance for anyone to disagree with you.

Gerinski wrote: I have played in band (amateur level) and have experienced them so I guessed that most other people who have played and jammed in band must have too. You may be jamming with a riff on guitar and suddenly the bassist may come with a different bass line which would never have occurred to you and yet fits perfectly, that new bass line triggers you to try some variations on what you were playing on the guitar, the keyboardist may jump in with a quirky arpeggio which again is not the kind of thing you would normally think of, then the drummer finds a different rhythm which somehow fits more nicely than the one you had started with, that triggers some other idea by some other member etc.

All compositions work like this don't they? Whether that's one man or a whole ensemble that's how ideas develop, nothing springs forth fully formed. However, not all group compositions are the result of jamming - that in itself is a low-quality form of music IMO that lacks structure and purpose - fine for psyche freakouts but it's not really a composition, the main composition in any track is more often the result of one or two people in the band creating a basic song that the rest of the band adds flesh to.

 

You are implying that  band compositions are the result of better inspiration than solo compositions and I cannot agree with that.

Then you badly misunderstood me or neglected to read me. I think I made it clear that IMO one-man compositions / performances can be as great as any band effort and that they have my full respect. And sure enough I love Oldfield's work and many more.

I just put forward the question whether people share with me the perception that there is an increasing trend in modern prog to have an increasing share of one-man music releases, and if they do, how should we interpret it and extrapolate it towards the future if this trend continues.

I clearly said a couple of times that band compositions are not necessarily better, just different and richer in some sense, and I just wonder if such a trend can eventually diminish the share of band compositions and one-band projects may become the dominant way of making music.

I read you just fine thanks.

 

I said "better inspiration" not "better composition", because that was the direction of your argument.

 

 

 

Not sure that is true ... again, using the older music examples, what you are saying is that ... "you can't do that" ... if you don't have two or three people playing together, and that is not the case ... that composer STILL put it together and thought of it ... or heard it in his/her head.

 

There is, a certain amount of synchronicity, that can take place between two musicians and this is best found in rock music with brothers, or sister combinations, who ahve a knack for supporting each other through mistakes live like no one else, and of course be able to see/hear these quickly in the studio which often helps clean it up, and/or make it better.

 

IF ... big IFFFFF ... there is something in rock/jazz and free form music that is spectacular, it is that the potential to discover more and more things is much more evident than the composer's idea ... for the most part, mostly because it is two different people interpreting it for the composer ... but if you want to hear synchronicity and what it is about, you need to watch Tom Dowd's DVD ... there is always synchronicity and things that can happen at any time ... but do you, or the engineer, have the ear to find it ... and nod to the folks ... KEEP IT GOING ... and this is what is missing in a lot of rock music, in general, specially when that is a place where you can do this.

 

If I may suggest, you might want to study the traditions of "raga" and "sufi" designs for music ... where the idea is to keep playing until you overcome the limitations of the technical side of your playing ... in order for the music to enter a completely different realm ... in a "psychic" term, this moment would be ... YOU ... and not an idea of you, or notes, or scales, or "music".

 

The one-man thing is no more, no less ... an issue ... with one exception ... today you can do this even better than Mike Oldfield with so many tracks on his tape recorders! And faster! But I doubt that it will be better ... because too much of these DAW's is to try and dumb down the music to its simplest ... and that takes away 90% of the music's ability to live on its own right there! ...

 

But what you are saying is that Albinoni's Adagio in G or any other piece about 500 years of more, is still not exciting to our ears ... because it is missing the concert between the two folks or the violin and the "band" behind it ... and I think you are dead wrong! But it would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy harder to write that on a staff, than otherwise ... btw!

I like one man bands

In what ways do you feel DAWs dumb down the music?

acts of sorts.

All that said, I am glad that people have the tools to create the full band sound on their own. This means more music and more people getting into music, which are certainly good things. 

http://etherealise.net/downloads/retropod.html" rel="nofollow - http://etherealise.net/downloads/retropod.html

The files are in FLAC, they take a while, but it's worth it.  BTW, I played the bass on tracks 2 & 6. Dan is da Man !!

                                                                                                                                                                                                

It's been my philosophy that music occurs more between two or more points than within any single point, notes, people, or otherwise. Harmony, Resonance, Spiritual blah blah blah.

(I don't question that a man with such a talent can not exist but certainly it would not be your average musician) 

 

A one man band works within his/her limitations. There may be a tendency that the instrument he/she plays will be represented more than other instruments, for example guitar. The guitars become the main instrument, the instrument that's most "alive" in the music. More musicians can add extra dimensions to the music that are outside ones own limitations. That's also a good way to evolve by learning other people's ways of thinking and evolve musically. And as some have pointed out, a solo band often have compromises, such as bad drum machine (with bad programming and sound). The solo artist may decide to sing on the album instead of collaborating with a singer, which may be a negative thing.

 

Many of Tony Banks albums have compromised sound...really stiff drum machines. And keyboard solos using some awful saxophone sound for example. Often when a member of a band releases a solo album, the result is compromised in some aspects.

 

And also, it's more time consuming since you have to do everything yourself. If you trust the band members, they can add musical parts and ideas, so a complex piece can be built in shorter time.

 

But of course, there may be disadvantages working in a group, and advantages working solo. I'm not playing in a group , I quit the previous group because I felt I needed to explore song writing myself, and try to find the kind of sounds I want to pursue. Right now I need a new computer, I can't use the current one for music production. When I have some material, ideally, I would want to continue in a band. But it can be hard finding the right band members.

Your opinion is interesting because if I'm not wrong you play both in band (Fungus) but also as a one-man project Zerothehero, correct?

Easy ... most folks get married to the time clock and do not know how to remove it later, so the music is free'r to attempt details that otherwise the timing does not allow ... the clock is rigid, and a limitation ... it has been so for 500 years, and is joked about in "Amadeus" with the fat old farts having a staff in their hands to count the 4/4 ... for example!

 

History since then, has been about breaking down that clock ... but rock music (not the REAL progressive music) is not capable, intelligent or smart enough to learn from music history ... it's way too dependant on the clock or the snare drum in the case of most prog these days ... which is a waste of a musician, when a metronome can do the drummer better, and you could color it with percussion instead of the snare every 4th beat! Of course, SD has to think that his heart is still beating, though, so maybe there is a need for that snare drum after all!

 

This is the main reason why too many bands today will like not be remembered as fondly as so many were that we still discuss ... they broke the rules ... and even Rick W talks about ... "the freedom" ... but today, most of these bands are just like Doris Lessing's famous line ... "the country and place with the most freedoms, uses them the least!" ... and that goes for music and the arts!

 

I doubt it ... and there are several stories about this, and music around it. Even in movies!

 

It wasn't about "composing" for an orchestra for most of them ... it was about illustrating what they saw or felt or wanted ... the only folks that "compose" for an orchestra are the professors in music schools that never made it in music as others did!

 

You write what you see.

 

You write what you feel.

 

And sometimes this bends the rules ... some or a lot. Please check out music history a bit ... it's been 500 years of breaking down barriers as to what "music" is ... and rock, jazz and folk, have added something (20th century) to it that was considered a composer's realm before, within their "story" ... now you do not have a go-between ... because you hear it first hand ... the attitude and the expression ... is from the originator, not from someone else ... and that makes a huge difference to the music itself ... and forces the music to help that singer/writer better ... this is the hard part of rock/jazz for most professors ... this is not considered discipline, and such ... which ... of course neither was Stravinsky and so many other creators that were boo'd when they first got on stage ... people were laughing at Beethoven when he said he wanted 20 violins ... no one used more than 2 or 3 up until then!

I'm glad you said most because I think a creative composer can beat the clock.  If I understand you right, you are talking about feel, the minute changes in tempo make music sound alive.  In the DAW, a creative composer can build that into a composition by automating tempo pretty much like a classical composer would use hairpins, rit and accel.  A good composer should be able to write feel into DAW - this is a gift great musicians have.  The rest do sound mechanical.

Huh? Many of the greatest composers were prolific and gifted orchestrators.  Most of them were also gifted musicians. Paul Hindemith was not only a great composer and orchestrator, but he could also play EVERY instrument in the orchestra at a professional level.  Did I misunderstand you?

Not sure, but probably not.

 

My comment was more about the rock/jazz music design, as opposed to a classical music design ... honestly I would like to see bands in "progressive" do 17/32 instead of 3/4 or 4/4 or some of the easier things in music ... which kinda suggests the ability to COLOR one's imagination, is limited ... to what one knows ... not to what one perceives! The day that we here a rock band do the Firebird Suite, is the day that some rock musicians will open up ... that there is more music without the "beat", than there is with the "beat". At least, I admit that is so in my imagination ... the beat brings it down to the industrial level ... and I prefer the non-industrial levels all around! Less mechanical!

 

The perception can help create a lot of things ... the limitations of music and notation, tend to cut things down, and take the intangibles out.

 

I don't think many folks can understand this, until you get used to hearing musics from 1000 countries ... and I don't mean a 30 second sample! By the time, you get to the really evolved and different ones out there, it is so far and differet from rock and jazz and classical ... that too many folks automatically dismiss it ... Ex: When I say that Terje Rypdal and David Darling's album EOS is Chamber Music for Electric Guitar and Bass ... I am not sure that most folks here can even conceive what it is ... and what those two accomplished with a couple of effects ... skip the first cut ... you have been warned. And in the end, it is some of the prettiest things ever recorded with an electric guitar and the biggest and highest compliment to Jimi Hendrix I have ever heard. Only one other guitarist, ahs ever shown that much shine and care to his playing, specially in the early days, and it was Toni McPhee with The Groundhogs, before he became a blues and this and that guitarist ... put on Crosscut Saw and Black Diamond. It is rock music, but ... it also is more than just rock music ... and it is a one man's vision for the most part ... and this was the guy that taught Jimi to do the American Anthem, when Jimi saw him do Amazing Grace!

 

These things "expand" the realm of perception and experience ... and yes, a "one-man" band has to stand up for it ... but it can also be done by any composer ... and no one here, including myself, can really say outright that the "one-man" band IS ... what the history of music is all about! And eventually the credit goes back to the originators of the music, not the kissers!

.........I just found myself staring at that Floyd sequence and it took me a while to get the order correct  - I don't even take anything anymore .........

Yes, I do! Zerothehero started to evolve the day I realized some of the material was not suitable for fungus. But if we had time and money to record an album every year, well... you'd hear everything played by a "real" band, recorded in a "real" studio. By now, that's the best I can do (but I'm quite satisfied, even because to satisfy one's mind and ears is easier than a five people's!)

My guitarist also writes with his computer, but his compositions are so articulated he usually leaves everything in MIDI or sheet music, until the band "takes care" of it. And that's a pity, because we put aside so many good pieces of music... 

In my case, I tend to improvise a lot with the band in order to get something rich. When I work alone, the creative process is more 'offline' and 'sound-based'. The music coming from these two projects is very different.

Also, excellent point about the 'classical' music composers who (can) (seemingly) leave very little room for individual interpretation from their texts/scores. 'Classical' composers, in my opinion, follow a kind of mathematical, mental formula for constructing their pieces. Many progressive rockers have kind of taken that experience of 'classical' training and experimented with the more improvisational side or 'jazz' of music play--especially in the live and recording phase. Others seek a rigid adherence to the original compositions and studio recorded versions (to please fans/audiences). Wasn't the Canterbury 'movement' kind of a combination of both? (Plus, throw in a few mind-altering substances . . . )

Anyway, I do not think that the solo/mostly solo album recordings coming out are any less valuable, or are producing music that is any less creative, less accomplished, or less magical--and certainly not any worse qualitatively--than the full bands. The listener, in the end, is the decision-maker. It's all rather subjective, of course, isn't it?

I'm with Gerinski on this.

 

As someone who has played in bands as well as recorded on my own (nothing released this way, however), and also evaluated and reviewed a number of artists who record on their own, I understand the limitations that can come from that process.

 

While it is not inevitable, as I have heard some artists that have managed to avoid most of the pitfalls, problems with recording alone usually are evident.

 

First, as Gerinski pointed out, is that the artist's first vision of the song is what we hear.  That may be nice, but In my experience, the first vision of the song is rarely the best.  By actually playing the song over and over, musicians, once they get comfortable with the piece, begin to add embellishments, or eyebrows as Frank Zappa called them.  By playing a song repeatedly the musicians get a feel for which embellishments work and which do not. 

 

And speaking of Mr. Zappa, with his now vast catalog of live releases, you can hear many of his pieces evolve from relatively simplistic pieces into something really special. 

 

Second, and I believe this has been mentioned previously, a single artist is rarely an expert in every instrument on his album.  In most cases the drums are the weak point.  As a non-drummer who has tried to create realistic drum beats on a synth, I understand just how difficult it is (I eventually broke down and just let a drummer friend create the drum tracks using trigger pads). 

 

With one man recordings, I usually notice which instruments the artist specializes in, and which he is not as competent playing.  As a bass player, it irritates me when a great prog piece is brought down by a mundane bass line (often I hear keyboardists of guitarists lay down a bass track that finds a home at the root and stays there). 

 

Luckily, some artists can produce wonderful music that way, and I applaud them (if I'm writing a review, I acknowledge how impressive I find the ones who prevail).  But alas, in my experience, most do not prevail.

Well I guess most of JT's output was really that of one man?  Did Steve Hackett really fare far worse than Genesis in the late 70s?  I think even some Genesis fans would disagree there.   Donald Fagen sounds revitalised and vibrant on Nightfly, following on the heels of the brilliant but downbeat and pessimistic Gaucho.   You are correct that it takes a gifted composer to compose an album full of great prog all by himself but it also takes an extraordinary band to get the most out of jamming as a means of composition and frankly most of them don't.  The musicians might find the experience very satisfying but whether it really makes such a telling difference to the listener is another matter.   I felt the influence of collaboration was positive in KC but they also relied much more on improvisation than many other of their contemporaries.  Even in democratic bands, there are one or two dominant composers who call the shots and that is what lends coherence to their work.  If every track was entirely everybody's baby and every band member had widely divergent tastes, would it make much sense as an album experience?

Coming to performance, it can have a detrimental impact IF one man plays all the instruments and the music revolves around traditional rock/blues/jazz instruments (and that too is contingent on his skills...if he is as good as Stevie Wonder, then why not).  I don't find any remarkable difference in creativity between Bjork and Radiohead, who got more and more collaborative by the time of Kid A.  So if the music revolves around electronic elements, it is the creativity - individually or collectively - of an artist or band that would matter.  

A friend of mine makes some sort of prog rock/metal and in the early days, his approach was more like a dictator.  His ideas, his compositions and the band's job being to only play them.  His last track however was more collaborative and he was thrilled with the results.   But as a listener (and as someone who knows a lot about his musical influences), I still hear his own voice in the music and if I hadn't been told it was collaborative, I would never know.   It did reflect an improvement over previous tracks but that could be down to his own improvement as a composer, the band gelling well at this point and performing the music better and improvement in recording.   I wouldn't have thought it would be impossible for him to compose that track all by himself because I thought he did when I heard it the first time.  

Check out the discussion between Dean and Gerinski on the first page of this thread.  It suggests that Gerinski extends his notion of a one man band to that of a one man composer and believes that even a one man composer is hampered in terms of creativity compared to a band with a few composers.   I think that is highly debatable and can only be observed on a case-by-case basis.   It is highly unlikely that the sum total of the output of a democratic, mediocre band would match the creativity of a genius.  

Further, as I mentioned in the second para of my previous post, you cannot compare music with traditional rock/blues instruments with electronic music.  A one man band concept is not at all unusual in electronic music, so it's not hard and fast that something would necessarily always be lost in a one man band set up, unless you start out with the (possibly biased) notion that no electronic or electronic-influenced music can be as inspired as out and out rock music.

The discussion got twisted towards the compositional aspect as if I was just saying that good compositions can only arise from collaborative effort, which was not the intended meaning. My fault because I did indeed made a comment in that direction but that was not the whole point.

The title should have made clear that I wanted to raise discussion about the growing trend for one-man albums. I never had a problem with bands led by a single composer, these are not part of the discussion.

Even in bands led by a composer what we hear is still a band, and we can never know how tightly the instrumentalists played according to a score written by the composer or how much they introduced their own lines or details. At the very least even if they followed tightly a score they played it with their own style and flavour and this produces a wider richness in the overall sound than if all the instruments are played by one-man (let alone the fact that in many cases each individual instrumentalist may be more skilled in his particular instrument).

Freddie Mercury might be the composer of Killer Queen or Death On Two Legs but they would not sound as they did without May, Taylor and Deacon. No, these or JT or Hackett are for me band products, not one-man products!

There are two sides to the discussion one-man vs band, the composition and the interpretation. In my opinion interpretation by other band members is enough to introduce that additional richness I was referring to.

Sorry if I created confusion but my point was just about one-man projects.

The point about more freedom from contracts currently is also a valid one.

All these factors are reasonable and understandable. Will they result in an increasing trend for musicians to release as one-man and a decline in full bands? I hope not.

Is a one-man with one guest a "one-man"? I would say so unless the guest contribution is very important.

And one man with two guests? Well I guess it depends on the share of contribution of the two guests.

I admit that the line between one-man and band is blurry so lets keep it about real one-man projects, maybe with just one or two guests who have a limited contribution.

There's no question that many a one-man can produce excellent albums, but when I think about some of the best Prog albums in history, I have a hard time imagining that they could have been the product of a one-man release: the best albums by Genesis, Rush, ELP, Yes, Mahavishnu, GG, Camel, Banco, PFM, DT...

Not without guest musicians, no...it would be very difficult.  That is also why we are seeing a move towards more electronic elements, which is a good way to work around the lack of musicians to play conventional instruments.   Otherwise it's going to get harder and harder for the traditional notion of prog ROCK to reach the heights of before.

That was my point in a nutshell.

In the past one-man projects mostly released the material on their own name: Mike Oldfield, Jean Michel Jarre...

Now we see "bands" like:

Methexis (Nikitas Kissonas)

Soniq Theater (Alfred Mueller)

Zerothehero (Carlo Barreca)

Backyards (Marc Devidal)

The Quiet Earth Orchestra (John Ludi)

Apogee (Arne Schafer)

...

it's like they want to be considered as a "band" even if they are a one-man project. Funny?

Whatever reasons we choose to use a bandname rather than release albums under our given names it doesn't mean we are trying to be a band. Richard Starkey never recorded under his given name even as a band member, Maurice Mickewhite never made a film under his given name, David Robert Jones (of David Jones and the Lower Third) changed his name when he went solo, Toyah the band is a different recording entity to Toyah Wilcox the solo artist  - taking a stagename is common in the entertainment industry.

 

 

 

I'm starting to agree with you that it would be much more difficult to be progressive as an individual, than a group ... since , if there is one thing that we can point to in those original groups, it was ... the individuality and definition of the work by EACH person ... the connection of which was quite helpful to the whole of the group ... and that this mechanic, would likely be missing, if it was a one man band ...

 

But then, you come across a couple of these folks ... Peter Hammill, and I think he is more progressive, and original in his solo albums, than he is with VdGG! ... or one of the better ones ... you do know that Porcupine Tree started out of tapes from the garage by Steven Wilson, right? So, saying that one man can not do it, is probably not the right focus for the whole thing ... it's almost like saying that Stravinsky could not have written the stuff he did, like he did ... and the minute you say that, someone shows up with his head in the clouds and writes something insane that you wonder how and why, one person can see all that ... and instruments going everywhere!

 

This is a problem for "progressive music" since the personalities are "involved" in its definition, it tends to make the definition of the music tougher ... as a composed medium as has been the history ... by one person, instead of more than one. And that would mean that the history of music has to make room for "bands" ... which for all we know some of the stuff in the backlog of music history probably was written by more than one person!

 

So, it can be progressive with a band, but not as an individual?

 

Not sure about that at all, and in fact, I doubt it, based on music history alone. The problem is only as tough as the individual person can define his work ... and nowadays with the computer, the ability of playing different instruments will be less of an issue ... since you can do something and stretch it differently on the computer, that most folks would not think about ... in this sense, the life of the "composer" is about to enter ... a most fruitful ear ... EVER!

uhm, interesting point of view. to me, having an "alias" is a means to overcome my shyness and separate my musical life with my "professional" one. Now I use zerothehero as a universal nickname for every artistic expression. (well, zero the hero was the protagonist in gong's trilogy: never forget it!)

I see time is a common issue for every one man band. One year ago I found a really good drummer who recorded a couple of tracks for a "home" project but he disappeared after recording a couple of songs... lack of time! 

This is a very interesting matter! Thanks to post about that!

Well, I agree with you when you talk about the good points of a whole band playing/composing. The chemistry between group members is the cause of many of the greatests ideas we use to listening to. But it is a fact that this "one-band-man-thing" is the future, as you said, thanks to the technological advancements we have availiable nowadays. 

- It is a good thing?

I think, generally, it is a good thing indeed. Let's remember bands like Jethro Tull for example, in which there's one guy who is the "soul" of the whole thing. Or Jon Anderson, Paul McCartney, among others, who recorded entire albums by themselves. Besides, the tradicional band shape will never desappear at all! I don't think it is an exclusion situation, where the tradicional way will be displaced... We have started a new era, when two types of work are possible. The gain is clear: more productions, more music, more prog!!! 

Well, that's my oppinion!

I think there are two sides to this.  Prog sometimes becomes more about the parts than the whole and while this may excite musicians, it doesn't always lead to great music.  Sometimes, the music as a whole is better with a mundane bass line or simple groove or modest guitar.  It takes restraint to overcome the desire to dazzle or overplay a part.

For a musician, it's hard to find musicians for the band, which are close-minded and inspired of the same type of music.  That's especially an issue for prog genre.  Playing in a prog band requires not only technical skills, but also broad knowledge and experience, and if you live in small town, it's almost impossible to find a right person near you.

that's why "internet collaboration" projects are so popular nowadays. Computer technologies allow to record and mix tracks , being in different parts of the World

 

Take a keyboard wizard who shall remain nameless - let's call him "Martin" to preserve his anonymity.

 

"Martin" spent a lot of time and money recording a solo album. He recruited some of the great names in prog to play on it. He himself played keyboards, guitar, flute and sang on it. The result was stunning, but once the downloaders got hold of it, it didn't sell enough copies to make his money back. He couldn't afford to do another and left the music business.

 

Perhaps if he'd done it all himself so no other musicians had to be paid, he'd have at least broken even, but it wouldn't have been quite the same album that it was. But at least he might still be active and we would be able to marvel at his talent.

I'm perfectly fine with musicians releasing their work under a 'band' name, an alias, their real name or whatever they want, it was just a question out of curiosity for what might seem to be a trend in modern one-man bands, nothing more and nothing less, you all have my full respect regardless how you wish to release your music.

As for Gerinski, it comes from the very early days of computer gaming with my friends, we used nicks for our playing and mine came to be Gerinski, not too sure how did it come about but there it came and it has remained for some purposes, but I have no problem communicating by my real name Gerard, from the moment I joined PA I gave my real name so it's not like I want to hide behind a nick or something.

 

Yes, my post was a bit rushed and didn't grasp what I was getting at...so had had to think some more to find out what I was trying to say. Of course there are many great solo artists, many of my own favourite artists are solo. Vini Reilly's music is among my favourites, and the guitar being the main instrument isn't a drawback, and the fact that he sings and many would say that he "can't sing" is not a problem to me, because it fits the expression of the music (the same with hackett mostly) (and others). But some songs featuring a trained vocalist also works great , the outcome is just different .

 

But there are different challenges in working solo depending of what music you are doing. Jean Michel Jarre didn't need additional musicians in his project, it was all synthesizers and for example "Oxygéne" is perfect. But if doing music with a "band sound", for example a blues rock project, it becomes harder to do it yourself. The same goes for rock. If you want a good rock energy, the ideal thing is to record it live with musicians.

 

So the issue has to do with how the music is manifested and the method of recording I think. When I played in a band I learned a lot each time we played live.  When it's live, it's "for real" in a way. In a studio recording, you can record 20 takes and do cutting, time-stretching, altering dynamics and stuff, but you might lose the "live-feeling", the sense that it happens in real time when you listen to it. These days with modern recording equipment I can get distracted by noticing when a guitar or vocal melody line is clearly recorded in two takes, you can sometimes notice it when two bits of melody are attached too close, so there is no natural breathing space between them. They might even overlap. Especially vocal lines can feel tampered with , when you feel that the vocalist seemingly doesn't need to breath.

 

When it comes to rock I like a sound that feels natural . The post-hardcore music of the late 80's and early 90's is characterized by the method of recording that Steve Albini is known for (don't know if he invented it).  The aim is to capture the room that the music is recorded in, so he tapes a lot of microphones to the walls. The result can be a noisy sound, but very "real". And recording live without a click may capture some natural tempo fluctuations that can enhance the live energy. But it demands more from the musicians because it might not be possible to edit afterwards. Beatles recorded their music in one take, and mixing in real time by altering the position of the musicians to the microphone during the song. A lot may be gained by doing that I think.

 

In a solo project without any other musicians, everything has to be recorded one instrument at a time. And if the aim is a "band sound" with lots of virtuosity and stuff happening (which can be common in prog rock), it can be a big challenge to make it feel organic and natural. Some music ought to be manifested in a real room with several musicians playing at the same time.

 

I prefer the sound of Camel's Mirage to Moonmadness. The latter has a studio sound, and the drums sound very isolated , I get the image of a small dampened studio room. In Mirage it sounds very live , all instruments fit together naturally.

 

Modern technology makes it possible for everyone to record an album, but it's still a big challenge to make it sound organic. It's easier if you'r'e doing dance music, the sequencer is all setup from the start, you just have to type in the BPM of your choice...

 

Seems to me that either has it strengths and weaknesses.

Today I can compose the music on my computer using real or software instruments and craft a track until I am happy with it. My brother drums as he is so much better at this than me but I have been proud of some of my sequencing of drums. I can choose to tighten up a track or leave it loose, the possibilities are endless... The iPad has become an instrument as well. I am certainly enjoying all this!

I miss those moments where the band gelled and went to a higher plane, but I don't miss trying to get the other musicians to play what was in my head - and them not getting it.

 

I was just thinking about solo artists in general.... But even if Durutti Column isn't generaly associated to prog, most of what characterizes the music fits with the prog or art-rock defintion. No commercial interest whatsoever, less commercial than most prog artists. He could have been writing hit songs with Morrissey, but wasn't interested in doing such music. Big variety of styles , not conformity to a specific style to stay within a pre-defined concept. No standard musical forms. The freedom to create whatever you feel like creating, that's what being progressive really means in my opinion.

 

But when I think about "modern prog" I don't necessarily picture something that is progressive in a true sense.

 

I just read a very interesting interview that's just been posted on DT's website , from 2001, which tells something about his relation to music    http://news.thedurutticolumn.info/2012/12/the-return-of-vini-reilly.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDuruttiColumn+%28The+Durutti+Column%29" rel="nofollow - http://news.thedurutticolumn.info/2012/12/the-return-of-vini-reilly.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDuruttiColumn+%28The+Durutti+Column%29

Sure, multi-instrumentalists are nothing new and I would bet that most professional musicians can play multiple instruments better than many of us even if in their band work we only see them playing always their main instrument.

But we are talking about playing in a stellar manner here. It's undeniable that virtuosity has been a contributing element in much Prog throughout history (certainly not a must condition for good Prog but it has played a role).

Having a Lifeson, a Lee and a Peart getting to play together was already a blessing of destiny, hoping to have the talent, virtuosity and creativity of the three packed in a single person seems more like asking for a miracle (not saying that it's impossible but you know what I mean). And the same could be said of many of the greatest Prog bands in history.

As for playing organ from a guitar etc... I am a supporter of technology but I have reservations about stating that because it is technically possible who cares about being able to play a real organ anymore. We have calculators and computers so you could say "who cares about learning arithmetic anymore", but I believe that learning arithmetic is still useful for developing our rational capabilities.

I think that the particular choice of instruments is not particularly relevant to the discussion of the one-man phenomenon.

Some one-man "bands" may indeed make more use of digital / sampled instruments but that is not necessarily the case, and while one may embrace them or reject them, that is quite a different discussion IMO (of which we had already a lot on the "importance of analog sound" thread).

 

If I may suggest, you are over-thinking these improvisations, and all you need to do is talk to an advanced acting teacher, specially one that works with modern theater (not old crap!), so that you can learn to focus things better.

 

The point in "improvisations" is NOT to find if it is good or bad, for the most part ... that is another story, but to help you make sure that you can play together and STAY together, and complement each other. IF ... all you are worried about something being good or bad, you are not listening to each other and figuring out what you can do in the improvisation, to help each other's moments (or together-ness) come about, and all of a sudden ... you have something you can work with.

 

BUT, it also tells me, that you are looking for a "song", or something that you can use as a basis for a something else ... and at this point, may I suggest that you make a piece and call it "anti-song" or "anti-music" and let it fly and blow out, WITHOUT any rhyme or reason, up to and including sound effects and vacuum cleaners ... until you drop the "idea" of music ... and realize ... what the notes can do for you.

 

If you want more on this, you really might want to read Peter Brook's works, and specially things like "The Empty Space" ... and although the wording might seem way too intelectual, in the end, you know that he is merely trying to find words to that ... wow ... moment! And his theater experiments were scary to most folks ... imagine being part of a troupe that had at least 12 nationalities, and they could not converse with each other, and yet, they spoke, and put together a spectacle, called ... "The Mahabharatta". Imagine that in music ... yeah ... imagine that! More progressive than progressive EVER will be!

 

And your "improvisations" ... are not focused ... but my suggestion, is that every other improvisation NOT be focused, to get the ability to flow better. AND ... for a while, only record the non-focused stuff that is all out there ... and just ENJOY IT ... do not use this as a way to "find" Godot ... use this to FIND YOURSELF. That is the clue in all music and the difference between the good ones and the rest! Most "popular" music is about the "rest", not the good ones!

 

Have fun

 

This is one of the exercises and things that are worked in really advanced acting classes, btw ... to help you get rid of the idea that what you think is the message, instead of what you do! And how ... which is a later issue that can be reviewed and learned from, for example!

 

Otherwise, it is just moneky doodoo ... and then a banana or chips get thrown in by a kid into the cage and his attention is gone ... and he doesn't care about the instrument again!

 

I think, that is what we like to think ... "music is" ... something that is focused, instead of "accidental" ... which a lot of 20th century folks made a living of trying to break!

 

The "spark" ... I think, is also an "idea" that we create, and spend our lives chasing ... sort of like "God" ... that "supposedly" helps us get on through the full day, because we can not imagine going through it without it! ... and society tells you that you are not supposed to, either! (Soc 101 ... hehehe!)

 

So, seeing "one-man" anythings, even from Mike Oldfield to anyone else ... is just a lazy term ... for not wanting to listen to music, and to "classify" ... the things they (someone) wants to listen to ... but the thought that the only real music is the one that is played with other folks, has been busted for 500 years ... so someone still saying that ... obviously has not studied any music history whatsoever ... and how each composer changed the mores of the times and music!