Are music supergroups pointless???

[Alex]

A music supergroup is made when members from different bands come together to make one.

Some supergroups include Audioslave (made up of members of Soundgarden and Rage Against The Machine) Velvet Revolver (Guns N Roses, Stone Temple Pilots) and Them Crooked Vultures (Foo Fighters, Led Zepplin and Queens Of The Stone Age) as well as Alter Bridge and many more.

Usually these bands don't last for very long (five years tops) before they break up, whether that be creative differences, they fall out with each other or they go back to their original bands.

What I'm asking is are they neccessary, yes some create some good music but overall do they contribute to music in a good way???

 

[Ferbian]

I think they could very well contribute just fine to the music business.

Personally I've grown to like some of Audioslave's work, some of Velvet Revolver and Alter Bridge in total, while I may not have enjoyed the separated groups that they came together from, like for example Rage Against The Machine and Soundgarden never struck me as something I would listen to on a daily basic, but Audioslave as a combination I could probably listen to for a decent period of time.

And yes I do believe to some point they could prove to contribute something to the musical business, who knows, someone who wasn't around to listen to Soundgarden, Foo Fighters etc. could very well prove to be influenced by Audioslave or Them Crooked Vultures, and through that, there's been a contribution, all depending on how big a star the person influenced becomes.

Either way, I believe any band, any artist that puts anything out on the marked, if he sells 10 albums, or 10 millions, it's a contribution no matter the way you turn it.

 

[Alex]

I see your point, like you said you like Audioslave but Soundgarden and RATM never took you, but sometimes (for me anyway) some of these groups are a combination of the various groups e.g. I like Velvet Revolver because they seem to to be very Guns N Roses esq musically with STP vocals and I like Guns N Roses and STP.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I'm split on it. For the most part I think they all fail, but there have been a few exceptions. I absolutely despise Queens of the Stone Age ang TCV. That vocalist makes me wanna choke children. Velvet Revolver didn't really clicked for me, which is odd because I love Guns N Roses. I never could get into Weiland's hooks. The worst supergroup IMO is Hell Yeah. Just the lamest music I've ever heard.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I don't think supergroups are pointless. It's a chance for musicians who don't have a group (or who have a group)to create new music.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

The way I see this, it breaks down into two different groups, bands that split up, and decide to make music to get back at former band members, this is where most of the failure comes from, because its not about the music, its about the revenge, or the money, though good music can still be produced under these circumstances. Its more likely that the music is just second hand in these situations.

Now on the other hand, we have groups that come together for the sole purpose of creating music. I see this more in the electronic genre, mainly because that's the genre I pay closet attention to. I've been listening to a lot of Moderat recently ( Modeselektor, Apparat) a perfect example of two groups coming together for the sole purpose of making better music than they could by themselves, sometimes adding extra creative minds to the mix will really help push the music to the next level.

All in all, it couldn't be further from pointless, because even if its not about the music, there is still a point.

 

[Alex]

The way I see this, it breaks down into two different groups, bands that split up, and decide to make music to get back at former band members, this is where most of the failure comes from, because its not about the music, its about the revenge, or the money, though good music can still be produced under these circumstances. Its more likely that the music is just second hand in these situations.

I guess you're right Smooth

I actually group Velvet Revolver into this category, I will admit they probably wanted to carry on making music but the majority of the members are ex Guns N Roses members and I think they wanted to stick it to Axl Rose, heck the name Velvet Revolver is a jab at Guns N Roses,

[/QUOTE]Now on the other hand, we have groups that come together for the sole purpose of creating music.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Audioslave did start because the RATM guys wanted to carry on making music with a new singer since Zack Rocha wanted to leave.

Another supergroup that I found out about was Temple Of The Dog which was made of ex Mother Love Bone (soon to be Pearl Jam) members Jeff Ament and Stone Gossard as well Chris Cornell as a tribute to Mother Love Bone's singer Andrew Wood. You could say they wanted to carry on making music while paying their respects to their friend.

 

[J-Dogg]

I like supergroups especially in hip hop...for example Wu-Tang Clan, Boot Camp Clik and Army Of The Pharoahs, they all have very well known artists in the mainstream, underground and independant music scenes, each member of those groups have acheived success. They were able to display the skills the had different creative minds and ideas come together to make good music. Look at the popularity Wu-Tang Clan has recieved over the years.

 

[Mr. Steve]

I don't think supergroups are pointless. It's a chance for musicians who don't have a group (or who have a group)to create new music.

But at what point does it reach when the members say "this is pointless" There's the rub. You might want to create new music but at what point can you go until the clashes are seen, and the more important question is: can they be worked through. This is where them Crooked Vultures can thrive, since Josh Homme can pretty much work with anyone, as evidenced by the Desert Sessions, and the ever-changing QOTSA lineup (which I think is a supergroup in and of itself, just not on a traditional context).

 

[Ty Burna]

I like supergroups especially in hip hop...for example Wu-Tang Clan, Boot Camp Clik and Army Of The Pharoahs, they all have very well known artists in the mainstream, underground and independant music scenes, each member of those groups have acheived success. They were able to display the skills the had different creative minds and ideas come together to make good music. Look at the popularity Wu-Tang Clan has recieved over the years.

Well here's the thing, with Wu Tang Clan they gained their fame originally from being in the Wu Tang Clan, not the other way around. So they are a group yes, but they weren't a supergroup from the get go. The fame they gained was from the fact that the Wu Tang Clan collectively blew up, and then the individual members went out and did their solo work. That's different then what the discussion is based on here. They are discussing people that were already famous and popular joining together to make a super group. Starting out Wu Tang wasn't a supergroup, perhaps you could consider them a supergroup when they get together for a new album every so many years now seeing as they do more work solo then together. In hip hop you could look at a group like Slaughterhouse as being a good example, Felt is another one with Atmosphere and Murs. Boot Camp Clik I could see as a supergroup on the underground scene, as they earned their fame and respect as solo or duo artists, that came together.

As far as supergroups go, I don't see why there would be an issue with them. If a collective group of artists decide to start working together to create music, what's the issue in that? There has been a solid amount of success from those bands that formed from the remnants of other bands, or even just as side projects. Really the only difference between a supergroup and a regular band starting up, is the supergroup has accomplished musicians that are famous already.

To me they can be good and bad to each. The legacy of each member's previous band obviously follows them to their new one, so the expectations are high and the comparisons will always be made to that previous band. If the supergroup fails to meet those high expectations, even if the music is good, the band is seen as a failure. However you are bringing a skilled set of musicians together, and as long as the chemistry in the supergroup is good, it can create an outstanding sound that will succeed in surpassing the expected old sound of their previous bands. Bands like Velvet Revolver and Audioslave I think have succeeded in this venture.

 

[J-Dogg]

Well here's the thing, with Wu Tang Clan they gained their fame originally from being in the Wu Tang Clan, not the other way around. So they are a group yes, but they weren't a supergroup from the get go. The fame they gained was from the fact that the Wu Tang Clan collectively blew up, and then the individual members went out and did their solo work. That's different then what the discussion is based on here. They are discussing people that were already famous and popular joining together to make a super group. Starting out Wu Tang wasn't a supergroup, perhaps you could consider them a supergroup when they get together for a new album every so many years now seeing as they do more work solo then together. In hip hop you could look at a group like Slaughterhouse as being a good example, Felt is another one with Atmosphere and Murs. Boot Camp Clik I could see as a supergroup on the underground scene, as they earned their fame and respect as solo or duo artists, that came together.

As far as supergroups go, I don't see why there would be an issue with them. If a collective group of artists decide to start working together to create music, what's the issue in that? There has been a solid amount of success from those bands that formed from the remnants of other bands, or even just as side projects. Really the only difference between a supergroup and a regular band starting up, is the supergroup has accomplished musicians that are famous already.

To me they can be good and bad to each. The legacy of each member's previous band obviously follows them to their new one, so the expectations are high and the comparisons will always be made to that previous band. If the supergroup fails to meet those high expectations, even if the music is good, the band is seen as a failure. However you are bringing a skilled set of musicians together, and as long as the chemistry in the supergroup is good, it can create an outstanding sound that will succeed in surpassing the expected old sound of their previous bands. Bands like Velvet Revolver and Audioslave I think have succeeded in this venture.

I know what you mean with the Wu Ty, i should've mentioned Wu Affiliates teaming with actual members of WTC making supergroups, it has given some of the affiliates success. And its good to see you know Boot Camp Clik, they always made great music, and all 8 members are talented which is exactly why they have alot of underground success.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

I don't really think so. One of the greatest (arguably) rock singers who ever lived started in a band called Rainbow. The band was created by Ritchie Blackmore, who just quit Deep Purple, so Rainbow is technically a supergroup because the lead singer was

Ronnie James Dio.

later on the late Dio formed a band with leftover members of Black Sabbath, and they became Heaven And Hell. To me, Heaven and Hell was awesome, so I am a little biased on the discussion.

 

[Cookie]

Usually these bands don't last for very long (five years tops) before they break up, whether that be creative differences, they fall out with each other or they go back to their original bands.

So? If they make some good music in the time they are together, it's not pointless.

What I'm asking is are they neccessary, yes some create some good music but overall do they contribute to music in a good way???

They aren't necessary no, but I don't think they're a bad thing. Who wouldn't want to see a supergroup of a bunch of talented musicians come together and play some great music? I don't think it takes anything away from the music industry - if the album's a flop, then that sucks, but it's not like a crappy album is setting things back 10 years when we've got artists like Miley Cyrus at #1 on the Billboard charts.

ALSO

FUCK YES.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I dont think they are pointless at all, when it comes down to it all a supergroup is is a group of guys making music, same as a regualr band.

If they make decent music im all for it, if they dont they are just as bad as any other shit band.

Audioslave, VR, Temple of the Dog, Chickenfoot are great examples of supergroups that worked

 

[HellBoundPower]

While there are some supergroups that fall flat on their face after a short period of time, I think there are a lot of supergroups that are good. One of my favorite bands ever, Down, are a supergroup of guys from Pantera, Crowbar, and Corrosion of Conformity. They have put out 3 albums, with a forth on the way. If you haven't heard them, check them out.

Then you have the more popular supergroups like Velvet Revolver, Audioslave, Temple of the Dog, Army of Anyone, and others that made some good music, even though they didn't last all that long. But the quality of the band isn't determined by the length of the band, but by the music they produce.

All in all, I think there are a lot of good supergroups out there, and the validity of the band depends on the music that they put out.

 

[Green Thunder]

It really depends on the group itself to me. For example, I love Guns N Roses so I got into Velvet Revolver. Now because I love VR I'm gettin into Stone Temple Pilots. But, there's also the flip side to that. I love Led Zeppelin so I thought i'd try Them Crooked Vultures. But, because i don't like Queens of the Stone Age, I really didn't get into them that much.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It really depends on the group itself to me. For example, I love Guns N Roses so I got into Velvet Revolver. Now because I love VR I'm gettin into Stone Temple Pilots.

Thats exactly what happened to me

I loved Guns n Roses so I listened to Velvet Revolver, then loved Scott Weilands voice so got into Stone Temple Pilots

I liked Rage Against The Machine so I got into Audioslave, and then Soundgarden

its great how discovering one band can lead you into loads of others

 

[Green Thunder]

I know right? but it really does suck when a member of one of your favorite bands,cough John Paul Jones cough, gets into a band that you cant get into because you hate another member of it.

 

[Alex]

Another thing about supergroups is some (usually most of them) are banking on their popularity from their other bands e.g. Them Crooked Vultures to help them get their music out there, sometimes they only sell records because the band has person 1 from band A