being famous is relative.

i disagree with rob.
look at electric masada
ikue morie
john zorn
marc ribot
e
t
c
they are all famous on their own account.
same thing with fantomas

and usually a supergroup omplies a sort of side project kind of thing

yeah, to me it just has to be a group of musicians who are successful on their own accord, aka solo or other bands. i dont think you have to be superstar famous to be a supergroup.

whitehouse.

i agree with rob, otherwise every band made up of musicians who've already done other stuff is a supergroup. and i don't know why you all seem keen to label everything a super group.... maybe just to show you can.

if you are just dudes in other bands that formed a new band, that is just a BAND, not a supergroup.

a suprgroup is so titled because, due to the supposed worth of the individual famous artists involved, everyone expects something transcendent from the supergroup, something even greater than the sum of their parts.

kurt cobain's clothes are more "famous" than King Buzzo. hell, courtney love is more famous than everyone in fatomas put together.

Fame is NOT relative. the more people know you the more famous you are. it is as simple as that, and easily quantifiable.

there ahve been a lot of supergroups that amounted to flat out shit.

one that did not, and I am not a fan of eitrher the or their previous bands, is crosby stills and Nash (and later young, whom I do admire and listen to).
crosby was in The Byrds
Stephen Stills was in Traffic
Grahma Nash was in The Hollies
(neil Young was also in Buffalo Springfield)


The backbeat band is as close to an indie/alternative supergroup as there ever has been, with key members from REM, Sonic Youth, Afghan Whigs, Soul Asylum.



if the criteria were otherwise then any band is a supergroup, since most musicians have been in countless previous bands before they hit it big.

that's just a group with some name-brand to them.

the goddamn foo fighters count as a supergroup under that BS criteria

ok, well maybe successful is the wrong word. highly respected? i mean, theres a pretty substantian difference in that accord between john zorn and yamatsuka eye and taylor hawkins and dave grohl.

i really didnt mean for this to be such a controversial thread, or think people were gonna argue about their different conceptions of a supergroup.

I don't think they have to be FAMOUS. But they do have to be thought of as ranking among the best in their genre...that's why Fantomas IS a super-group. Even though Dave Lombardo isn't Kurt Cobain famous that doesn't mean he isn't one of if not the best drummer in his genre.

I wil conceded fantomas as an "indie supergroup" but there is nothing "super " about selling less than 200 thousand albums man! ;)

maybe fame isnt relative, but cant we agree that the definition of a supergroup is?

i duno, i guess i dont care, to me, having someone like jim o rourke and kk null in a band together is a supergroup, i guess i just didnt take the word "super" to seriously.

Is BRUJERIA a supergroup?

Are the Foo Fighters a supergroup?

Is audioslave a supergroup?

Is Green River a proto-supergroup, haviong had members of mudhoney soundgarden and pearl jame BEFORE they were famous?

just questions

ohh man, the music i like doesn't count because millions of people don't like it!!!!

OHH MY GAWD WHAT AM I GONNA DU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thats wat i was thinking

ok well none of those bands have anything to do with the ones i mentioned, so i dont really get what ur trying to say.

One think you might like to note about this board: every fucker will try and disagree with you. It's nothing personal, there's just a lot of people with social-life deficit disorder.

Ahem.

well, i mean, yeah, i take nothing personal, no one actually knows me here, haha, but youre right, more so than otehr message boards, everyone has something to contradict everything.

Not everyone has something to contradict everything.