Talk:Supergroup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NOTE

Pre-move discussion and archives can be located at Talk:Supergroup (music). LordRobert 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current Discussion Imported from pre-move page

May I ask why Hellyeah was deleted? Its definitely a super group being made of 3 bands. It may not be very well know now but they definitely qualify as a super group.

Page is going under serious changes. Cleaning up first. Then will add sources. Very few though. Since as the defintion states, the word supergroup is usually used as a marketing tool. Please help, if any band gets lost in the deleting process. Zosomm90 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the edits. The cut was drastic, but needed. I think there may be a few that are missing, but this is a LOT better than it was. Random89 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We can't start adding like crazy agian. Highwaymen is country. I don't see how Audioslave and Zwan fit in. Velvet Revolver okay. Just because it says supergroup in the bands article does not mean anything. We should go delete that in many articles. Overall musicianship in rock music goes down during 80s and 90s. So these bands should chiefly comprise of 60s and 70s musicians. We cannot have a huge list of 2000s. Being a supergroup is pretty special and rare. Let's talk about it. Zosomm90 08:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that highwaymen is technically country, so I don't mind about that. And to be perfectly honest I had never even heard of Zwan (I didn't out it in). But Audioslave is a legitimate supergroup, formed out of Soundgarden and Rage Against the Machine, both popular and critically acclaimed, even now. While one could say they belong on the grunge page, both their music and especially Rage is more rock than grunge. Random89 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Audioslave was just the 3 remaining members of Rage forming a new group after their frontman left. They got a new frontman and all of a sudden they are a supergroup? I don't think so, that is just like saying that Rainbow, which added Ritchie Balckmore to Elf is a supergroup. Change in one band member and a cahnge of name should not constitute a supergroup. Just because a band is popular doesn't mean their good. Most everything from 90's and 2000's is par at best. You can't count of great musicianship anymore or the innovation. Zosomm90 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What you say is partially true, I agree with you that in general musicianship has gone down in quality in the last 2 decades. However, there are problems with that argument. First of all, musicianship should not play into this at all, it is based on success, popularity, and recognizability. Secondly, it is not up to us to judge the musical talent of bands. Third, when we do get around to sourcing the majority of these groups, I think we will find Audioslave widely cited as a supergroup. And just to cap it off, in this case, you are off base about musicianship. Tom Morello is a very talented guitarist, even when judged amongst past greats. Random89 05:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course you are right, this one was bit of a bias with me. I went on-line and saw that they were heavely cited as a supergroup, which unfortunately does not mean much, considering Led Zeppelin has been called a supergroup for years. And I have to disagree with you, the term supergroup was correctly used originally for bands that had great musicians. They weren't necessarily recognizable or successful or popular. Take the first band, Cream. I honestly don't think many people new who Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker were. But within the blues/jazz world at the time, they were top class musicians. They called themselves Cream because they considered themselves the "cream" of the crop of muscians in England. I think you are right the popularity and success should factor in, but I just don't want us to forget that it is all about the music and how it is played. I agree that Morello has been called a modern Page, Clapton and so forth, but I don't think one great guitarist, a new singer, and a new name constitute a supergroup. Most supergroups honestly look to become supergroups, they didn't. I want to leave this up to you to decide. I don't think that the way the media markets bands should play a factor into this. If you think they should be in, then by all means add them. I won't take it out, but I don't think they should be, which is my opiniom, the great thing about Wikipedia. Zosomm90 05:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, what happened to the old talk page? Zosomm90 05:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The page got moved to a new page (from supergroup (music) to supergroup) so we lost the talk page. The old one is preserved, but the only way to restore it here (i think) is copy paste like i did for this section. I don't agree with the marketing term definition, i just threw that in to make a good argument. But seriously, I think that audioslave is a supergroup. And its not the popularity of the supergroup band thats really important, its more the popularity of the previous bands/solo careers of the members i was referring to. So i added audioslave. Check the edit history to see the reason the page got moved. Random89 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the talk page. I just want to say that marketing is a huge deal when it comes to this term. Throughout music, when people hear supergroup, they automatically think, "great band". For this reason, in advertising they liked to use the term alot during the 70s and 80s, especially with Led Zeppelin. Who was going to know the difference. I just want you to be aware that that is an argument people will make and the work is used most often in advertising. Zosomm90 13:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Imported from old talk page. If someone knows a way to restore the old talk page for reference (aka why this article looks like it does), please do so Thanks. Random89 05:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] refs/see also

Can the sections 'references' and 'see also' not have the blue background? I would do it myself but I don't know how. Arthena(talk) 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Perfect Circle

I don't think this fits the definition. Can you please provide a justification or citation to support this assertion before readding this to the page. Thanks. Random89 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please explain. If this person does not give any justification within a week or two. I think we should take it off. Probably was someone just passing through. Zosomm90 03:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you how to check these things. Just look at founding members of a so-called supergroup and see what they'd done before. The pages are mostly blocked at school so I can't check right now, but I can confirm all of APC had well known backgrounds. Hell, NIN, Pumpkins and Tool are among the most celebrated bands of recent years.

[edit] Brides of Destruction and Rock Star Supernova

Rock Star Supernova was a band formed for a TV show, that lacked a singer. It was a supergroup DESPITE the fact that the new singer they got wasn't very well known. Though he was by the end of the TV show.

Everyone in Brides of Destruction was well known. It had the leaders of L.A. Guns AND Motley Crue in it for the love of all that is sweet in this world!

Whitesnake wasn't originally a supergroup, but the 94/97/03-present line-ups should qualify as supergroups. They were newly founded bands with supergroup line-ups.

Whoever's done the major edits recently made a lot of good points, but also is WAY too biased to older music. I read someone saying "rock went downhill in the 80s and 90s"? I think that person was a big part in these edits, it read that way. This article's about the fame and recognition an artist gets. That's objective, how good they were at their music's subjective.

(The Elfoid 12:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I agree that it is a bit biased towards earlier bands, its just that the 90's and 2000's sections were the worst before the cut, so they were hit drastically. I expect them to grow (slowly) over time. I agree with Rockstar Supernova. 3 members were from some of the most well known rock bands around. I can't comment on brides of destruction as i have never heard of them (i'll look into that). I think somewhere in the into paragraph it states that bands that add famous members but keep their original name (the eagles, van halen, etc) are not usually considered supergroups. I have discussed that "rock goes downhill" argument with the other user maintaining this article in the past, and i think he regrets bringing it up. Random89 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Brides was a Nikki Sixx (Motley Crue)/Tracii Guns (L.A. Guns) project. The rhythm guitarist was John Corabi (Motley Crue) and the drummer was some session player who's done loads of work (Vanilla Ice caught my eye as one of the bigger names). Their singer was not well known, just like this Rock Star. He seemed to be a professional singer who had been looking for a break or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Elfoid (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of supergroups from the old list that should be back up, and another few suggestions

I think we need a huge list, of all actual supergroups. On the main wikipedia page for supergroups we have now, a list of well known ones would be best. But a more full list is also something we need. Bands who conform to the definition and rose to influence/recognition/popularity/fame have been left off. A lot.

I would also like to suggest the term 'supergroup' not be claimed as a rock-only term. Given how much overlap there is between metal, blues, rock and country, we can't claim it's for rock only. So things like rap should be included. This page originally defined the term as a general one, and that should continue to apply. I've seen the term correctly used numerous times to describe metal/country/folk/blues/punk bands. They're not "pure" rock most of the time, but still qualify.

A lot of un-cited information on these bands on Wikipedia, but they're all things I've heard of elsewhere. I could dig up info if I had to I imagine. People should work on finding out about all of these.

There's more, but that's the most important ones. (The Elfoid 17:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I'd have to disagree. I don't think that we should consider every band who is made up from members of other bands to be a supergroup. Most supergroups were formed with the idea in mind of being a supergroup. Just look to the early supergroups. I guess the question is how do we define the term. By what it was originally used for by musicians or a more modern definition that we create. Of course I am going to be more bias towards old music because that is when music was good. There is so much garbage floating around now and I don't feel you give the term justice by tossing in whoever you please. Sure, there are some bands from today that have fine musicians who get together with the mindset of a supergroup, but there aren't a ton. I can't believe anyone would think that Humble Pie or Rainbow are supergroups.Zosomm90 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What's good and what's not is subjective, not objective knowledge. Wikipedia aims to be bias free, so we must not allow opinions to take a role whenever possible. For example I hate Hellyeah. I saw them live at Download Festival and hated them there too. But they're made of alumni from an incredible array of bands.

Obviously the level of fame the old bands origins is what would decide 'supergroup' status. For instance L.A. Guns were relative unknowns, as were Hollywood Rose, when they merges to form Guns N' Roses. So Guns N' Roses are no supergroup.

The original view was a group of talented musicians who were renowned as individuals and formed a band where each had a reason to be there. The most obvious classic example is Cream. More modern ones are Velvet Revolver and Hellyeah. There really is no difference.

Who's to say supergroups were originally formed to 'be' supergroups? Are you suggesting when a band like Audioslave formed they just thought "ok, lets get a really famous singer, and treat him like an ordinary one". The ex-Rage guys MUST have expected the Soundgarden comparisons that would occur. Rainbow had Dio, Blackmore and Powell in one band (that's the MKII line-up - titled Rainbow. The first album was credited as a Blackmore solo project). I forget who the bassist was, but all 3 of them get in top 50 performer of all time lists for their respective talent on every occasion I've ever seen such a list. They're all multi-platinum achieving artists with a shedload of albums to their name.

I see on your userpage there's a newly created (well, month old) 'welcome' message? If you're new to Wikipedia, you'll have to learn not to let your personal opinion get in the way of edits. You've basically just said "I write in a biased way in this article" which thus makes what you put utterly invalid anyway from then on.

Classic Rock magazine has called Humble Pie and Audioslave supergroups. They're one of the most widely respected music publications around. Allmusic.com, Amazon.co.uk and others too. If the band members all came from well known bands and formed a new project, it must qualify as a supergroup.

(The Elfoid 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

First off, I agree completely that we cannot let personal bias interfere with the article. However, I think that since this page is an article on the subject, and not a list per se, that it should be more restrictive than inclusive. So i'll try and address a few of the bands you listed. (those that i can address without much research right now)

Currently in the article as side project supergroups

  • The Dirty Mac
  • Plastic Ono Band
  • Liquid Tension Experiment
  • Super Super Blues band
  • Tipton, Entwhistle, and Powell

-

  • The Breeders - Only Kim Deal of the Pixies could be considered well-known before formation
  • Temple of the Dog - Only Chris Cornell of Soundgarden was well-known, Mother Love Bone was almost unknown outside of Seattle
  • Weather Report - The intro section states that this isn't really a term in jazz, i think that this disqualifies them unless you want to change that section
  • Harmonia - I'm not sure. My knowledge of german music is limited, so I'll let you judge that one, but it would be nice to have some non anglophone bands
  • Humble Pie - I'd say yes, probably.
  • Rainbow - While i have never heard this cited as a supergroup, the membership may suggest that. Worthy of consideration
  • The Adolescents - 2 problems here. First of all I don't think Agent Orange is or ever was that well known, except perhaps within the punk scene. Which leads to another issue. With many of the punk (and other subgenre) bands, they are not known outside their own area. The thing about most of the big rock bands on the list, especially the early ones, but even now with audioslave or velvet revolver, is that even people who may not be huge music fans recognize them. So I'm gonna say probably no for this one.
  • The Glove - Side project, consider for that section
  • Hindu Love Gods - Only released one album, and was only cover songs. Maybe side project?
  • Power Station - While I have never heard of them, they seem to be formed from duran duran and chic, so i guess that applies. Our friend Zossom might disagree though.
  • The Firm - I assume you mean the rock band featuring Jimmy Page. I'm gonna go with a yes-leaning maybe on this one, only because they were not that sucessful and Page stated that they were not planning to be around for too long.
  • The Highwaymen - If we decide that this is not limited to rock, this is a no brainer. take up that issue.
  • Deep End - Never released an album
  • Electronic - I'm leaning towards no. Also, see the issue with rock vs. other
  • Golden Smog - Except for Wilco, not that notable. Also, arguable if it is actually a band or just musicians who play together.
  • Lost Dogs - Don't recognize any members, but that could just be me. Doesn't really strike me as a supergroup, especially since they seem to debate this claim.
  • Contraband - Only one album, mainly a side project, not successful
  • Neurotic Outsiders - Only a single album, in short time membership changed a lot
  • Slash's Snakepit - Has been debated before. More of a side project than a real band.
  • Borknagar - Since I don't know any of the bands, and I can't see any mention of them being a supergroup, no.
  • Down - Except for Pantera, I don't know any of the previous bands. It is also listed as a side project.
  • Me First and The Gimme Gimmes - Wow, deja vu (see the old talk page). They do not consider themselves a supergroup, and state it is more of a side project in between albums of their main bands. Also see argument about punk and subgenres
  • Firewater - No, none of the bands (or even this one) are famous in the least
  • Last Hard Men - Their one album was only released with 1000 copies. Enough said.
  • War - While it would be nice to have more international bands here, this band has only a stub article here, so i'm not sure if this is the best candidate. (sorry for the band logic, i really don't know them at all)
  • The firm - Ok, here's the other one. They only released one EP, not even a full album.
  • Cry Cry Cry - Only one album of covers, not that well known in general
  • Fantomas - Not well known, previous bands mostly not well known.
  • Zilch - Previous bands not notable
  • Broken Social Scene - Most members perform mainly with other bands. Is pretty much every artist signed to Arts and Crafts. Don't consider themselves a supergroup.
  • Sinergy - same as borknagar or war
  • Tabla Beat Science - No notable members
  • Transplants - Tough one. Probably, but mainly because of Travis Barker. Concerns about it being a side project
  • Queen + Paul Rodgers - Is a lineup of Queen. Since they kept the name Queen and all the branding associated with it and preform mainly queen material
  • Alter Bridge - Creed and some random guy
Note: Alter Bridge is not "Creed and some random guy". The band formed from Creed instrumentalists Mark Tremonti (guitar/backing vocals), Scott Phillips (drums), and Brian Marshall (bass) and Mayfield Four vocalist Myles Kennedy (lead vocals/backing guitar). While there appears to be some discrepancy in terms of what a supergroup truly is, I think Alter Bridge deserves serious consideration. The band is an all-new entity. While Mayfield Four did 't enjoy the same commercial success as Creed, it still produced several powerful albums, all of which exemplified Kennedy's incredibly unique vocal abilities. Currently, the band has released two albums, both of which have produced at least one amazing single as well as several unrecognized, but memorable, tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.197.243 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Brides of Destruction - Perhaps when it was founded it was, but without Sixx I'm not so sure. Guns is only famous from GNR really, since LA Guns is only known because of them
  • Rockstar Supernova - Yes
  • Hellyeah - Once again, except for Pantera and maybe Mudvayne, i don't see that previous members were all that notable. But another tough one.
  • The Good, the Bad, and the Queen - Could be problematic as they are not officially a named band. However, the members probably qualify them.

IN CONCLUSION: When i say notable, i don't mean WP:NOTE i mean well-known or famous. Perhaps a useful distinction between true supergroups and sideprojects is if the new group is the sole group of the primary focus for the members. I'm sure I had other genius things to say, but i forgot in the middle of that huge list. 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Random89

I agree about listing side-projects, but the thing is, most supergroups aren't side-projects. They don't last very long, but that's because they're neither a main project OR a side project. The view tends to be "lets make some music, see what happens" and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. They tend to be musicians who are fans of each other and just want to see what they can do.

Hindu Love Gods was a blues thing, and the best example of this. Most well known blues artists spend most of their time performing solo, dipping in and out of projects. Each one tends to be a one off, but it's not an aside from their main career...their entire career works that way. A good modern example is Steve Vai - he's done an album or two with so many bands before leaving.

Soundgarden didn't just have Chris Cornell who was famous! It had Soundgarden/Pearl Jam's drummer. And though Mother Love Bone weren't that famous outside of Seattle, their influence on the grunge scene was vast. And grunge went global.

Rainbow evolved into a supergroup. That's why it's often cited as one, but also kinda odd. It began as Blackmore's solo project, but Dio had an unusually large input. The rest of Elf were backing musicians though, and fired instantly when the band made some headway and could get a decent line-up.

I think what I'm coming to realise is that we need to not just specify supergroups or side-project supergroups. We need to list supergroup BANDS and supergroup PROJECTS. That would be a much, much better divider.

Lost Dogs were a country supergroup. If we say we don't limit things to rock, they're in. But you have to know your country for that - I asked my dad :|

Slash's Snakepit was a side project when it first happened, second time around that wasn't so, but it was not nearly as "super" in line-up. It was a totally different band though.

Neurotic had one line-up, then quickly switched to another for rest of lifespan. See Slash's Snakepit.

Down has an all-star line-up of extreme metal. You seem to be into older rock though, it's a scene you're probably less expert on (I admit I don't know much). They were a side-project, but the new album's made them a prioroty - they're a 'real' band now.

Queen + Paul Rogers bill themselves as "Queen + Paul Rogers". They credit their music as such on releases (see Queen's Greatest Hits III, and their live albums). It's like the way Heaven and Hell get called Black Sabbath all the time, when really they aren't. They don't call themselves Queen at all. They've talked about doing music next year together, and they say they're in the studio with Rogers. They've specifically NOT said it's a new Queen album.

Cry Cry Cry...As with the previous country band mentioned, this band's members are well known within the scene. Not well known elsewhere. They are a "country supergroup" even if they're not a supergroup.

L.A. Guns are one of the best known and long surviving sleaze rock bands. Scot Coogan from Brides has done a LOT as a session musician. His music's on alot of well known stuff, but he's a behind-the-scenes performer. I'd say 3 members of Brides were famous, but their other members had achieved enough as musicians that while not 'supergroup status members' they didn't disqualify supergroup status either.

Damageplan, one of Hellyeah's originators, you wouldn't know since they only existed 2003-2004 perhaps. They ended fast when Dimebag Darrell died - it was something he put together near the end of his life. The other band one of their members came from, I don't know though.

Good/Bad/Queen are a supergroup without a name. I imagine that means it's a one off sideproject.

That's enough for us to think on. As I said, lets dry re-organising it into supergroup projects and supergroup bands. A side-project doesn't work when it comes to a lot of these. Down have been a band for a few years, broken up for a few years, got together for a few yearsa etc...not quite either category.(The Elfoid 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

Good points, though a would debate a few. I would like to suggest splitting this article into a main article and a list. The main one (this page) could have a bit more text such as the thoughts of notable musicians and commentators on supergroups, as well as a list of the MOST famous supergroups and one or two from each genre. The list page could be far more inclusive, and perhaps be organized by genre as well as chronologically

A main problem here is that the term is applied far more easily to rock than perhaps other genres, as bands tend to be more prevalent than solo artists and tend to record more than just 1 or 2 albums together. I think that was why attempts have been made - some by me - to limit this page in that way. Random89 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, it is already ballooning to include many bands. This is why we should be exclusive, not inclusive. You guys don't want me to include my bias, so do you guys believe that the 5+ bands that have been added are okay. We should talk about each one added. Zosomm90 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I agree with you fully that it should be exclusive. See my thoughts above on subpages. Each band should be discussed here before addition, but that is really not going to happen, so we should pick our battles. I hope you realize that since the reorganization that i have added 2 bands, one of which i later removed, and deleted at least 5 or 6, so don't blame me for the ballooning article. Random89 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack white has said he doesn't mind if he doesn't tour with the white stripes anymore (citation needed) and is doing stuff with the raconteurs at the moment, and so i don't think that counts just as a sidegroup, or does it?

[edit] The Future of this Page

There's been a fair bit of discussion lately about the direction this page is going. Zosomm90 seems to be in favour of very exclusionary criteria, keeping the list section to just the most well known and widely cited supergroups within a specific genre (mainstream rock), which may omit some bands that have a reasonable claim. TheElfoid (and a contingent of hit and run users) have taken a more inclusionist stand, judging and debating on a case by case basis, which tends to support adding more bands to the list, but which risks including a lot of POV. I sympathize with some of the ideals of both views and have tried to compromise. However, a valid point raised by Zosomm is that as the list stands it invites editors unfamiliar with the debate to add any band they think meets the criteria, which may lead to a ``balloon`` effect. In my personal opinion, if this page grows back to where it was a few months ago, it becomes essentially useless, and I can see it being considered a candidate for deletion. To try and fix the problem once and for all, I propose that we take the following steps:

  • Split the Project and Charity Supergroups into their own articles. Especially for the latter, there is doubtlessly a wealth of sources that have not been tapped for citations.
  • Remove any band with only a single album (excepting the very recent) from the list. Consider reclassifying to project groups.
  • Especially in the case of specific genres with existing subpages, remove all but the most notable representatives of that genre. That means goodbye to Temple of the Dog et al.

I know this may seem drastic but at this point, there is no way for this page ever to be healthy as it is set up to fail. Random89 (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right in your ideas, except that I think that we should not delete bands that only last for one album, only because many true supergroups only last for an album or two. Zosomm90 (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] SCUM

"In the late 1960s, the term supergroup was coined to describe rock music groups composed of members who had already achieved fame or respect in other groups or as individual artists."

I think SCUM (and Fantomas too) fits the definition. CapPixel (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would object outright to Fantomas. SCUM, i think, has the problem of being made up of musicians who may have been known of in their genre, but most of the public, or even most music fans, probably have no idea who they were. Random89 (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Highwaymen

I would think that that famous rock-country group would certainly apply. I'm sure that they sold more albums, individually and collectively than most of the bans on this list. Cheers V. Joe (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derek & The Dominos

Should Duane Allman be listed there? He wasn't officially a member of the band; he was just a guest musician, and was committed full time to his own band. - Cubs Fan (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gnarls Barkley, Danger Doom

Do these groups fit the definition? Or do either fail on one or more criteria? --JB Adder | Talk 07:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rainbow

I know that the initial lineup was just Elf + Ritchie Blackmore, but could all of the subsequent lineups be considered supergroups? --Cubs Fan (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with Pama International and the Imagined Village?

After reading the criteria, the seem to fit it, they're both actively touring, have albums out etc

JimHxn (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion criteria

Wow. Most of the arguments here in regards to inclusion are specious and subjective bullshit. The sole criterion should be whether or not a reputable source has labeled or referred to a particular group as a "supergroup", and nothing else. Based on that, I'll soon be re-adding both Firewater and Tomahawk since Pitchforkmedia (which I otherwise loathe) referred to both as such. --dfg (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lucy Pearl

The group Lucy Pearl should be in here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.150.132 (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)