Talk:Supergroup (music)

How notable does a notable group need to be to be considered notable?
User:JesseRafe has been helping trim the list of non-notable entries, which I appreciate. However, they also have challenged my rather long-standing additions of Deepspace5 and Beautiful Eulogy, both of which are labeled as supergroups in independent reliable sources. My contention is that if a group is notable enough to have an article about it, even if not all individual members have an article, and is described as a supergroup, then it should be included in the list. Otherwise, I think we get into the rather absurd situation of asking how notable a notable group needs to be in order to be considered notable.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 23:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, it ultimately comes down to whether the RSes say the group is notable and super. — Smuckola(talk) 23:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see a RS say they are notable. Just that they exist and that they use the term supergroup. It is unclear how they define it. And I don't think that they are completely authoritative on the matter. Non-notable critic using a word is not ipso facto the law of the land. JesseRafe (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related to this, maybe a list of musical supergroups could be created and the lists moved to their. That way, only a few, very important groups would be listed here as part of the discussion of supergroups.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means a "list of supergroups" would be much less contentious than an overflowing chart of notable supergroups. But they would still have to conform to the express definition of a supergroup. JesseRafe (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thanks, but this seems to be a pet project of yours to include these acts rather than impartial editorial concerns. That itself is troubling and borderline NPOV/COI. Other than that, there are many flaws in your argument for their inclusion. In fact, the extremely egregious non-notableness of Deepspace5 and its members was what prompted me to trim this gargantuan list:
 * 1, The fundamental problem is that this is a list of "Notable groups" -- it's right there in the section heading. Notable, notable, notable.
 * 2, Deepspace5 is so non-notable their article is a stub, has only 3 references (how this entry has 4 confuses me), and has had a hattag to improve it since 2009.
 * 3, Near as I can tell your argument for their inclusion is that some journalist called them a "supergroup". Taking that at face value, all that makes them is a supergroup. It does not make them a "notable supergroup", which is what goes on this chart.
 * 4, That also assumes that some random third-rate journalist for a non-national non-mainstream publication is using the same definition for a supergroup that this article is. It's not Rolling Stone it's some alt-local. There is no indication that this is so.
 * 5, Every indication seems to be that this is one of two things that are not a supergroup.
 * A, it is a collective like Native Tongues, Gang Starr Foundation, Soulquarians, Dungeon Family, Soul Assassins, etc.
 * B, it is a merging of separate entities and creation of a new group that is just a simple group as they were non-notable before. Like the history of Guns N' Roses or Jurassic Five.
 * 6, 2/3s of the notable constituent members are from the same group and that group entirely - making it more of a merger. It is not some members of the group, but the group itself. This makes it less like a supergroup and more like a merger or collective.
 * 7, only 3 out of the 12 are notable in their own right. This right here is what made me stop. That is absurd. The definition clearly states "members are already successful as solo artists or as part of other groups or well known in other musical professions". 9 out of these 12 are nobodies. 3/4ths. That's a supermajority. It is not a supergroup.
 * 8, the bands or origin groups themselves are also not notable. As only 3 of those listed are notable, and their membership extends to only 4 members. Thus it cannot even be argued that the individual members of notable bands just don't have articles, but that they are entirely non-notable.
 * 9, Further, to point 5A, the pages for Manchild (rapper) and Mars Ill refer to Deepspace5 solely as a "collective" and not only never as a supergroup, but never even as a "group"! This is a collective. And a non-notable one at that.
 * 10, for the above reasons and your obvious intention to just have them listed here as a passion project of yours, rather than analytical understanding of the encyclopedic merit of what ought to be included here.
 * Beautiful Eulogy, for very similar and painfully obvious reasons is also by no means a supergroup, as it is one notable person and two nobodies, and thus does not fit into the defintion. JesseRafe (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I concede that Beautiful Eulogy might not be a supergroup, mainly because only two sources explicitly call them such (HM calls them a "quasi-supergroup" as well, which I think is a closer definition.) I will object though Odd Thomas at least is not a nobody, he just hasn't had an article created about him yet. There is enough mention of him within the Christian hip hop and broader Christian music scene to warrant an article. I'm not as sure about Courtland Urbano/Xperiment.

As for Deepspace5, the fact that there are 4 sources listed here, but only 3 in the actual article, is easy to explain: The article hasn't been properly developed. That's why I'm working from what sources say, not what the Wikipedia articles say. Deepspace5 is a collective, but because all but one of the artists had already been known for various solo and group projects (Sev Statik as far as I know was the only exception, as he joined both DS5 and Tunnel Rats at about the same time), this collective is also a super group. I haven't worked a lot on all of the relevant artist pages, so there might not be consistency. Unlike the case for Beautiful Eulogy, we have at least FOUR sources labeling DS5 a supergroup, and of those, only one might be considered a niche publication. Of those three major publications, Exclaim! and Christianity Today are national, or in the case of the latter, international publications. As for the notability of the individual artists, I plan to at some point write an article about Sev Statik, and Ill Harmonics, Playdough, Sintax the Terrific, and possibly Sivion, all probably are notable, though I have to try collating sources to be sure. These artists all predate many internet sources, so their might not be much online about some of their projects. I'm not sure how underground Christian hip hop garnered attention in the late-90s, as I don't know much about that scene.

Finally, the section heading says "Notable supergroups," but does not explain what the criteria for inclusion is other than "groups which have performed more than a single song or live show together." "Notable" as used on Wikipedia is having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Both of these groups meet that definition. Note above that I have also suggested splitting off the list into a separate article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 03:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note on the above mention of DS5 members needing articles: Playdough actually already has an article, and Sev Statik, Sintax the Terrific, Sivion, Freddie Bruno, and Playdough's band Ill Harmonics all need articles - I'm collating sources on my sandbox page.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "As for Deepspace5, the fact that there are 4 sources listed here, but only 3 in the actual article, is easy to explain: The article hasn't been properly developed. That's why I'm working from what sources say, not what the Wikipedia articles say. " If that is the case, then why not work on properly developing the article on them and adding the citations you found to it rather than, or before working on their entry here? Centerone (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry has been here for a while. I do plan to improve the article, especially now that this issue has come up.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Welch - invention of the term
Chris Welch claims to have invented the term 'supergroup' (as well as 'progressive rock') here at 40'50s Acorrector (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the expression[edit]
The very definition of a 'supergroup' hinges on the term 'successful'. This is a subjective term though metrics such as career earnings, records sold, songs written and longevity can all be used to establish the success of a musical band and its individual members.

Though there are dictionary definitions of the term supergroup - there is a key word and that is SUCCESS - this can obviously be defined - by numerous metrics - if a band ticks all of the boxes and is but the degree of success by these metrics - is questionable - they cannot be a super band by any part of this definition.

I know we live in a world of self promotion - and this is not a terrible thing - the problem for a platform and community life WP is its use in self-promotion and there are many policies to prevent this.

There should be a bit of common sense here also - a supergroup really is not a complicated idea - and if the members are not 'hugely successful' - chose the metrics - they cannot be a superband - especially if they a self-declaring - or there fans are doing this. BeingObjective (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)