Metamatic Forums John Foxx John Foxx I've had enough of collaborations!

Whilst none of us would complain about John's incredible workrate and release schedule, is there anyone else on here who isn't really fussed about yet more collaborations and would prefer John to just release a new solo album instead?

The problem with a collaboration is that it waters down an artist's input and individuality. It also compromises ideas and means that the artistic vision sometimes gets a bit blurred.

"Mirrorball" is a good example of this as to me it sounds almost like two albums playing at the same time; if you were to play one of Robin Guthrie's instrumental albums and Cathedral Oceans together, it would probably match much of the "Mirrorball" project.

Of course it's entirely up to John who he works with, but personally I've never had much interest in the recorded works of Steve Jansen, bloke-out-of-Leftfield or Vincent Gallo before, so why would I be interested in them now?

Ultimately a John Foxx collaboration is only going to be 50% John, so unless it was a truly fascinating combination such as John recording with Numan or Eno, for me it's only half an album at best.

Anyone else agree?

I view this period, and I suspect for more years ahead also, as John's return to 'being in a band' (or even a few bands ) of sorts, I don't view it as a bad thing, at best its a marriage of talents, though I do take the point about Mirrorball, and much as I enjoyed its arrival, in some places the two halves are clearly visible at times
Have to say that when I first stumbled upon Shifting City with another name on the cover next to John's, boy, was I perplexed by that.

Perhaps its just down to it being a sometimes necessary thing that has to happen for a solo creator, there are periods that in order to move forward at all you need to get together with a like-minded soul.

I disagree. Is that allowed

Need to put together a case, but... but...

I see it more as a way of John Foxx expressing different ideas, using the artistic input of someone else to counterpoint, contrast etc, to develop new themes and new markets

All the stuff with Louis is a collaboration - the vast majority of John's work is with other artists.

Interesting discussion ahead, me thinks.

I agree, sort of. I said in another thread, that I would love to have a new electronic, song-based album simply with "John Foxx" on the front.

That said, my favourite albums, such as The Pleasures of Electricity and From Trash, are both records with Louis. And that's a collaboration! But I take the view – and it'll be the same with the Benge collab (which I am very excited about) – that it's no different to any solo album featuring other musicians, other than, being just two, John elected to put both names on the front.

Just think, Metamatic could have been released as John Foxx and John Wesley Barker!

Yet, all of John's albums with Louis, I still refer to "John Foxx" albums! But had John not hooked up with Louis, we might not have had any of the albums we've been enjoying since the late 90s.

Until October last year, I found myself going completely astray from the Foxx radar. I found both A Secret Life and Mirrorball very unappealing and not to my taste whatsoever, and the prospect of anything with Vincent Gallo or the Smoke Faries doesn't interest me at all. But at the same time I do appreciate the diversity and work involved and the cross-fan interest that it generates.

However I found it increasingly frustrating that something as pretentiously far out and 'arty' as A Secret Life got great reviews, whilst other, better albums (at least iMHO) have undeservedly struggled.

So although my personal interest in John's music doesn't extend very far beyond his electonrock/vocal albums and instrumental work such as TCM and CO, perhaps it's not who he's working with, but what comes out at the end. It doesn't matter how many names it's got on the cover as long as it delivers what I want out of an album featuring John.

I won't buy anything just because it bears his name; it has to excite and inspire me, in the way albums such as The Pleasures of Electricity, From Trash and Metamatic have, and continue to do so.

I think you answered your own question in the quoted paragraph above. If the other artist was appealing to you, then you'd (most likely) find the collaboration interesting.

Although I respect your view, I don't think you can classify all collaboration as watered down. I believe it is what inspires the artist that drives their creativity and hence produce new material. That spark of inspiration (not to be confused with "respecting" another artist) can produce incredible works (and frankly, some dead dodo's). Where I see a gaping hole in your argument though is that you are assuming that the results are of 50%/50% input. I believe that they can be 100%/100% input. Put simply, 1+1=3, you get more than the individuals are likely to produce by themselves.
I'll be the first to admit though, that this logic doesn't necessarily ring true EVERY time, and whether it appeals to the true fans of either of the collaborating parties is also another matter (and you are living proof!).

I'd also argue that there are more "collaborations" than you may realise. My favourite album ever is a collaboration between many artists, namely Chris Allen, Billy Currie, John Foxx, Robin Simon, and Warren Cann. The maths here adds up completely to me... 1+1+1+1+1=1,000,000. Off the scale.

Just to balance though, Paul McCartney & Michael Jackson? 1+1= -100! Truly awful, but what incredible potential? King of Pop and one of the inventors of modern rock!

All fair points there, Alex. I suppose technically every album John's ever made has been a "collaboration" of sorts, be it with other musicians, producers or even just the bloke in the studio who presses the "record" button!

That said, I feel John as a solo artist has a unique sound that only gets watered down by collaborating with other artists. The only one that's really worked for me is his work with Louis (and yes I too often forget Louis's input into John's post 1995 work!). You sense on those albums that here are two musicians with a common goal, working together intuitively and spontaneously in a style that clearly fascinates them both. Whereas I suspect John's more recent collaborations involve each individual working on their own and communicating by emailing each other mp3s, wav files or whatever. Thus you might think that it could just be the working method that determines the success of the collaboration.

Either way, I'd like to see John make an album on his own this year. Perhaps "Flightpath Tegel" on his myspace site is a clue as to where he might be going next?

There is a sense of albums such as A Secret Life and Mirrorball as having been more "put together" than recorded together... as in not in the same studio at the same time, tracks sent by email etc, as you say. Of course we could be wrong there though!

Although Robin Guthrie did mention "John Foxx in socks" in one of his blogs...!

However with the albums with Louis, you know they've probably done the majority of work together in the studio, and out of that comes a certain electricity and spontaneity, which makes their work so special and exciting.

Brilliant! As in, I agree. Not a fan of either of them meself but the total is much much less than the sum of the parts.

So it seems the only non-collaborative projects are those you do all by yourself, from writing to playing to recording to sleeve design etc?

Interesting topic!

...and if the next thing is a "John Foxx and Hannah Montana" (or wossname) collaboration - the result is either good or bad. Of course you'd like the output of your favourite artist to be good only, but that's not in your hand.

The duo's first single will be "I Want to Be a Bubble Gum Machine."