"

 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.


 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) 21:55, December 4, 2006  (UTC)

 Shouldn't Coverdale/Page be listed here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) 17:37, April 24, 2007  (UTC)

ChrisB???
Who elected ChrisB as ""god"" of the Supergroup article?  I thought Wikipedia was about discussion and reaching consesus (sorry about the spelling there).    

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. 

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.  

 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  (talk • contribs) 23:02, December 14, 2004  (UTC)

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.  \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?  \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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  ([[User talk:1