Not all one man bands are one man bedroom bands.
If that one man band is more successful then a full band, then why not.. For me, Xasthur and Striborg are a great one man band.
Yes, I am aware that not all one man bands are one man bedroom bands. (Burzum, anyone?)
For me a one man band is a great way to express yourself without trying to appease anyone. You just do what you like, put them up on the internet then let people listen and respond to it as appropriate. Heck, I do stuff alone as well. Nothing wrong with that, really.
But it disturbs me that when the
solution offered to avoid conflict is to form a one man band. Although it is certainly an advantage for a one man band's perspective, it should not be a solution. If there's a conflict or problem in a band, just deal with it.
Even in one man bands, if one were to desire to perform in public, in most cases, a band is pretty much required. You may be playing guitars, bass, keyboards and drums on your record, but to pull that off live... you simply need a band. And you still have to deal with egos and difficulties and problems with having a real band. Yes, own time own target. Yes, you now have more control with how to play what, but is your stuff good enough to make people WANT to session for you? Chances of such things to happen is low, so the music gets stuck in the bedroom, or lost in the vast world of cyberspace. I think that is more frustrating than dealing with band conflicts.
Nine Inch Nails started out as a one man band. It wasn't a choice for Trent Reznor to recruit other musicians, but he had to cos all of the recording companies he approached told him that he needed a band.
The exception to the case is a one man band member who has the charisma and stage presence that is able to hold an audience for about 30 mins. Hard to find yeah?
In the end, TS is asking a simple question of a) to have friends in the band or b) to NOT have friends in a band. How did c) forming a one man band became a solution?