|
What the hell is a "side project," anyway? There have always been bandleaders and members that regularly produce beyond the scope of their group's initial vision, but never before has the music world seen so many different artists collaborating under so many different monikers, to so many different ends.
Sure, Brian Eno, David Byrne, and Robert Fripp took plenty of time in the '70s and '80s to pursue records beyond Roxy Music, Talking Heads, and King Crimson (and they often did this together) — but it was simpler then. It was David Byrne and Brian Eno getting together to do a one-off. And they called it "Brian Eno + David Byrne."
But glance around any genre today and you're bound to hear "side project" come up in reference to what would otherwise sound like an autonomous group. In Montreal, it's hard to make mention of Bell Orchestre or Sunset Rubdown without also mentioning the Arcade Fire or Wolf Parade. Comets on Fire bursts into any number of constellations, including Six Organs of Admittance. And wait, are Neko Case, A.C. Newman, and Dan Bejar's Destroyer all side projects, or are the New Pornographers just a supergroup? To say nothing of how out-of-control the more straight-up "solo" records are (anyone else like Emily Haines' solo album a whole lot more than the last Metric record?). The list goes on and on.
The New Pornographers
|
I think the connect-the-dots fun here betrays the underlying reality. I don't think this is a fad, and most of these bands aren't just side projects. Sure, there are some projects that really do work through the "we needed to get this collaboration out of our system" scenario (Swan Lake, the new Carey Mercer/Dan Bejar/Spencer Krug project, smacks of this). But in many cases, side projects end up offering just as much as conventional "primary" acts.
The basic reason behind this is probably nothing new. Different artists have different visions, and working with other people on a creative level is inherently difficult. The more someone has to contribute, the more avenues they're going to want to pursue in order to do so. But I think the reason we're seeing it so much more easily manifested these days is very much a function of how the industry is changing, particularly at the independent level.
For one, it's a lot easier and cheaper to whip out a record today than it was twenty years ago. It's not necessarily easier to make something good, but the computer-as-home-studio has certainly made it less of a commitment. Even the kinds of record deals that get made today encourage parallel projects. Whereas in the past, major labels might pinpoint one individual talent or band and made sure they had the rights to whatever they did, these days more independent labels are happy to release one of any given artist's many visions.
And art should be able to twist off into as many different mutations as possible. How else are you supposed to find the tastiest recipes? Because let's face it: Once you get past the tired preambles that label this or that collection of musicians as a side project, we're definitely all the richer for it.
Posted November 2006
Send to del.icio.us |
|
