Talk:Supergroup (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "STREET LIFE (subsection WIKIPEDIA AND SUPER (rock) GROUPS)", Fortune (magazine), October 20, 2005.

Contents 1 Re: Ridiculous bands listed as supergroups 2 ChrisB??? 3 Ridiculous Bands listed as Supergroups 4 Mike & the Mechanics 5 Bruderschaft 6 Yes as a so-called "Renowned Supergroup" 7 Led Zeppelin 8 A Modest Proposal 9 Pretty stupid 10 XYZ 11 Foo Fighters 12 Gorillaz 13 Breeders or Probot (and Genesis?) 14 Generation X? 15 QOTSA 16 Requested move 17 Whitesnake 18 213? 19 Lead section 20 Table structure? 21 List of supergroups -> Un named (One Performance) 22 Collaborations As Supergroups? 23 Albums 24 Problems in General 25 Me First and the Gimme Gimmes 26 Union 27 Damn Yankees 28 Happyland? 29 GTR 30 Young Divas?? 31 Ridiculous changes to this article & notoriety. 32 Temple of the Dog? 33 Tomahawk 34 Rage Against the Machine 35 The Blues Brothers Band 36 Iron Maiden and Heaven and Hell

[edit] Re: Ridiculous bands listed as supergroups

I completely agree with this sentiment. Theres something wrong when there are 10+ groups listed as supergroups from 2005-2006. A band that forms with members that have been in previous bands does not automatically make it a supergroup. The last few bands listed dont belong in this article. --Timmah427

• I don't think it should matter whether the previous bands are household names, but I DO think they should be removed from the article if they weren't formed with promotion from previous bands. For example, several of the 2000s bands are promoted as such: Velvet Revolver was promoted as "Stone Temple Pilots meets Guns n' Roses", Audioslave was promoted as "Soundgarden meets RATM", Army of Anyone is being promoted as "Filter meets STP", etc. In other words, bands with promotion like The Raconteurs being "Jack White with a band" aren't supergroups, because they're widely known as Jack White's side project, and NOT "White Stripes meets The Greenhornes". --MP

[edit] ChrisB???

Who elected ChrisB as "god" of the Supergroup article? I thought Wikipedia was about discussion and reaching consesus (sorry about the spelling there). KitHutch 00:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this here from Supergroup (music) - if there is another meaning of the word, I think somebody should write about it before we add parentheses to things. It's easy enough to move things back later. --Camembert

---

Whatever it is, it's pretty thin soup, if you'll pardon the pun. I'd give you CSNY, ELP, Travelling Wilburys, and the Bloomfield-Kooper-Stills session, but the rest are pretty much bands (some great maybe, never even heard of Sky), that sold a lot of records. Ortolan88

[edit] Ridiculous Bands listed as Supergroups

It seems that people are using this page to promote their own bands, or own obscure tastes, which they find "super." I agree with the aforementioned, and will weed out some of the lesser-known acts, and those featuring lesser-known musicians. Feel free to restore this page, if you believe that I'm wrong.

I believe the text at the top of the page does a pretty good job of explaining the definition (or lack thereof) of the term, and its use as hype. I think a better tactic than removing information entirely would be to move the "ridiculous" groups, or those who are termed supergroups merely because of membership, not achievement, to a separate heading. Keep "Renowned Supergroups" at the top, if you like, while putting in an objective criteria for membership in this group (number of albums sold, perhaps?). Add another heading or two for "Other Supergroups"; maybe even "Failed Supergroups", and move the rest of the entries on the list there.

I sympathise with your desire to tidy this up, but removing information completely is seldom the answer. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There, I've broken it up with the groups you left on the page as "renowned" -- expect others to move bands in and out of that section. I'm not entirely happy with the result; I think perhaps a better structure would be to divide the list by decade -- I think it might provide a clearer view of which groups have stood the test of time. What do you think? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 00:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If none of the members have pages in Wikipedia (I'm looking at you, Misery Index), then it probably isn't a supergroup.

Wow. When I last modified this page, it wasn't absurd. The average person when they end a relationship or employment will go on and find another relationship or job. This page is a tracking of famous musicians and all the new jobs they've started with each other.

I think the question is what is the criteria a group has to follow in order to become "supergroup." For instance, the Highwaymen should be listed. However i don't think Asia, or Journey should be considered a super group. Just because a famous musician was part of a short lived or terrible group does not entitle them to supergroup.

I agree that there are a lot of "ridiculous" groups on here that are nowhere near "Supergroup" status. For several of them, it seems as though the criteria is that the group consists of people who, at one point, were in a different band. That's not a "Supergroup"; that's a "band." Some examples I saw that could/should be eliminated:

• Alterbridge: 3 guys from Creed + an already famous lead singer would be a supergroup. 3 guys from Creed + a singer from an obscure band who never had an album chart (and were virtually unknown) is not a supergroup; it's Creed with a new lead singer.

• Me First and the Gimme Gimmes: Who?

• A Perfect Circle: One (very) famous lead singer, 2 previously complete unknowns (Billy/Paz), and a couple of others from minorly successful earlier bands. Not a supergroup.

• The Mars Volta: Again, WHO?

Under these criteria, KISS would be a supergroup many times over, having members previously in Wicked Lester with two other virtual unknowns at the beginning, plus adding Eric Singer & Tommy Thayer later on (both of whom have been in numerous other bands). Not to mention just about every band that's ever played. The list should really be pared down. Tuckdogg 20:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike & the Mechanics

Should they be listed here?

• Mike Rutherford (Genesis)
• Paul Carrack (Ace, Squeeze)
• Paul Young (Sad Café)

Does/did Mike & the Mechanics have any other members not listed on this page? -- Smjg 13:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruderschaft

I would like to ask why Bruderschaft is in the section "Other supergroups" and not "Charity supergroups" when their article states "So far, Bruderschaft has raised over €20,000 for cancer research."

I'm unsure if the editor who added them in that section had a reason that I am unaware of, so I am asking if there are any others who feel that it should be moved. angrysquirrel 02:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yes as a so-called "Renowned Supergroup"

I'm not fond of the use of "Renowned Supergroup" as a category, as it conveys subjectivity rather than objectivity. If we are going to use it, then the band "Yes" is better included within this category considering their achievements and critical acclaim as compared to others included in this part of the article. Sag6 10:01, December 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the "Renowned" section is problematic at best. Not only is it subjective, its subjectivity makes organization practically impossible. There are all kinds of bands in "Other Supergroups" that would definitely qualify as "renowned," while the actual "Renowned Supergroups" section contains the David Lee Roth Band and Les Claypool's eighth or ninth most important side-project. Messiness will always be a potential problem in this article because of the rubberiness of the term and the (probably unavoidable) size of the list, but the subcategory solution seems to be making it even messier. MrBook 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin

Considering how much popular Led Zeppelin is woeldwide for over 35 years, as compared to the regional notabilty of the New Yardbirds, I suggest that Led Zeppelin be removed from consideration as a Supergroup. Nick Dillinger 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Led Zepplin's success afeter forming as a supergroup should not detract from the fact that they were formed to be a supergroup. This fact is notable, and also makes interesting trivia that belongs in the supergroup article as an example of a supergroup that became more famous than the original band. MPS 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Just because Page wanted a supergroup and tried to create one doesn't make Zeppelin a supergroup. By the time the band adopted the moniker, only one of its four members had achieved fame - Page. That fails the definition of supergroup completely. If it's trivia, it's trivia that belongs in the Zeppelin article, not in an article about supergroups. -- ChrisB 07:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The "trivia" behind Led Zeppelin is that he wasn't looking t omake a supergroup, which in 1968 was a very new term, he was only looking for the best musicians he could find. He was looking for a blond singer with good range, which he found in an unknown Robert Plant. Plant then told Page about an awesome drummer he had worked with named John Bonham, another unknown. Then, John Paul Jones gave Page a call wondering if he need a bassist and Page knew Jones from his previous studio work. Jones was another unknown to the public, but pretty well known among studio groups. In short, Led Zeppelin is a great band, but by no means a supergroup. There have been very few true supergroups. 208.127.96.11 06:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Modest Proposal

I have an intuition here, especially after reading the talk page, that "a supergroup is a band composed of stars from other really big groups that was formed after you started paying attention to rock music." For example, I consider Asia an supergroup, but not CSNY or ELP. To me, the latter are just bands.

So I think a *lot* of it depends on your view and perspective. Which, I think, means we need to trim that list down to things which are *sourceable* to other people (likely music journalists). --Baylink 08:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Why aren't CSNY considered a "supergroup?" Crosby was in the Byrds, Stills and Young were in the Buffalo Springfield, and Nash in the Hollies. Those three groups were well-known prior to CSNY's formation. In fact, CSNY were one of the first group's to have the term "supergroup" applied to them. KitHutch 18:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty stupid

Listing bands that "became supergroups" because of the talent of their previously-unknown original members is ridiculous. However, I won't be bold and start deleting entries unless others agree. Static3d 15:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. Bands have to form as supergroups for them to be popularly referred to as supergroups by the given definiton. Genesis is not a supergroup, and neither is Yes. Both of those acts, as well as several others listed here, were already solidly established as bands. It's almost like claiming that Green River is a supergroup because its members later found fame in Mudhoney and Pearl Jam.

By the same token, reknowned musicians joining other acts don't make those acts supergroups. Matt Cameron (of Soundgarden) joining Pearl Jam didn't make Pearl Jam a supergroup.

The key here is to reflect bands that are POPULARLY referred to as supergroups, not those that meet some bizarre loophole definition of the word. Foreigner is typically referred to as a supergroup by the "really really huge band" definition of the word. They weren't regularly referred to as a supergroup by the standard definition because its members were not particularly well-known prior to their involvement in Foreigner.

Supergroups listed here should fit the most obvious definition: members well-known for their involvement in other bands (or solo efforts) forming a band. -- ChrisB 19:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at a lot of the "supergroups" mentioned for the 2000s, the only criteria seems to be that some of the band members were in bands that may have had a little bit of indie or punk popularity at some point in the past. There's so many undeserving bands on that list that it's not even funny. --JD79

[edit] XYZ

I don't see any source mentioned for the comment and inclusion of this, and I know I am being a hypocrite, but I do remember reading at some point a few years ago an interview of Jimmy Page saying that XYZ was just media hyped rumors. Maybe we should hold off mentioning stuff unless it can be confirmed.

[edit] Foo Fighters

The Foo Fighters are not a supergroup. For starters, the "band" started as a Grohl studio project. The first album consists entirely of Grohl, save for one guitar part by Greg Dulli of the Afghan Whigs. While several members of the band have at one time been in other notable bands, the band didn't form as a supergroup as the definition suggests. Additionally, Sunny Day Real Estate didn't become notable until after the Foo Fighters found success, Smear's involvement was minimal and short-lived, and Hawkins was not popularly known for being Alanis' touring drummer at the time he joined the Foos.

But the part where the band existed before it had any other previously notable members should alone exclude them from this category. -- ChrisB 06:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A similar discussion occured on the Foo Fighters:Talk Page. --EMC 23:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Grohl may have recorded 99.9% of the album, but he still needed other musicians to play while on tour, so I doubt the band existed without any other previously notable members for very long.

Read the definition. It doesn't matter how long it took to add "notable" members - the band didn't FORM with notable members. This is precisely the reason that we've excluded bands like Yes and Genesis. People tried to argue that those two were supergroups because their members had successful solo careers during their tenure in the band, thus making the bands retroactive supergroups in later years. But the strict definition of a supergroup is that the band must FORM with well-known musicians, which the Foo Fighters did not. The first album consists almost entirely of Grohl on his own, completely eliminating the Foo Fighters from the definition of a supergroup. -- ChrisB 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorillaz

Are they a supergroup? Damon Albarn was already a big success in the UK... not sure about the other members.

I would absolutely say "NO!" because Albarn is the only consistant member and everyone else is a guest/session musician. The only other official member (Jamie Hewlett) handles the visual arts aspect. This is a solo project, not a supergroup; removing. Static3d 12:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate the above: Albarn is the only official musician member of the group. Every other musician that has participated did so as guests. Hewlett only handles the visual aspect and is not a musician. Gorillaz cannot possibly be a supergroup. -- ChrisB 00:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breeders or Probot (and Genesis?)

I think breeders should be included. Probot should be considered, although maybe not because it is not really a band, they never actually performed together.

I don't know anything about Breeders, but once again, PROBOT is a solo project with guest musicians. Static3d 13:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The core members of the Breeders were also members of the Pixies. I don't know if anyone else in the group was from other groups or not, so I don't really know if they qualify... also, this has me thinking, does Genesis really count? I mean, to me they sort of seem like the reverse, the band came first and then the members had successful solo careeres and side projects. The fact that they got back together in the future (still not all the original members, tho) shouldn't really count. - Ugliness Man 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Genesis discussion was already had; read the other headings. I removed it, but somebody put it back. Therefore, I will remove it again, and if it comes back, I give up. Somebody also added Slipknot which is ridiculous, the band was formed from unknowns in IOWA. Static3d 21:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"The core members of the Breeders"! The core member (singular) of the Breeders was Kim Deal. Yes, she was and is in the Pixies. Josephine Whiggs and Tanya Donnelly were famous. However, Kelley Deal and Jim MacPherson were not famous until they joined the Breeders. Of course, MacPherson later became drummer for Guided by Voices but that was after "The Last Splash". Anyway, the Breeders are not a supergroup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elwyn5150 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Generation X?

Members of the Clash and the Sex Pistols joined for recording one song (cameos?). This does not seem to be a sufficient reason.

[edit] QOTSA

Although some of the current members seemed to have joined some time after the band formed they have all played with notable bands. There are also some notable past members.

[edit] Whitesnake

Whitesnake is the definitive supergroup of the 80's rock scene. The 1987 release "Whitesnake" featured the classic lineup of vocalist David Coverdale from Deep Purple, guitarist John Sykes from Tygers of Pan Tang, and guitarist Adrian Vandenberg of Teaser and Vandenburg. Other established musicians that recorded and/or toured with the band at various times include Doug Aldrich, Reb Beach, Tommy Aldridge, Vivian Campbell, Steve Vai, Jon Lord, Ian Paice, Cozy Powell, Marco Mendoza, and Rudy Sarzo. This pedigree of rock royalty, combined with critical acclaim and impressive record sales, should earn Whitesnake the status of "Supergroup". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axewielder (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 June 2006.

It's not about "pedigree", "critical acclaim", or record sales. The whole point of a supergroup is that they encompass bands whose members were famous before the band was formed. Neither Sykes nor Vandenberg were popularly known before Whitesnake formed. They may have been known to a certain fanbase, but they were not popularly known. Whitesnake was Coverdale's band, and he surrounded himself with talent. But Whitesnake certainly does not qualify as a legitimate supergroup.

The Tygers_of_Pan_Tang did not have huge record sales, however they played a historically significant role in the New_Wave_of_British_heavy_metal. Few of the Virtuosos from this genre were "popularly known", however that should not preclude them from forming Supergroups. Prior to 1987, Sykes had also played with Thin Lizzy, and drummer Aynsley_Dunbar had played with Journey, Frank_Zappa, and Jefferson Starship (to name a few). In 1987, bassist Neil Murray's resume already included Cozy_Powell's Hammer as well as the Gary_Moore band. I believe these facts ensure Whitesnake's legacy as a Supergroup. Axewielder 21:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument could be used to claim that Pearl Jam was a supergroup because Ament and Gossard were in Mother Love Bone and Pearl Jam went on to critical acclaim and huge record sales. But they are not a supergroup because they do not meet the definition - neither Mother Love Bone nor any of the other members bands were widely known before the formation of Pearl Jam. -- ChrisB 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 213?

213 (band) yes/no? --andrew 15:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they qualify... however, I despise Snoop Dogg, so I'll let someone else add them.

I know I was the one to start this discussion, but I was kind of hoping someone would talk me out of adding them. See, they were "213" before any of them were famous, they then went off and had their seperate careers, and returned to "213" to do an album. That makes them NOT a supergroup, right? Right? :) --andrew 04:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... when I intially checked out the article, I saw the picture and remembered skimming over an album review in Scratch magazine, so I knew that Snopp Dogg was in it, and I thought that it was a new supergroup. I didn't actually read any of the article, so I didn't realize that this album was a reunion. My personal opinion is that your initial instinct was correct, since they were 213 before any of them were well-known, the reunion is irrelevant, and they are not a true supergroup. - Ugliness Man 11:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

sounds good, thanks :) --andrew 04:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

1. With the success of Cream, of whom only Eric Clapton was widely known...

   Clapton may have been the only one known by name on a huge scale, but Bruce was known for being in Manfred Mann and the Bluesbreakers, both of whom were very popular, and Baker was in the Graham Bond Organisation, who had a paticularly large cult following at least. If we're only counting supergroups as bands in which all the members were already international household names, there would only be about three of them. If that.

2. ... the term came to include groups that sold huge numbers of albums and headlined massive concerts regardless of the previous fame of their individual members.

   I'm pretty sure it didn't. If it did, it wasn't used in this context either widely or for a long period. There will always be a few journalists who misunderstand a term or phrase, but it didn't happen enough to change the definition, as is implied here. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 10:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Two thirds of the bands in this article don't belong in it, and I think Cream is definitely one that doesn't. Bruce wasn't known for being in Manfred Mann - he was only in the band briefly, and his contributions didn't appear on record until after he was in Cream. And he didn't record anything with John Mayall. If those two bands were "successful" or "well-known", it wasn't because of Bruce's involvement. Every bio about him says the same thing: he became "famous" through Cream, not with any of the prior bands he was in. Same for Baker.

The biggest problem I have with this article is the basic fact that nearly every musician was in another band previously. People have wanted to include Zeppelin as a supergroup, but Page was the only one who was truly famous beforehand. Plant, Jones, and Bonham were all in other bands before, and a certain audience knew who they were, but they weren't famous.

Members of existing bands getting together to write and/or record some music is a side-project. It's a supergroup if/when the members are well-known. Example: Joel Roston and Jordyn Bonds of Polaris Mine and Dave Altman of The Nationale Blue created a new band called Big Bear. If you lived in Boston, you might consider that a supergroup. (Note that all three of those bands have entries on AllMusic.) But they are not a supergroup, given that those bands are not well-known, nor are the band members. -- ChrisB 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 60s UK blues scene was notorious for having its lineups changing constantly, even Cream themselves were only together for 2 and a half years. Only being in a band for a year or less was pretty standard for the time. It's equatable to around 4 or 5 years elsewhere.

If by "famous" you mean being widely known by name, then yeah, it was Cream that took Bruce & Baker to that level. But there's a very simple reason for this - they play bass and drums. They aren't thrust into the punters' attention as singers and lead guitarists are. Bruce did about as much with John Mayall as Clapton did, but being a bassist he couldn't possibly have made as much of an effect as a lead guitarist would (and did). This is fairly standard stuff.

I feel you may be taking this definition a little too strictly. The question shouldn't be "are the players individually well-known?" but rather "are the band(s) they were previously in well known?", otherwise there would literally only be about three of them. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 60s UK blues scene was NOTHING like what you see with bands today. Jack Bruce and Ginger Baker were in terms of talent, considered to be just as talented as Eric Clapton, and were nearly as famous as Clapton in the blues/jazz scene. This is why they were called a supergroup, because they were. They knew they were good musicians, Clapton even said that it was a musical experiments if three great musicians could get together and make great music. Sure, after Cream they were all famous in all circles and in the U.S., but they were well known throughout the UK, the place that really mattered if you wanted to be a rock and roller. Cream is one of the few true supergroups that were actually trying to stay together. Simply, amazing band. 208.127.96.11 06:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table structure?

Like many others, I have been repeatedly irked by the "renowned/other" breakdown. As I suggested above over a year ago, I decided to break the groups down by decade, and put them in a table to make the slab o' links easier to read. Do you like it? Hate it? Have suggestions for improvements?

Here's the syntax for adding a row:

 |-
 | valign="top" | YEAR
 | valign="top" | [[BAND NAME]]
 | valign="top" | 
 * [[MEMBER 1]] ([[PREVIOUS BAND]]) 
 * [[MEMBER 2]] ([[PREVIOUS BAND]]) 
 * [[MEMBER 3]] ([[PREVIOUS BAND]]) 
 <!--Temporary or former members-->  (optional comment line)
 ----                                (optional horizontal rule to set off former or temporary members)
 * [[MEMBER 4]] ([[PREVIOUS BAND]])  (optional line)
 | valign="top" | NOTES OR &nbsp; 
 

Note the   helps the empty cell to display correctly.

I went ahead and put the "renowned" and "charity" groups in, as I don't think there's any controversy over them, but before going to the trouble of formatting any of the "other" groups, it'd be good to trim the list a bit as it seems there are many groups that people think don't belong there.

What do you think? — Catherine\^talk 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it. I like it in theory, but it does generate a lot of wasted space. Maybe just have one "Members" section, and add (1976-1982) after the "temporary" names. I'd also change the cell widths to reflect the amount of data they need to hold, as a simple 4 digit date doesn't really need 25% of the page. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I meant to fix the column widths after tweaking other table features through numerous previews, sorry about that! Better now? I think I agree with you on the temporary column -- I've removed that too, and separated temp members from the others with a horizontal rule (modified the sample syntax above too). How's that? — Catherine\^talk

That's certainly better, but I'd make the members box a bit wider and the notes & band name cells a bit smaller, as the band name is rarely more than a couple of words and the notes are largely non-existant. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 19:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tweaked again; does that work? (You are welcome to play with it yourself -- the percentage figures are in the first row of the table.) — Catherine\^talk 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of supergroups -> Un named (One Performance)

At the "List of supergroups" sections:
This list contains only groups which have performed more than a single song or live show together. One-shot supergroups which came together to record a charity single are the exception.

And then for Un named (One Performance):
The occasion was a one-time supergroup tribute to KISS for the VH1 Rock Honors Award Show

So maybe they should not be in that list 89.32.19.239 02:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborations As Supergroups?

Some of these 'supergroups,' such as Rockestra, seem to be collaborations between various highly renowned band members simply for a one-time purpose of creating a charity album; are these considered 'supergroups' in the same sense that bands like Audioslave, which put out multiple bands and go on tour? I mean, one is called 'Untitled' because it was a one time gig.

Yes, I separated out the charity supergroups into their own table; some people might come here looking for them, but they don't meet the same criteria. — Catherine\^talk 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albums

I've begun adding a list of albums to the list, to see what people think of the idea. One thing it will do is help filter groups that never recorded an album out of the list.

Even excluding live albums and compilations, some of the album lists are a bit long. Should they be restricted to just albums by the founding members? Or perhaps the first three (i.e., "First Album, Second Album, Third Album, and more...") This will be less of an issue with newer groups, I imagine (although newer groups will eventually become older groups, won't they?).

What do you think? Should I continue with this? And eventually getting around to moving some groups from "Other Supergroups" up to the list?

And should we consider moving this list to a separate List of supergroups in music article, like many other lists? — Catherine\^talk 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think both just albums by members listed and the first three albums both sound good and sensible. How about both (i.e. whichever comes first)? MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 04:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems in General

In my opinion, this article, while informative in parts, is at least equally confusing as helpful due to organization and subjectivity. Many of these issues have been brought up before and never seem to be resolved. To make this article way more readable and informative:

1. Split into a seperate page the charity supergroups. By strict definition they may not warrant inclusion as supergroups at all, but it is a useful list to have somewhere.

2. Stick to a much stricter definition. A supergroup must have had more than one member famous before forming and must have actually attained popularity.

3. Delete the "other supergroups" section. If the band isn't well known enough to make the proper list it isn't a true supergroup and should stay out of the article.

I'm going to (slowly) start doing these things (when I find time) unless anyone has objections. Random89 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you -- agreed on all three counts. #2 is a good, measurable criteria (although the border of having "attained popularity" can be debated). I had started migrating "real" supergroups into the table, and leaving others under "other" to be debated later, but I've had a lot of other things to concentrate on lately, so thank you for picking up the baton. — Catherine\^talk 06:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the "other supergroups" list is ridicolous. Who would look in that list to find anything? The definition should be made a lot stricter if this article is going to serve any purpose. --Pax:Vobiscum 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support completly the changes that have been made. The article is much more concise, accurate, and informative.Random89 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me First and the Gimme Gimmes

why was Me First not included as a supergroup? they're huge as far as punk goes. if you know anything about punk you should know these guys... Spike Slawson of Swingin' Utters, Joey Cape and Dave Raun of Lagwagon, Fat Mike from NOFX and Chris Shiflett of Foo Fighters (also from No Use for a Name). check the wiki article for them. these guys qualify way more than some of the other 'supergroups' that are listed, like the mars volta.

I believe that I was the one who removed Me First from the list, but if I hadn't it would have been deleted in subsequent paring down. There are several reasons that I did this. First of all, they are only well known in the punk rock scene, none of their albums have charted well, with the exception of the Foo Fighters, the previous bands of all members share those traits. Random89 07:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union

What does everyone think about adding Union? They feature Bruce Kulick, formerly of Kiss, and John Corabi, formerly of Motley Crue. And for their recent tour of Japan, they enlisted Eric Singer, also formerly of Kiss. 210.216.45.65 09:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Anonymous

[edit] Damn Yankees

Damn Yankees is a glaring ommission that should be fixed immedeately! How can they not be on here.

Ted Nugent Jack Blades (Night Ranger) Tommy Shaw (Styx)

[edit] Happyland?

is the inclusion of happyland necicary ? im considering removing it , its more of a side project then a supergroup , i think you have to acheve fame in the first place, and then acheve fame as a new group , this group does neither spiderbait and regurgitator aren't well known at all.

They are well known, at least in Australia.

The drummer escapes me at the moment, but they should be here.

[edit] GTR

Should GTR lister as a supergroup? Formed by Steve Hower and Steve Hackett.

Yes, the band GTR should be considered as a supergroup, since Steve Howe played with Yes and Asia and Steve Hackett played with Genesis. On the Steve Hackett article, GTR is listed as a supergroup. If you want to add the band on the list, feel free, If you can't, I'll do that tonight. --Zouavman Le Zouave 07:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Divas??

What the bejezus are the Young Divas doing on this list??? It's not a supergroup, there's nobody actually famous in it. It's just a sesame street lineup pulled from Australian Idol. Somebody's gotta stop 14 year old girls from editing Wikipedia. --Sophistifunk 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll check and change it if necessary ^^ --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the wu tang clan removed? The members of the group all acheived fame before their unison. They are cited as the pioneers of hardcore rap and have also gone multi plantinum

[edit] Ridiculous changes to this article & notoriety.

God, this is the kind of thing that is really making me sick of wikipedia. People get into these stupid semantic wars and delete whole portions of articles.

A supergroup is a band whose memebrs are previously well known IN THEIR GENRE. Being a household name overall as a requirement is totally absurd because it bans anybldy who plays in certain styles of music. Ex: TRIO!, a band which I put in here. Their three members (Bela Fleck, Stanley Clarke, and Jean-Luc Ponty) are LEGENDARY figures in the jazz/fusion world. Yet under your defenition, they get axed because they are not houshold names, simply because it is impossible to be a fusion musician and be known in the mainstream. Yet the article is inconsistent: Weather Report and Mahavishnu Orchestra are (as they should be) included. However, none of the members were not then nor are now household names. Legends in the fusion world to be sure, but not household names. You would be hard pressed to find any fusion musicians who are household names. But TRIO! contains members of Return To Forever (Clarke), Mahavishnu Orchestra and Frank Zappa among others (Ponty) and Bela Fleck and the Flecktones. This is not a supergoup? Another example are the Vital Tech Tones, who have members of Tribal Tech (Scott Henderson) Journey and Vital Information among others (Steve Smith) and a member of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones who is also well known in his own right (Victor Wooten). They are not a supergroup?

The reason for an OTHER SUPERGROUPS section was so that bands who played in non-mainsteam styles pr who included well known members but were not themselves well known could be included.Isaac Benaron

I can't find Other supergroups section being referred to here, even after going back through several edits. But I think if a group such as Mahlathini and the Mahotella Queens can be mentioned in the list (I've never heard of them, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable or that their group is not a super one), then TRIO! (which I've never heard of, but the names, Stanley Clarke, Jean-Luc Ponty and especially Béla Fleck I do know), should definitely get a mention in the 2000s section. – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 09:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. ill add them and Vital tech Tones inIsaac Benaron 19:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added TRIO!, Vital tech Tones, Bass Extremes, and SerialPod. If i tiink of more tyhey'll go in. at tis poitn we cant bring back the Other section (in answer to your question it was 5 months or so ago when last knew it was up-hadn't checked again until recently) so We'll just add those bands in slowly. Isaac Benaron 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The 90's and 2000's sections are getting out of control again. This is a page listing supergroups, as defined at the top. This means that the members had to have "achieved fame", not be known within their respective genres. If anyone feels the need for a list of supergroups from a certain genre (grunge already has one) then it should be created. But true supergroups in the sense intended by this article are well known throughout the music world.I strongly oppose adding relatively unknown (universally, not within their genre) bands to the list. Random89 07:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temple of the Dog?

Technically speaking, Temple of the Dog should not be on this page. Pearl Jam wasn't famous yet when the Temple of the Dog album came out, at least outside Seattle. And Eddie Vedder certainly wasn't famous for anything at that point. DandyDan2007 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will delete it, but in the future be bold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random89 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 January 2007 Random89 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Temple of the Dog = Mother Love Bone + Soundgarden. The Pearl Jam connection isn't what mattered, it's just what was played up by A&M in 1992 when the album was re-released. (I would readily concede that MLB were not widely-known outside the college scene and the NW, but, then again, it's not like Brendan Benson was widely-known, either.) -- ChrisB 06:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tomahawk

Added Tomahawk - all the bands that the members came together from are/were well known and influential before its creation, the members were also similarly well known (especially Patton...) without having to use the supergroup as a foot-up to fame. Plus the line-up has remained standard through almost three albums, so it's not a guest or solo project. Seems to fit the archetypal Supergroup mould to me, just surprised to not see it on here before. Slavedriver 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rage Against the Machine

Rage Against the Machine can't be called a super group, i know zack and tom were in bands before this but these were hardly known. Having Tom, Tim and Brad as members of Audioslave is irrelevant since Rage was around before this and was not formed from past Audioslave members.

[edit] The Blues Brothers Band

Does anyone object to the addition of The Blues Brothers Band to this list?

Founded in 1978, with two members of Booker T & the M.G.'s, several members of the Saturday Night Live Band including Paul Shaffer, musicians from Howlin' Wolf's and Issac Hayes' bands, and other notable players from blues and jazz.

They released multiple albums, and have certainly achieved fame by starring in a hit movie (The Blues Brothers). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TravelingCat (talk • contribs) TravelingCat 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Maiden and Heaven and Hell

I know a band reunion would not normally mean a supergroup, but under the opening paragraphs of bands that MAY HAVE BEEN CALLED A SUPERGROUP REGARDLESS OF DEFINITION I think the post-1999 Iron Maiden should qualify - especially since they added Adrian smith rather than substitute Janick Gers for him. I don't feel too strongly but felt it was worth mentioning.

Heaven and Hell, the Ronnie James Dio/Vinny Apice reunion with Black Sabbath has to qualify. Technically the tour is Heaven and Hell (and I believe the live album to acompany will be) and not a Black Sabbath reunion (though they just released a compilation album featuring their 3 new songs credited to Sabbath) - I think a tour featuring 2 members of the first heavy metal band (debates over Led Zep and Deep Purple aside) AND Ronne James Dio alone should qualify - even without Appice. Remember Sabbath itself is still active too.(The Elfoid 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC))