# "Super Groups" of today ?



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

My friend (and GC member) hamstrung was telling me about something he read about in another forum. I find it very interesting and am curious as to what other GC members think about the topic.

Which music groups (not individuals) that have become famous in the past (very) few years (or are rising fast at this time) will be the "super groups" that will be around in/remembered long into the future? 

Are there any "present" groups that will have the same "impact"/"staying power" as past super groups like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, etc (just some sample choices I thought of)

Cheers

Dave


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

Other than Nickleback I can't think of another group that is so very popular on GC LOL.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Other than Nickleback I can't think of another group that is so very popular on GC LOL.


Somehow I knew this was going to happen!

OK...So.... thanks to *fredyfreeloader *our list of modern day Super Groups starts with Nickelback.

I will add Coldplay...just to keep the list growing.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Not a clue. I don't hear much better than competence from modern pop bands, and that may be generous. It would be nice of the better players got together. There are a few decent songwriters, but they wear their bands like an albatross.

From the roots, blues, world/trad/celt/classical/jazz worlds I hear amazing things, and supergroups from those disciplines seem very likely. I've often heard amazing folkies play together at festivals with even more amazing results. Simon Mayor and Tony McManus, Mayor and Pierre Schryer, Steafan Hannigan and Saskia Tompkins, Oliver Schroer and James Keelaghan. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

> I've often heard amazing folkies play together at festivals with even more amazing results
> 
> 
> > Amen to that. I have heard some very nice combinations with creative themes too.


----------



## fudb (Dec 8, 2010)

I'm listening to the new Tedeschi Trucks band CD Revelator, and I'll tell ya, it doesn't get any better than this..


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

greco said:


> Somehow I knew this was going to happen!
> 
> OK...So.... thanks to *fredyfreeloader *our list of modern day Super Groups starts with Nickelback.
> 
> ...


I object based on the fact that nickelbrokebackmtn has been around since the 90's, thus not meeting your criteria.

mainstream music has changed a lot since the classic rock era. the complexity of guitar driven genres has been dumbed down a lot in the mainstream market. imo we've long since been at an "it's all be done" stage in the history of rock...many of today's most recognized songs from the last 20 years are at an intermediate level at best...the offspring of disco and hiphop control the top 40 for no reason other than they're offering something relatively new...and while it's a bitter pill to swallow I can see why...this is their competition:


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

You're asking the wrong crowd about who/what has become famous in the last few years...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

fudb said:


> I'm listening to the new Tedeschi Trucks band CD Revelator, and I'll tell ya, it doesn't get any better than this..


Great band in every imaginable way. Besides being superb musicians, it appears they play a lot together and with others. My guess they're as well practiced players as anyone out there.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

I think that the reason that you might not see "Supergroups" the way that you used to is a result of demographics. It was the baby boomers that financed the music industry through the 60's and 70's but now the generation that is "consuming" new music is much smaller and there is a lot more competition for their entertainment dollar - i.e. gaming, mobile devices, etc. Also, most of the baby boomers (present company excepted) have reached an age where there is enough change happening in their lives that they want their music to stay the same - and since they are the most influential demographic group on the continent, it does - which accounts for the plethora of "dinosaur rock" stations out there.

Also, it seems to me that many of the really talented musicians out there have realized that there is better quality of life working on a few musical projects, playing locally at summer festivals, teaching, etc than being out touring 350 nights a year.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Yes, competition is a female dog in heat.

Once upon a time, I saw channel 3 with lots of snow. Channel 4 "WIVB Buffalo" pretty good. Channel 7 "Eye witness news with Irv Weinstein". Channel 9 "CFTO" on good days clear and bad days forget it. Channels 17/19/29 with lots of cursing and fiddling with that metal loop... poor poor metal loop...

This would have had much more stay power had he said 557 channels.... 

[video=youtube;5scpDev1qps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scpDev1qps[/video]


Music today is no longer the 4 or 5 sections of tunes found in the local record shop (department store YAY FOR SEARS). There is a wide range of styles, influences, fusions, tastes and experiences. The 100 people that used to be divided by 4 or 5 are now being divided by hundreds.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I thought the use of the term supergroup was used when you had a collection of guys from other famous bands put together to form a "supergroup"


----------



## Intrepid (Oct 9, 2008)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I thought the use of the term supergroup was used when you had a collection of guys from other famous bands put together to form a "supergroup"


I agree. Like Blind Faith in their day or the Travelling Wiburys. Or I guess Chickenfoot (is that really their name?) today.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

GC and intrepid are absolutely correct. The term arose in the late 60's to describe groups formed from members of existing well-known groups, the idea being that, taking the higher profile components of an existing group that was as good as it was, and putting them_ together_, would result in a "supergroup". This should be distinguished from collections of artists that got together for a single "all-star" album. So, Cream, Blind Faith and Chickenfoot are supergroups, but Muddy Waters' Fathers and Sons album ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_and_Sons_(album) is not. Travelling Wilburys sits on the fence, because they DID tour, but they weren't an ongoing group. Probably one of the first assemblies to get touted as a "supergroup" was the album called Super Sessions ( Super Session - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ), which, again, was not really a supergroup as much as an all-star album.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I thought the use of the term supergroup was used when you had a collection of guys from other famous bands put together to form a "supergroup"


I think you're right on that one but the context of Greco and my conversation was more along the lines of "has an era of the mega-band (to use a different term) passed forever?" 
The era of Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin for instance. Perhaps you could go as late as say U2. Bands like these (and I'm sure I've missed a few others) seem to be a perennial touchstone for pop music in terms of "greatness" whether deserved or not but few if any have seemed to attain that status in the last 20 years or so. We're talking artists that even people who aren't necessarily fans of are aware of. 

BTW, this is not an endorsement of these artists as being "better" than any that have come since or an indictment of any newer artists as being "less than" it's more a question of the change in the culture. There will always be great musicians who write great songs but will they be held in the collective consciousness like the aforementioned bands in 20 years time or has there been so much diffusion that there will only be scattered pockets of people who discover them and will know who they are long after they're disbanded or joined the great jam in the sky?

Given the way the music industry works now as well as the media industry we consume music much differently now than in the 50's-80's. People's discovery and listening habits have become much more individual and personal as opposed to listening to the one or two popular radio stations in your geographic area to know what's out there. I think we'll look back at that era as a unique period never to be repeated. Again, this isn't necessarily a good or bad thing just observations on changes happening.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Hamstrung said:


> I think you're right on that one but the context of Greco and my conversation was more along the lines of "has an era of the mega-band (to use a different term) passed forever?"
> The era of Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin for instance. Perhaps you could go as late as say U2. Bands like these (and I'm sure I've missed a few others) seem to be a perennial touchstone for pop music in terms of "greatness" whether deserved or not but few if any have seemed to attain that status in the last 20 years or so. We're talking artists that even people who aren't necessarily fans of are aware of.


Hamstrung...Thanks for the additional/further clarification.
"mega-band" is a better term...my choice of "super-group" was obviously not the best.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Bruiser74 (Jan 29, 2010)

Black Country Communion should qualify, at least on some level...a high level of awesome!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Hamstrung said:


> I think you're right on that one but the context of Greco and my conversation was more along the lines of "has an era of the mega-band (to use a different term) passed forever?"
> The era of Elvis, The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin for instance. Perhaps you could go as late as say U2. Bands like these (and I'm sure I've missed a few others) seem to be a perennial touchstone for pop music in terms of "greatness" whether deserved or not but few if any have seemed to attain that status in the last 20 years or so. We're talking artists that even people who aren't necessarily fans of are aware of.
> 
> BTW, this is not an endorsement of these artists as being "better" than any that have come since or an indictment of any newer artists as being "less than" it's more a question of the change in the culture. There will always be great musicians who write great songs but will they be held in the collective consciousness like the aforementioned bands in 20 years time or has there been so much diffusion that there will only be scattered pockets of people who discover them and will know who they are long after they're disbanded or joined the great jam in the sky?
> ...


Then the distinction needs to be made between actual impact on the state of the art, and awareness. Are there musicians who do truly interesting things these days? Sure. Are they 100% guaranteed "original" Maybe, but more than likely only about 85-90% at best. Is it possible for them to stand head and shoulders above our awareness of other musicians that are their contemporaries? Not bloody likely.

Why? A bunch of reasons. First, in the iTunes/MTV/Youtube era, it gets harder for there to be any sort of major release of significance. People are less likely to buy albums, and simply buy tracks. The disappearance of the physical object, whether vinyl, tape, or even CD, has taken care of that. Second, there is less focus on the part of the industry on individual artists. Nobody would get behnd an artist the way Capitol got behind the Beach Boys or Beatles, or London got behind the Stones, Atlantic got behind Zep or Aretha, or Warners got behind Fleetwood Mac. Third, there are no focal venues or public presentations, apart from maybe video awards shows (which aren't really about music as such) to shine a spotlight and MAKE someone central to their field. No more Ed Sullivan or Dick Cavett or Smothers Brothers or Shindig or even Music Hop to designate group X as "what you should be paying attention to this week". Fourth, further diversification and fragmentation of the industry publications. When I was 15, there was Hit Parader (which I actually had the editor's column for twice in 1968**) and Downbeat, and that was pretty much it. Sure, there was Tiger Beat, but that was about cuteness, not musicality. Crawdaddy, Jazz and Pop, and eventually Rolling Stone came along, but again, that was pretty much it. And if all three declared _John Wesley Harding_ or the band Spirit, or Laura Nyro to deserve your attention, then that who/what you gave it to. The same can not be said today. It's like trying to focus on a grain of sand at the beach. That fragmentation of attention is further aided and abetted by the manner in which easy access to the technology allows people to create and distribute music in larger volume than ever before, and the manner in which the desire to capture a youth market has resulted in far more avenues of exposure. When Zep first came to consciousness here, I was a teen in Montreal and we had exactly three radio stations where Zep might be played - CFCF, CFOX, and eventually CHOM. CFCF and CFOX had restricted hours when "youth music" was available. It wasn't until CHOM arrived, around 1972 or so, that the notion of a radio station where rock could be heard 24/7 emerged. During the British Invasion era, I had 4 sources for pop, Ed Sullivan on Sunday nights, "Saturday Date" - a local hour-long teen dance show on Saturday afternoon TV, Music Hop, a half hour "hit parade" show on CBC, weekdays at 5:30, and a local AM radio pop show that went from around 3:30-5:00 or so. The idea of a chice of 24hr rock/pop-only stations was pure unadulterated sci-fi. We had heard about Radio Caroline ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Caroline ), but it was only a dream that those lucky kids in Britain got to hear.

We WILL be able to say, 40 years hence, that so-and-so was influential during this decade, but our ability to know at the time that performers X and Y are important for this era is pretty much evaporated.

**_Seriously, not lying or exaggerating. I had sent in a lengthy - surprise, surprise - letter on violence and destruction in pop (Keith Emerson was bashing organs, Townsend was smashing guitars, The Move were destroying washing machines, etc.), and they elected to split the letter into two segments and publish it as the editor's column in two consecutive issues. Never got any money, but I did get some 30 letters sent my way, mostly from young women. My mother, in a fit of home-makerliness, "cleaned up" my room, and unwittingly threw out all the letters and the issues, the same way she had moved all my airplane models from my desk to the closet so my kid sister "wouldn't wreck them", and then smashed them to bits by sticking a pile of towels she couldn't see over on top of them_.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

greco said:


> Hamstrung...Thanks for the additional/further clarification.
> "mega-band" is a better term...my choice of "super-group" was obviously not the best.
> 
> Cheers
> ...


Most of us knew what you meant ;-)


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Exactly. "Never" is a long time, but I can't see the societal, cultural, commercial and technological factors aligning any time in the forseeable future to create the kind of music industry that existed in the 50's to 80's. And the "super groups" or "mega groups" were really a product of that system. May as well ponder whether piano rolls are some day going to experience a resurgence. They just don't make 'em like that Scott Joplin anymore.


Ponder'n is what we do here! :food-smiley-004:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmm ensembles made of super stars.

Only one comes to mind easily

celtic woman - YouTube

A close second is this lady no matter who she teams up with (her + 1 is to me a group)

sarah brightman - YouTube

I think if you have a group that receives 6 millon to 12 million views on youtube, you could be called a super group.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Super Heavy .....

[video=youtube;Hu_MhgIFDGM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu_MhgIFDGM[/video]


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Many will disagree, but I think Phish and Dave Matthews Band qualify. I can see them still doing mega stadium shows for all their middle age fans 20 years from now.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> You're asking the wrong crowd about who/what has become famous in the last few years...


...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA:woot:!!!!


----------



## cbg1 (Mar 27, 2012)

interesting question.....dave mathews and phish were two of the ones i first thought of, but i think they might be considered super tourers......

grace potter has teamed up with some strong players there are some great youtube vids of her with gov't mule and joe satriani (but they could just be opening act joins main act features.

middle brother is an interesting group. it is made up of members of deer tick, delta spirit, and dawes.

from what i understand they tour together each perform a set and the "super-group" performs at the end. interesting idea which probably keeps some around for the complete show. dawes are my favorite and there is a nice youtube vid of them joied by jackson browne.

playing for change is example of musicians linked by technology and features a wonderful mix of musicians and styles.

the 'electronic musicians', i know, i know, performing at the raves are probably the new supergroups......most of us are not even aware of these things as we are no longer part of the 'target demographic'

nice thread 

ets


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...green day and foo fighters come immediately to mind.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

david henman said:


> ...green day and foo fighters come immediately to mind.


welcome to 1994


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

david henman said:


> ...green day and foo fighters come immediately to mind.


I agree 100% with the Foo Fighters.

I love Greenday, but their last 2 albums were disappoint, son.




mike_oxbig said:


> welcome to 1994


you need a new calendar.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

blam said:


> I agree 100% with the Foo Fighters.
> 
> I love Greenday, but their last 2 albums were disappoint, son.
> 
> ...


up and coming supergroups? green day and the foo fighters? no i'm pretty sure this must be 1994 if they're currently up and coming.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Maybe Justin Bieber will join Nickelback largetongue


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Maybe Justin Bieber will join Nickelback largetongue




NO!











NO!











NO!








​


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

greco said:


> Which music groups (not individuals) that have become famous in the past (very) few years (or are rising fast at this time) will be the "super groups" that will be around in/remembered long into the future?
> Are there any "present" groups that will have the same "impact"/"staying power"





mike_oxbig said:


> up and coming supergroups? green day and the foo fighters? no i'm pretty sure this must be 1994 if they're currently up and coming.


I don't read up and coming anywhere there. They are "present" and they will and have in the past proved their impact and staying power. 

1994 may have been when Greenday were in their prime but the foo didn't really break out big until late 90s with color and the shape followed by a couple more great albums throughout 2000s

They will more than likely be remembered in 20 years. 

Both of those groups disappeared for a while in mid 2000s and the foo have definitely made a large impact in the music scene in the last couple years.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

mike_oxbig said:


> welcome to 1994



...oooo....i'm dating myself, right?
the last time that happened i woke up with a headache and...well....never mind...


----------

