How is it that once a member of a (boy)band goes solo, their music is instantly actually really good?
because they're freer to express themselves and aren't just doing it for the fangirls/image
counterpoint: zayn
>>72585103
To be fair, he had absolutely no discernible talent for the get-go
>boybands have no reason to take risks because their fans are perfectly fine with anything generic, they just enjoy the image
>solo artists will slowly fade into obscurity if they just stay generic, because they're not supported by the cheerleader effect anymore
Pink Floyd alone refutes this. David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Rick Wright's and Syd Barrett's solo stuff ranges from mediocre to abhorrent.
>>72585331
delete this
>>72585478
no u delet this poo butt
>>72585331
>Syd Barrett's solo stuff
>mediocre or abhorrent
REEEEEEEEEEEE
>>72585331
>The Madcap Laughs is shit
>>72585530
Thank you
Yeah gotta love that solo stuff.
>>72585331
>pink floyd
>a boyband
Listening right now.
God damn this is actually decent.
>>72585671
Well, they're all male. Besides, OP said "(boy)band", implying it's optional.
>>72585068
Counterpoint: Harry Styles - Sign of the Times
>>72585068
Idk man
>>72585068
Do you pay credit to your ipod as well for playing to you good music?
There are literally two or three pop artists who've written good songs, the hit songs, it's always their producers, those singers are nothing else than just puppets in master's hands. It's so childish to admire top singers for singing someone else's feelings and soul, and it's really wrong nowadays that the actual people behund best music allways stay in shade, except the money and ascap awards.
>>72585119
David Foster Wallace is good you're just an insecure old fart
>>72585331
Yeah, the same can be applyed to almost every iconic band, guys just cun't make good stuff by themselves. I always expected some really decent stuff from band members going solo, John Fruciante for instance, and it's always dissapointing.