Jump to content

Talk:Supergroup (music)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


NOTE

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


Supergroups tend to be short-lived, often lasting only for an album or two, which by the examples shown below is not really true.

Can you tell me what this means? Maelli (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelli (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The author of this sentence seems to have changed his mind halfway through, and instead of starting over, just barreled on through. Very sloppy, and definitely should be revised from the lead. Shall the two of us count as consensus? 151.200.48.216 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bens and Subset

The Bens is Ben Folds, Ben Kweller, and one other Ben (I think Ben Lee?), they're all famous in their own right and began working together.

There's also Subset, which was a pairing of Sir Mix-A-Lot and the Presidents of the United States of America. They recorded an album, never released it, split over creative differences. 67.49.82.151 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Hazen Street is Missing

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hazen_Street

Would be excellent if anybody could add this, I don't know how this works here with all this crazy table programming. thanks!!!!--77.10.98.122 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Oysterhead

What about Oysterhead? Featuring Les Claypool (Primus), Stewart Copeland (The Police), and Trey Anastasio (Phish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.125.237 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

SOD and MOD

I'm pretty surprised that SOD and MOD are not in the listing when other metal groups are. These groups have members from seminal thrash acts.

So, add them! Centerone (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

I think they should definitely be on this page. The first album/tour wasn't a supergroup as only Maynard James Keenan was already famous but by the time the second album came out (and the tour that followed) he and Billy Howerdel were joined by Jeordie White from Marilyn Manson, Josh Freese from Nine Inch Nails and James Iha from Smashing Pumpkins. Not sure how to explain that on the page but whoever made the tables obviously knows what they're doing. Kansaikiwi (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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?

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)


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)

The Bens?

The Bens are a supergroup composed of the three successful indie rock veterans Ben Kweller, Ben Lee, and Ben Folds.

I think they're pretty notable considering the solo popularity of all three artists and their respective projects, and the fact they have released albums as a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.233.112 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I really think that the core problem in all this isthat we do not have a solid definition on what exactly a supergroup is. We need to decide whether we allow this to be a media driven term or a music driven term. The media can toss around the word like a hot potato, but does that really make a band a supergroup. Some bands obviously fit the criteria, but others are hazy. I honestly think that we should be a lot more exclusive than inclusive and that more than one person should voice their support for the addition of a band. Random89 and I have been the ones trying to control the growth of this article because people just pass through and add bands they like and never visit the page again. This term truly applies to older bands where it was much more definitive between who were good musicians and bands and who were not. Now there are a bunch of bands and musicians and that line is very vague. If a band from the 2000s is going to be added, I think they must have an article or magazine of support and backing from more than one person, along with fitting our definition. I'm not one to enforce my views, but the idea of a supergroup is not as simple as it seems. Many bands have been through what a certain band that you may like as well. Just because a band forms with musicians from several bands does not make it a supergroup. Usually, the band says it is forming with the intention of bringing certain talented musicians to form high quality music and has a lot of media attention. This term applies mostly to older bands, not those of today. The quality of musicianship has gone down in terms of who is truly good and who is not. There are very few musicans and bands that are truly the best in the industry. Just because you are in a band that has some recognition and then you join others in your same position does not make you a supergroup. Please try to keep this page small and find sources. Thanks. Oh, Random89, please get in contact with me. Zosomm90 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This represents in part the specious and subjective bs to which I referred earlier. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore a collection of secondhand information, which should contain no original research, it really doesn't matter whether the above editor or anyone else here comes up with a personal definition of what constitutes a supergroup. "The quality of musicianship has gone down in terms of who is truly good and who is not" is where the above completely veers off the path of objectivity and encyclopedic content. The only thing that should matter is whether a reliable and reputable source has referred to a particular group of musicians as a supergroup, and the discussion amongst editors should be about which of those sources (e.g. Rolling Stone, Time, other publication of serious music criticism, etc.) carry the most weight.
The article itself would be much better served with the list removed entirely (but into its own articlespace), but if the consensus is to keep it, a citation column should be added denoting who exactly labels the group a supergroup, and no group should be allowed to remain on the list without a quality reference. dfg (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, your right that my opinion should not be any basis within this article. I just don't believe that there are more than twenty supergroups, if that. Now, I agree with what your saying about publications of serious music criticism. I just don't think that bands that are termed that as a media ploy should be included. Just because the media calls Led Zeppelin a heavy metal supergroup doesn't make it true. I think we need to take a better look for articles and not assume that any group that forms up with a few musicains from par bands makes it a supergroup. I agree that the list should be removed onto its own space. But I still feel that too many people just pass on through and add nonsense.Zosomm90 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember, verifiability, not truth, besides which such an opinion is completely subjective. If the media calls LZ a heavy metal supergroup then such info cannot be summarily excluded from the article. What the editors here need to discuss is its context: if it's some dinky reporter from the weekend section of USAToday offhandedly calling LZ that, then that should merit much less consideration for inclusion in the article than a recognized critic or scholar of rock and roll (for instance: Category:American music critics) writing or defending something of substance explaining why they used "supergroup" to describe the musicians.
I very much think that if that citation column is added to the list, it would make it much easier for all editors to keep out random passersby from adding their favorite bands. No citation, no inclusion. Once this format becomes familiar, then the list can be trimmed to a manageable size and exported to its own space.
I'm no good at wikitables, but I gave it a shot. Now there's some legwork for committed editors to do. dfg (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I like what you are saying, I think we can run with this and put together some citations, good plan. Now time to get to work. Zosomm90 (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaand, we've got our first citation! Someone re-added The Good, the Bad & the Queen, and a simple Google search brought up a Washington Post article, that in fact describes them as a supergroup (in the title no less). Not impeccable, but a reliable source. Any further additions should be similarly vetted and either removed or cited. Cheers, dfg (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I spent 20 minutes citing the 1960's section of the list. The Rock and Roll hall of fame website looks to be a good resource for this. Keep up the good work guys, this article looks better than i've seen it since i put it on my watch list about 2 years ago. Random89 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Looks like we're getting a handle on a better way of organizing this article. Keep up the good work all. dfg (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there I think we do have one basis for the necessary objectivity and cite-centricity that Wiki is supposed to be about. I believe the existing list is way, way too long. The definition is not merely "any band made of guys who used to be in other bands." By that standard pretty much every Jethro Tull lineup was a supergroup; and so many musicians have passed through Santana that they alone would confer loose-definition "supergroup" status on dozens of acts.
I think the definition should require that the supergroup's members, first of all, have been genuinely *famous* beforehand; for objectivity we can rely on the cynical but realistic standard of sales. While the LA Guns may well have been big on the SoCal underground circuit, without a gold record or the like I wouldn't count them as "famous." Moreover, the individual should have been a "key" member of the earlier famous group, which is unfortunately a bloody hard term to define- but surely it excludes a lot of guys who were little more than Carlos Santana's short-term backup musicians. Solicitr (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cavalera Conspiracy

I think they could be called a supergroup. Members are Max Cavalera (ex-Sepultura, Soulfly), Igor Cavalera (ex-Sepultura), Marc Rizzo (Soulfly, ex-Ill Niño) and Joe Duplantier (Gojira)90.239.67.0 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Find a worthwhile source, and then it could be included. dfg (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm proposing this page be renamed to "Supergroup (music)". The current name is not common usage; the term is, in most usage, simply "supergroup", but as Supergroup exists as a disambiguation page, a qualifier such as "(music)" is needed (as used in, for example, Band (music). --Frostie Jack (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm not at all convinced that supergroup doesn't have a primary meaning of a music group. The other usages seem esoteric. So perhaps a case can be made to move this article back to the unqualified name, but meantime, I think this move should go ahead.

The current article does restrict the term to rock groups, but there's no reason it should if the term is being used in connection with other genres. The article already notes that the term is not generally used in connection with jazz ensembles, and I think this is true. But is it now being used in connection with hip hop, as claimed above and in the edit histories of the earlier moves? Some evidence would be good. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk page archive

Not really practiced at this... did someone forget to rename/move/redirect the talk page from earlier? Someone could retrace my edits to see if I messed up somewhere (which I likely did). dfg (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Transatlantic

I'd like to suggest the addition of Transatlantic to the page. All four (+ the 5th touring member) were members of well-established bands as well as Transatlantic. Additionally, Transatlantic is widely referred to as a supergroup, both in other wikipedia pages (quite consistently in those) and on the wider internet. Examples: Amazon.com SMPT:e editorial, Rockezine concert review, group and sky cd review, dprp page, progressiveworld.net interview, neal morse official site biography Ommeh (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Raconteurs

all of the members of this bands are from other succesful bands (especialy Jack White) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.121.244 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

United Nations

United Nations could be added or is it not notable enough? They have Ben Koller of metalcore band Converge, Geoff Rickly of Thursday, and Daryl Palumbo of Glassjaw. They have a forth member but is unknown due to most except for Geoff can't be revealed. The Phantomnaut (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roadrunner United

I added it to the Projects section. I think it fits. If you disagree go ahead and argue your case. --207.118.135.230 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Damnocracy only links to this page. I tried to remove it since it was a bad link and it screwed the tables up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Louisiana Gator Boys...

... had one of the most impressive line-ups of all time. Cf. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Blues_Brothers_2000#The_Louisiana_Gator_Boys.

Suggested for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.254.228 (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wings?

How are they not included? The band included Paul McCartney, formerly of the Beatles, and Denny Laine, lead singer of the Moody Blues when they burst onto the scene with Go Now. Cloud Upon LA (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

the first supergroup of rock

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Million_Dollar_Quartet

when this isn't a supergroup i don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.171.154 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Project supergroups

Here it could be added Auf der Maur, because there where many well known people (Smashing Pumpkins, Hole, Queens of the Stone Age..) involved. Saemikneu (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Down

Added Down. Although not a supergroup by mainstream standards, all members are in or have been in bands considered significant or influential within heavy metal, particularly in the genre of sludge metal and the New Orleans sludge scene. Two members are also former members of Pantera, who achieved a degree of mainstream recognition. This puts them into roughly the same category as other "genre" supergroups listed, such as Probot or Bloodbath, suggesting that, for consistency's sake, they be included. Traitorfish (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not super groups

temple of the dog and heaven and hell aren't super groups. Calling temple of the dog a super group is like calling Guns and rose a super group or your buddies Pete's garage band joining your buddy Daves garage band and calling it a super group. They formed before

Heaven and hell are the Dio fronted black sabbath. They aren't a new group formed of members of an old band. They are an old group reformed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Temple of the dogs album was released before pearl jams first album. You might as well call pearl jam a super group because members of mother love bone and temple of the dog were involved. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stardust

I vote that Stardust be moved to this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.114.170 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Forgot signature. 93.166.114.170 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Chickenfoot be added?

Considering the members of Chickenfoot, shouldn't they be added to the list? BoffoHijinx (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Laughable

The amount of recent alleged supergroups added to this article shows their's no clear criteria and it's being taken advantage of. Is their no way we can come to a consensus over this? I'm seeing some where it's just two people with neither being either prolific or noteworthy musicians. I can think of dozens more bands that would have to be added to this list if these are to be accepted. Defining the term 'supergroup' is difficult, but this is wikipedia where saying something is true with only a few points of reference is the norm. This article only seems to be accessed when someone wants to add something, so I don't expect much support but can we not delete all bands without reference? If they're worthy, some can be found.  Red157  00:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. There needs to be a standard definition for "supergroup". I'd be inclined to go by the record sales of previous groups the individual members of a supergroup had. Honestly, there should be more groups like "The Gak" (Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Skid Row) and "The Dirty Mac" (The Beatles, Cream, The Rolling Stones, The Jimi Hendrix experience), and less "Operation Aloha" (Gomez, Maroon 5, Phantom Planet, All Spots to Black, Kahn Brothers, Photographer) and Broken Social Scene (To many to name, although I can honestly say I've never heard of them. But they may have just all flew by my radar. Every. Single. Group.) And while I'm complaining, how is the Wu-Tang Clan even at the bottom of the page? Definition right at the top states "a rock music group whose performers are already famous from having performed individually or in other groups." So I'm guessing they just started playing rock and were famous beforehand? Wait, no they weren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.148.72 (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more but I bet if you trawl through to previous discussion pages you'll find someone whose said the same as you. I seem to remember looking at this page at least three years ago and thinking exactly the same thing. A supergroup should be a collaboration between musicians who have been VERY successful or LEGENDS in their countries/genre, not just a collection of random musicians from different bands. I'm tempted to take this article to pieces with a chainsaw to be honest. Cls14 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tinted Windows

I would add Tinted Windows: James Iha (The Smashing Pumpkins), Taylor Hanson (Hanson), Adam Schlesinger (Fountains of Wayne), and Bun E. Carlos (Cheap Trick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatzeeroll50 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Million Dollar Quartet

What about the Million Dollar Quartet? Their recordings were released as albums, and I it's hard to deny the star quality of Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Johnny Cash all working together. I know it was an impromptu, very informal meeting rather than an official group, but the Traveling Wilburys, which are rightfully included in the article, originally formed the same way. Minaker (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wu-Tang Clan

Is Wu-Tang Clan really a supergroup? It seems more like that they got famous _because_ of the success of Wu-Tang, went off, did solo projects, and continued with Wu-Tang. Centerone (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

USA for Africa / Band Aid

The article currently lists USA for Africa quite prominently in the introduction as an example of a supergroup. I can understand the reasoning behind this; but I have always thought of charity entities (such as Children For Rwanda and Ferry Aid and so forth) a one-off projects generally assembled for a specific event or song, whereas a group is something that at least tours and writes songs together. USA for Africa and Band Aid were essentially hired help. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Crash Karma's page claims that they are a Canadian Supergroup, yet there's no mention of them on this page. Possibly add it on here or remove saying they're a supergroup from their page (Although they do fit the description)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.29 (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

West, Bruce & Laing!!

West, Bruce & Laing are the prime example of a supergroup! And there are totally forgotten here!
Leslie West (Mountain), Corky Laing (Mountain) and Jack Bruce (Cream) formed a power trio and were active during '72 - '74.
WBL on Wikipedia, WBL on Allmusic.com - 84.119.0.226 (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen + Paul Rodgers

Don't Queen + Paul Rodgers also qualify as a supergroup? It wasn't just Queen and PR, it was a band called "Queen + Paul Rodgers". 80.101.212.102 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Create separate list pages?

Hello, just weighing in here. The lists on this supergroup page make the article very cluttered and incredibly long. Perhaps the main article should just list the most notable supergroups, and all other lists have their own pages?--User:3family6 15:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this, somewhat. As has been mentioned above, I think a lot of bands are getting added to this that don't really qualify. Side projects and 'churn bands' are getting added and diluting what an actual SuperGroup should be. ('Churn Band' is a phrase I just thought of, but seems to apply: groups have always been forming/breaking up/reconstituting with different members. Solo Artists: A, B and groups C & D. all moderately well known, but not FAMOUS. The groups break up (or as seems to be the common phrase nowadays, go on extended hiatus.) New group forms, Group E. Members are A, B, a member of C and 2 members of D. Does that make E a supergroup? IMO, no. VikÞor | Talk 11:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is Little Village?

John Hiatt, Nick Lowe, Ry Cooder, Jim Keltner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.42.127.147 (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody forgot something!

Well!

What about the ratpack? Shouldn't they be listed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.243.250 (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thought Chamber is out of place

Could someone have a look and put Thought Chamber in place please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.228.49 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Terrible page

This page really irritates me. I'd say that over half of these 'super' groups are just a random bunch of musicians that few people have heard of and there fans add them onto the page. Case example would be Two Tongues. Never heard their music and they might be fab but their two respective groups Wikipedia pages show them to have limited success, thus they are not a supergroup. I am seriously tempted to take an axe to this page and clear the deadwood.

Castronovo

Maybe Journey should be added to Castronovo, since he joined that band afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.45.230.86 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So where is Slaughterhouse?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Slaughterhouse_(group)

the most notable hip hop supergroup at the moment. yes it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.151.91 (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Supergroup" needs a stricter definition so page can be justifiably cleaned up

A supergroup should be defined as a collaboration of remarkable artists (at time of formation). Truly notable groups would include Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, The Dirty Mac, Derek and the Dominoes, Cream, The Traveling Wilburies, The Highwaymen, and The Super Super Blues Band to name a few. These are all prime examples of highly notable artists collaborating to create and perform music.

I am greatly frustrated by the quality of this Wiki entry. I was tempted to delete many of the "Supergroup" entries which consist of a band and a guest artist, duos, or bands that are made up of artists who had no great fame prior to the formation of the group (especially a group that has released 3, 4, or 5 albums... or has been active for greater than 4 years). These frankly are not supergroups. A supergroup is not made by members of groups who have released one big hit apiece (e.g. Cork with a member of the group that released "Mississippi Queen" and one a member of the group that brought us "Two Princes"), but rather made of members who have exhibited widely acknowledged fame in the music scene. Many of the "contemporary" entries are simply two or more bands working with one another, or are non-notable groups comprised of non-notable contributors. How can a band be considered a supergroup if they are not even acknowledged in the music community?

If we can agree on a more accurate definition of the term supergroup, users will enjoy a much greater experience when browsing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.200 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC) 208.54.86.200 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this but I'd go one step further. No matter what the definition of a supergroup is (and it's not up to us to define it anyway), the article doesn't need these long lists of bands at all. Tight Nut (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
As supergroups have to be formed out of legends (or musicians of legendary groups), which are rare, there can by definition only be a small number of them for each era. There may be discussion about specific bands (on their band page), but not about the best three examples of supergroups by decade. Also note that a band is more than a project (single (charity) effort or three singles but no album). It would be best to start all over again, I suggest:
  • 1960s: Cream; Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young; The Dirty Mac
  • 1970s: Ginger Baker's Airforce, Captain Beyond, U.K.
  • 1980s: Asia; The Firm; Traveling Wilburys
  • 1990s: The Backbeat Band; A Perfect Circle; ?
  • 2000s: Them Crooked Vultures; Atoms For Peace; ?
--Selach (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. There's a lot of nonsense going on with this current article. I recommend removing the entire table and adding only verified supergroups. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Foo Fighters

The Foo Fighters row needs to be move over a column — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.44.115 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Silver Ginger 5?

Featuring

Conny Bloom (Electric Boys) Jon Poole (Cardiacs) Andy Selway (KMFDM, The YoYo's) (touring Selway was replaced by Ritch Battersbey (The Wildhearts))

and, of course, the most under rated songwriter of the last quarter centuty: Ginger (Quireboys, Throbs, THe Wildhearts, Clam Abuse, Supershit666)

in fact, there's another, SS666:

Ginger, Dregen (Backyard Babies) Nick Anderson (The Hellacopters)

but then, they never gigged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.76.84 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fun.

Based on the rules, fun. should be in there.

Not sure if they would count based on their older bands, but they do have Wikipedia pages!

So -

Nate Ruess (The Format), Jack Antonoff (Steel Train), Andrew Dost (Anathallo) - think that would count as one?

clean up

I think we should remove all supergroups with no references from the list. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, UGK? Is this a joke?

The rap duo UGK are listed as a 'supergroup'. Is this a joke? Exactly how were they a super group? Supergroup doesnt mean "your favourite rappers". 60.242.167.154 (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Metal supergroups

Do Sinergy, For My Pain... and Mayan count as supergroups by our definition? Just curious. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Five of the members of Mayan don't have wikipedia pages. Are they well-known musicians? Are they notable? Centerone (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The German article also mentions Arcturus, Charred Walls of the Damned, Down, and The Mob as examples, among others. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

More super groups

Hendrix's band, Band of gypsies might qualify its Jimi Hendrix (Hendrix Experience), Billy Cox (Hendrix Experience), Buddy Miles( The Electric Flag) https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Band_of_Gypsies

G3, though billed as a "music tour" might qualify, they put out albums and play together. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:G3_albums

Gsonnenf (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


There are a LOT of groups here that do not qualify as supergroups. Merely being in a band does not elevate your next band to supergroup status. Broken Social Scene are not a supergroup, not in a million years. Bands like ASIA and the Traveling Wilburys were supergroups. This list BADLY needs to be cleaned up as it is a complete joke at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.120.78 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Broken Social Scene, but as far as the sentiment of the rest of this comment, I'd have to agree.Centerone (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Army of the Pharaos

This rap supergroup should be added; Army of the Pharaos, it has 16 rappers with independent success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.107.1 (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

TGT (R&B) Tyrese, Ginuwine, and Tank.

TGT (group), R&B supergroup formed by Tyrese, Ginuwine, and Tank.

In the pocket

Can someone add In The Pocket? I don't have time to do so myself at the moment, but it's obvious they qualify. http://songsinthepocket.org/ Thanks. Centerone (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supergroup_(music)/Archive_2&oldid=1053169568"