Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 3

Suicide??
As I recogniesed, that there is a new Nirvana article on Wikipedia, I just had to rush through, and I realy like it. But i don't think it should be quotet as a perfekt article, as there is to less information about Cobain's suicide. It would be great, if this was changed, otherwise I'll do it myself. Thanks gott 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)gott

Kurt Cobain was emo.

you are a fag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.35.93 (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really... Jmlk 1  7  07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really... Jmlk 1  7  07:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Nirvanna expert, but I made a slight change to the sentence about his suicide. As originally worded, it sounded like "the electrician" who found his body was responsible! "He was found dead by an electrician ...". I took out "the electrician" from the phrase as it is not an important part of the story in any case.

LW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.10.204 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe the sentence originally read Cobain was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted shotgun blast to the head by an electrician at his Seattle home,. It did sound very much like the electrician had something to do with the act itself. Maybe consider changing it to Cobain was found dead, by an electrician, of an apparently self-inflicted shotgun blast to the head at his Seattle home. Now this way we can include the electrician info without making it sound like he had something to do with Kurt's suicide besides finding him. AngelOfSadness  talk  13:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did put the 'electrician finding his body' back in after the above user removed it. I've changed it again to your suggest, Angel. Does it look okay now? Scar ian  Talk  15:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be fine now. Hopefully it won't cause as much confusion to the readers as the way it was. AngelOfSadness  talk  15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Pat Smear
Here's the deal: Pat Smear should not be discredited because Kurt Cobain blew his fucking head off before Pat got the chance to appear on an album. Pat was an official member of the band. My arguments:


 * 1) Appeared in several later day band photo shoots. None of the touring cellists or ANY other touring members appeared alongside the band in photo shoots. Pat did, however.
 * 2) Being credited simply with "guitar" on the Unplugged album, right alongside the band, contrary to what someone posted below.
 * 3) Kurt Cobain himself had given Pat Smear a copy of the band's final recording sessions that produced the song "You Know You're Right". This information comes from here:.
 * 4) Kurt Cobain asked Pat to HELP CONTRIBUTE TO THE SONGWRITING. Cobain, in the later stages of his life, said he was beginning to feel somewhat "dried up" songwriting wise, and was asking Dave, Krist, and Pat to help contribute to the songwriting of the band. Why would Kurt has a TOURING GUITARIST to help write songs FOR THE BAND? This information again comes from here:
 * 5) As someone below pointed out, Kurt clearly introduces him as "our new guitar player" during the Unplugged performance.
 * 6) In addition to this, some of Kurt's final songs were shown to and work on with Pat Smear. Why would Kurt bother to teach Pat these songs if he didn't intend to keep him around?

I feel it's extremely disrespectful to Pat to not get the credit he deserves. Just because Kurt died before Pat got a chance to play on a Nirvana record doesn't make him simply a "touring guitarist". The only other instance of a 2nd guitarist in the band was Jason Everman. If he gets credited as a 2nd guitarist (he only played on two individual studio recorded songs and was in the band for a shorter period than Pat), why isn't Pat? Runnersdialzero33 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything you've posted here is already covered in the section below your posting. Unplugged is a live album, not a studio album - he is appropriately credited for playing guitar during the performance.  If he was a full-fledged member, there is no written proof of such, including the band listing on With the Lights Out, which only lists the trio as members, despite Smear's contribution to "Do Re Mi".  And, yes, the cellist(s) did appear in photographs, including a major picture in the band's January 1993 cover story in Rolling Stone.  Of bigger note - Smear did NOT appear on the cover of that magazine.


 * You haven't added anything new to the discussion - adding Smear as a full member of the band would be unsourced. -- ChrisB 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The band is listed as a trio in the With the Lights Out because that was the longest running lineup the band had. In the individual song credits, it will establish of a member who was with the band for a shorter period of time played on a specific track (Chad Channing on drums, Pat Smear on guitar, etc.). Listing Pat Smear wouldn't make much sense, seeing as he only played with the bands for the last six months of the band and he is only creditd on a handful of tracks on the box set itself.


 * I'm really baffled as to why people are hell-bent on discrediting Pat. Again, Kurt blowing his head off should not harm Pat's status as their official 2nd guitarist. Runnersdialzero33 02:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat was a regular member of the band, this is common knowledge. He was given the YKYR demo to work on his guitar parts and was in numerous photo shoots with the band. He is not given credit in any Nirvana posthumous releases because they never recorded an album with Pat but he was still a member.

Pat Smear was a real member of the band, not a past member. He was with them until the end, and Kurt Cobai, did give him a copy of the YKYR demo so he could add his guitar parts to it later. Please keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.37.142 (talk)


 * I beg to differ. Does he get any credit on albums?! -- Reaper  X  00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He was in photo shoots, he was a good friend of Kurt Cobain, he did demos with Kurt. And yes he does have credits. Get the Sliver best of the box set, he has credits on Do Re Mi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.37.142 (talk)


 * Kurt considered Pat to be a full member of the band, and as someone else stated, He was given a copy of the 1/94 session so that he could work out his guitar parts. He has no album credits because (this may come as a shock) the band only had one recording session during the time that he was in the band.  Whether you personally consider him a full member is irrelevant; Kurt did, and Pat would most certainly have played on any subsequent albums had there been any.  Stop removing him from the list of members, because we will continue to restore the information. 68.124.66.255 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Give us the source of your claim, and there will be no argument with "you guys". -- Reaper  X  02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Open the liner notes of any posthumous Nirvana release and see what they say as far as who "is" Nirvana. Cobain, Novoselic, Grohl.  PERIOD.  Even if Smear helped Cobain on "Do Re Mi", he was never officially a member of a band (and would not need to be in order to help him with the song).  Everman was also "considered" a member of the band - he was considered a "touring guitarist", which is precisely the role that Smear played.  Even if Cobain intended to eventually include Smear as a full-fledged member (which is unproven and unsourced), that action NEVER took place. -- ChrisB 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

i think smear was a member of the band. it's just he joined after all records were recorded. that's why his name doesn't appear on them. just because his name doesn't appear on the records, doesn't mean he wasn't a member of the band. if nirvana had continued, smear probably would have played on the next record


 * He played on the SNL appearance and Unplugged album. Seems like a member to me. Plus the Pat Smear page says as much. BabuBhatt 17:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems all so silly. I generally think of Nirvana consisting of Cobain, Novoselic and Grohl. From the facts I have had presented to me, it doesn't seem like Smear is a full-on member. Smear's SNL And Unplugged album performances are live, making his eligible for the rank of touring member. He has credit on one song, "Do Re Mi", which is an early demo.
 * Yet my fellow Nirvana fanatic tells me otherwise, saying he was a part of the band, an actual fourth member some time before Kurt died; if Nirvan released another album he would have contributed. I'd check it out but, go figure, he doesn't remember where he had heard it from. Could somone look into this so we can end this silly arguement? -- Reaper  X  19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go...

...and this is our new guitar player Pat. --Cobain Said in this video. MTV Unplugged in New York, behind the scenes. Someone please properly reference it. -- Reaper  X  20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the interview Pat says how he was asked to become a member of the band and how Kurt always said Nirvana needed a forth member. Pat was also given demos so he could add his guitar parts. That is concrete proof right there that he was considered a full time member of the band. Just because they never recorded another album doesn't mean hes not a member. Kurt Cobain considered him a member just like Krist and Dave. Also Pat appeared in numerous promo pics for the band. It is accepted universally among the Nirvana community that Pat WAS a member of the band and NOT just a touring guitaristMiamiballer2k5 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For starters, no, it is absolutely not universal among the Nirvana community that Smear was an official member of the band. Do a search for "Pat Smear" and "official member" on Google, and you'll find a number of threads where people have discussed this very topic.  (Hit Google Groups for more.)


 * Here's the problem: if Smear never signed documents officially making him part of Nirvana, then he was not officially a member of Nirvana. It's not as simple as "we think of him as a member".  Major label bands like Nirvana are business entities and have contracts that control them.  When a major label band fires a member, they have to go through a lengthy legal process to remove them as a member of the band.  Same thing when they add a member.


 * EVERY INDICATION is that Smear was never OFFICIALLY added as a member of the band. It doesn't matter if they thought of him as a member of the band, and if they introduced him as "our new guitar player".  It doesn't matter if he appeared in promotional pictures (and he regularly did not).  (Smear was already with the band when the photo for the January 94 cover article of Rolling Stone was taken.  It's the same picture used on the cover of With the Lights Out.  The band picture inside the article includes Smear, but also includes Lori Goldston.)


 * Any source used to support the case for Smear as an official member MUST answer questions like this:


 * Why has he NEVER been listed as an official member of the band in ANY Nirvana release?
 * Why is he specifically listed as "2nd Guitar" on "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" on With the Lights Out?


 * If someone can find a SPECIFIC source that says that Smear signed the papers and was an official member of the band, then I would have absolutely no objection. But every indication is that the papers were never signed - that he would have been made an official member of the band had Kurt survived.  And if that's the case, then he's not an official member of the band - it's not the intention, it's whether it actually happened. -- ChrisB 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's completely asinine; the moment that you start discussing legal paperwork is the moment that you concede that you're in no real position to discuss Nirvana. To make the argument that legal documents define Nirvana more than the actual members of the band is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and runs completely to the contrary of the band's ideals.The Opressed One 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The band's ideals never extended to how their online encyclopedia article would look, and how it was created, 12 years after the band broke up. BabuBhatt 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Had Nirvana been around long enough to record a fourth album, which was in the begininngs in early 1994, Smear would most definately played on it. I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge him as a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.77.40 (talk)


 * I don't doubt that he would have played on it. But he didn't appear on ANY studio recordings.  Not one.


 * So was Melora Craeger a member of the band? What about Lori Goldston?  What separates band members from touring members if it's not the legal definitions?  Goldston meets every attempted definition of "band member" that's been bandied about here: she played on Unplugged, she appeared in promotional photographs, etc.


 * And, if Smear was an official member of Nirvana, why does Kurt spend the entire RS cover story (January 1994) describing Nirvana as "Krist, Dave, and I"? And I'd still love an answer as to why Smear was never credited as a member of Nirvana on any Nirvana release including the ones he plays on.


 * If it's so blatantly obvious that Smear was an official member of Nirvana, why can nobody answer these questions?


 * I'm categorically not saying that touring members aren't members of Nirvana. I'm simply saying that touring members (including Smear) do not and should not have equal billing to Dave, Krist, and Kurt. -- ChrisB 04:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Taking into account the actual history of the band, the trio are the known members who will go down in history. All others should be in former members or touring members categories. BabuBhatt 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's my 0.02€; Y'know, it's kinda funny. The discussion so far has been about, what, legal issues, contractual agreements, promotional material, official statements, company partnerships and whatnot. Having played in bands for some 20 years I have never, ever entered into any legally binding partnerships, signing contracts and agreements to be considered "a member of the band". If I played in the band and I toured with them and I played on recordings and appeared on photographs and such, then yes, I was a member. Not once have we had to resort to legal council to determine whether we are "members of the band" or not. There seems to be some kind of dichotomy regarding what Nirvana (the band) is, vis-a-vis what Nirvana, LLC (the company managing Nirvana's assets) is. If you think that Nirvana is a legal term, then Courtney Love is a member of Nirvana, and (strangely) Kurt Cobain is not. Interestingly enough, if one follows this train of logic, Kurt Cobain is actually a "former member". It might come as a shock to many people, but Cobain is not an active member anymore, due to unfortunate and widely published circumstances. To not even mention Pat Smear (and not even Jason Everman, fer-christs-sakes) in the Nirvana roster only displays ignorance of monumental proportions. Smear played on tours, played on multiple recordings, participated in photo shoots, promotional packages, videos, the lot, but he's not a member of Nirvana? Whereas, for instance, Dan Peters, who played on one recording and is known to have played one single gig, is? The same goes for Jason Everman. I mean, the guy played on multiple gigs, even a tour, is featured on recordings, videos, and promo shoots, the cover of Bleach(!), even mentioned as a member(!!) on said album, and he is not a past member? C'mon, perhaps some of you guys should soberly examine your understanding of what it means to "be a member of a band". I'm not re-inserting misters Everman and Smear, but I'm seriously questioning the veracity and disposition of some participants in this conversation. The day we have to ask lawyers who's a member of a band and who's not, is a sad, sad day for the music world. As said, this is only my 0.02€. --Tirolion 09:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pat talks about finally feeling apart of the band after joining.

http://www.livenirvana.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=16302&d=1195080655

If he was a touring guitarist he wouldn't have any input. His statement is made assuming he was a permanent part of the band which it's coming from him so thats credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamiballer2k5 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. You linked to an article stuck behind inside a registration-only forum.  But it doesn't matter - you can't use an assumption as a verifiable source. -- ChrisB 06:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's compare Smear to Foo Fighters guitarist Chris Shiflett. Shiflett "joined the band" as a touring guitarist after the release of There Is Nothing Left to Lose.  He didn't become an official member of the band until they started working on One By One.  Smear "joined the band" immediately after the release of In Utero.  And all he did was tour.


 * In the NirvanaClub interview, Smear himself notes that "it was mostly all about touring at that point." He also concedes that Cobain asking him to add a guitar part to "You Know You're Right" might have just been so that he "wouldn't feel left out".  And claiming that Kurt asking Pat to help him write makes him an official member is false - Kurt also worked with Eric Erlandson - that doesn't make Erlandson an official member either.


 * There is nothing in the interview that confirms Pat was made an official member. Pat refers to another interview that he read where Kurt said that Nirvana was supposed to be a four-piece - not that it was supposed to be a four-piece with Smear.  He was invited to join as a touring guitarist.  In the January 1994 Rolling Stone interview (conducted in October 1993 - after Smear was "asked to join" per the NC interview), Cobain consistently refers to Nirvana being "Krist, Dave, and I".


 * There are ZERO sources that confirm that Smear was ever anything more than a touring guitarist. By comparison, there are several interviews with Cobain where he refers to Everman as a full member of Nirvana.  Once those were provided, we moved Everman into the "member" category - but, previously, he was only considered a touring guitarist.


 * If you really want to prove this, dig through the early 1994 interviews and see if you can find Cobain talking about Smear's status in the band. Because, at present, every verifiable source we have tells the same story - Smear joined the band as a touring member and would probably have been made a full member of the band had it not dissolved with Kurt's death.  But Kurt died, and it didn't happen. -- ChrisB (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat Smear was definitely a member of Nirvana, here is proof from the booklet inside "From The Muddy Banks of the Wishkah":

/*...we needed to produce a bigger sound, so, ladies and gentlemen: Pat Smear*/ Thabookwyrm (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)thabookwyrmThabookwyrm (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're re-treading old ground. You need a proper source to back that up, seriously. Like a written independent, thirdy party source. Scar ian  Talk  17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's generally considered bad form to respond to a specific user regarding the discussed topic, but I consider this situation to legitimize it. ChrisB; it would help if you would not present opinion as fact. For crying out loud; Cobain(!) stated "Smear is a member of Nirvana" (paraphrased). If Cobain's words aren't good enough for you, I seriously don't know what is. --Tirolion 09:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.133.2 (talk)


 * "Paraphrased" is the problem. That quote doesn't actually exist.  In particular, Kurt spent the January 1994 RS article referring to Nirvana as "Krist, Dave, and I".  Find an actual source (with specific words) that back up the claim, and we'll talk about it. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced material
In the days before the Reading performance the band stayed at The Pines Hotel, Chippenham, Wiltshire, which was to be the inspiration behind the song "Where Did You Sleep Last Night", included in the MTV Unplugged album.

Can someone source this? Because "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" was a cover. As the Wikipedia article on the song notes, the original author is unknown (although I believe I remember reading in "Come As You Are" that Nirvana's version was inspired by Leadbelly. I may be wrong, so I'll try and double check that) Anyway, at best the article makes it sound as if it was an original song. Just a suggestion. Levid37 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most definitely a cover. Kurt was first introduced to the song by Mark Lanegan, and his version was certainly inspired by Leadbelly. Kurt played guitar on Lanegan's cover, so had presumably heard the Leadbelly version, and Leadbelly is credited as the writer in the liner notes of Nirvana. Anyhoo, it was not inspired by a stay at any hotel, anywhere.

As with a much of Lanegan's material Where Did You Sleep Last Night is reworked from a traditional song. The music and lyrics were unchanged for the Nirvana version. The Lanegan version was a demo from a failed side-project featuring Mark Lanegan and Mark Pickerel of the Screaming Trees and Kurt Cobain and Krist Novoselic of Nirvana (vocals, drums, guitar/vocals and bass respectively) which was recorded prior to Nevermind when the Trees were the better known band. The session was significant in several respects - for example the subsequent meeting between Mark Lanegan and Dave Grohl (Kurt decided to introduce his new drummer to a singer he very much admired) paved the way for the pair to join Queens of the Stone Age in 2002.*smb 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk Rock
Nirvana isnt just a punk band but Punk should be added to there list of genres, on Bleach the only songs that dont have a punk sound are About A Girl & Sifting, The Incesticide album has a bunch of Punk sounding tunes, On Nevermind Territoral Pissings & Breed are very punk sounding while the rest of the album is grunge.

Punk should be mentioned as a Genre of Nirvana, and if people say that grunge is a genre of music thats infleunced highly by punk and that Punk doesnt need to be mentioned then alt rock shouldnt be mentioned because grunge is a sub genre of alt rock.

Oh Yea and if any real hardcore fans say that Nirvana is to popy to be punk then need to listen Bleach & In Utero then ask themselves whats more Punk I wanna be your Boyfreind or Downer?

I know I am just adding this ann. but kurt Called the Band a Punk band too.

NO ALTERNATIVE
There's no mention of Nirvana's colaboration to this record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Alternative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ViccoLizcano (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

"Consisted of..."
Reverted edit in italics:


 * Nirvana was a popular American rock band originating from Aberdeen, Washington which consisted of lead vocalst/guitarist Kurt Cobain, bassist Krist Novoselic, and drummer Dave Grohl.

The added content makes the sentence false. The main problem is that since the band is defunct, the sentence needs to be past tense. In the past tense, "consisted" becomes false, given that the band also consisted of Chad Channing, Dale Crover, etc. Additionally, the Nirvana that originated from Aberdeen did not consist of Grohl, making that specific sentence false as written.

At the same time, adding this content does not improve the article. The band members are already listed notably in the article and in the infobox. The only way to include the above addition would be to add a POV qualifier, such as "during it's popular run...", which, again, doesn't really improve the article.

But, simply, there's no need to add it. Even the article for the Beatles doesn't list John, Paul, George, and Ringo in the introduction. Pink Floyd doesn't identify its members, either.

"Consisted of" would be fine if the band had been Cobain, Novoselic, and Grohl for its entire run. But that's not the case. -- ChrisB 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Geffen/DGC
Can we clear up this whole thing between Geffen and/or DGC as the record label, and lay down why we wanna stick with what before it erupts into an edit war? -- Reaper  X  22:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Members / Former members
That split is normally used to show current members, but that isn't right here. -- Beardo 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right, we should include a table or a timeline to show all members and not the members/former members format. Ravenousjh 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made one today, but now it's deleted. I'll try again now, but I'm not going to do it again if it gets deleted again


 * We don't need charts. And to answer the two-month old post - the infobox template was altered to allow for "Members" to just be "Members" and not specifically "Current Members", though the variable is still listed as such.  (The original artist infobox contained the same.) -- ChrisB 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? It's a lot less confusing with charts, you can see who which members came before which and stuff like that


 * A chart would be absolute overkill for a band like Nirvana. We would essentially be listing Cobain and Novoselic's names over and over again.  Since nearly all of the lineup changes were in drummers, why make a completely redundant list when you can simply cite the order of the drummers?  I wouldn't personally object to adding months to the existing dates to the existing list in order to clarify their order, but a chart would be completely and totally unnecessary. -- ChrisB 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ^Now that is the best idea so far —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.182.194 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I've made a new one that works more along the lines of what you said. Please tell me what you think of it before deleting it this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.186.60 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC).


 * This isn't even close to what anyone suggested. What I suggested was adding the months of the drummers' terms in the band to the existing lists.


 * Look, we do not need these kinds of charts here. AT ALL.  All you're doing is taking existing information and packaging it a different way.  I would readily argue that not only do these charts not supply information in a more useful manner, they make it that much more difficult to obtain the information.  It takes what's already accomplished in eight lines and span it across the height of two pages.


 * Nirvana is not the kind of band that needs charts like these. There were not enough iterations of the band and not enough personnel to warrant something this extensive. -- ChrisB 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I get your point. Just wanted to try another idea. But anyway, what I meant by being more along the lines of what you suggested was having it listed so it wouldn't be such an overkill and wouldn't end up repeating Kurt and Krist's names over and over again. But if you sound pretty serious about this, so I won't bother to say anything else
 * The months need to be added though, so that (even in the absence of a table, which would be overkill here) folks can work out the chronology for themselves at a glance. --kingboyk 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Everman - who is apparently credited as a member on the sleeve of Bleach - listed as a guest, and Peters - who played on one single - listed as an official member? Who's deciding on member vs guest and what's the source(s)? --kingboyk 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

someone put a picture of the microsoft staff in the article. thats not right.


 * Already fixed, along with many other acts of vandalism they did. -- Borameer &trade; 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Title change straw poll
I recognize the title at present is incorrect as it should be (US band), not (American band). The title of the article needs to be changed and clearly decided on to meet the Naming conventions of Wikipedia. As there is a UK band of the same name, a disambiguation between the two are nessecary. Nirvana (band) isn't clearly disambiguated enough to identify that there are two bands by the name of Nirvana, and this is my reason for!voting for Nirvana (US band). I have started a straw poll below to determine consensus among ourselves. And please don't straight vote, please for the sake of consensus discuss it. — Moe  07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For Nirvana (US band)
 * See above. — Moe  07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For Nirvana (band)
 * Shouldn't this have been discussed before rather than after? This became a FA and went on the main page under the Nirvana (band) title. --W.marsh 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I apologize, so could you state why it should be at Nirvana (band)? — Moe  07:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean... "act then discuss" on controversial issues is a nice way to unnaturally put people on the defensive. Like I said, it was the established name and confirmed by some of the strictest review possible. That alone counts for a lot. To people who listen to music, the Kurt Cobain-fronted Nirvana is the one that pops to mind when people say "the band Nirvana". I guess it really doesn't matter and on a technical level you might even be right, but the preemptive move just bugged me. --W.marsh 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, sorry, I shouldn't have done this. That's pretty much my argument for, the technical level of this. Of course Nirvana the American band blows the UK band out of the water in a popularity contest, but that really doesn't matter on Wikipedia. The "strictest" review probably doesn't review the names of titles very often, and this discussion hasn't been had in a little while, so it's a reason to overlook it. And the preemptiveness is what Moe's boldness is about. — Moe  07:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's where you're wrong. Articles should live where readers expect to find them. Nirvana (band) is Cobain's crew to most people, including me, and I say this as both a Brit and a bit of a music buff.
 * Bold, revert, discuss is the truest implementation of WP:BOLD so I'll carry out part 2 now. --kingboyk 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article titles are based on notability. (For example, there are many Kevin Smiths, but the director gets a disambiguation-free title because he is significantly more notable than the others.)  The notability between the US and UK bands is not even close.  The expectation when someone types in "Nirvana (band)" is that they're looking for the Seattle band.  The very few who aren't are properly pointed in the direction of the correct article.  This is absolutely how the disambiguation process is intended to function, and worked quite appropriately before and without this move.  (I fervently believe that the UK band does not deserve to be included in the top disambiguation of Nirvana - the only reason that the US band is included there is because of the high expectation of people hitting that article in search of the US band.) And, as noted already, Nirvana (band) survived countless discussions, including the FA process.  A move of this degree should not be taken lightly, and should only be made if it's absolutely necessary.  (And I would readily argue that it is not.)  At present, nearly 2500 articles link to Nirvana (band) - a move of that magnitude would have to be handled by bot (unless you really intended to manually change all of the links.) -- ChrisB 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see this from both sides. Is the US band more popular currently than the UK band? Of course - not even close. Is the US band more "notable"?  Yes.  Are those the SOLE criteria for whether the Seattle band should have the suffix "band" rather than "American band" (or "US band") in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure.  ChrisB (whose expertise on the Seattle band I recognize and commend) raises the example of Kevin Smith.  But that analogy is not apposite. The other Kevin Smiths listed on that disambiguation page are not in the same sphere of work. If there were two Kevin Smiths who were BOTH filmmakers - how would that be decided?   Only notability or popularity? Doesn't chronology or geography play any role?

Take the example of Bill O'Reilly. On that basis - the name would go straight to the article about the US TV commentator. He is easily the most notable today. More casual readers are looking for him. But it doesn't. It goes to a disambiguation page. Because there was a PRIOR Bill O'Reilly who was notable IN HIS DAY. An Australian cricketer and broadcaster. The US TV commentator has become far MORE notable - but he was not at all notable - he was not even remotely known - prior to his becoming prominent on US TV as a perfomer. By far the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia today are probably looking for an article about the US TV commentator. But after several discussions it was determined that CURRENT notability and popularity as evidenced by Google results etc - should not be the sole determinative factor. Chronology of notability came into play.

Assume for the purposes of semi-academic argument that the internet and wikipedia were around at some point prior to 1987. Say at any point between 1967 and 1987. In that circumstance - the UK band - which enjoyed a minor cult status and had a reputation for having released one of the first narrative concept albums (in 1967) - would have had an article titled Nirvana (band) - to distinguish itself from the Hindu concept. Once the Seattle band had achieved some notoriety - say by 1989 - it would have warranted its own article. And that article would have been titled "Nirvana (US band)." The article would not have been able to claim the "Nirvana (band)" article title. By 1991 that band had enormous success (which certainly eclipsed the notability of the UK band). At THAT point - would we have turned round and said - "you know this Seattle band is now definitely better known than the UK band - so let's give the SEATTLE band the "Nirvana (band)" article title - and rename the original article "Nirvana (UK band)"?

I don't think so. Suppose there had been an article about the UK band (which started in 1967) written on Wikipedia prior to the witing of the article about the Seattle band (which did NOT happen.) Same situation. So the question is not about the unquestioned popularity and far greater notability of the Seattle band. But the desirability of Wikipedia being an historically accurate encyclopedia in which disambiguation takes some heed of chronology, logic and geography as well as popularity and popular association. Otherwise "Madonna" would go direct to the entertainer - not the disambiguation page.

I stress one more time. I am not remotely challenging the greater popularity and notability of the US band. (I'm a big fan myself!) But I'm asking us to debate whether those criteria shoud trump chronology, history and geography? Are there other similar situations on Wikipedia we can examine? Davidpatrick 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions suggests that in the case where there are 2 bands of the same name futher disambiguation should be used, giving the example of X (US band), and X (Australian band). Having said that though, in this case there isn't the same difference in notability. M A Mason 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

extraneous comment
I do not think this artice stresses the bands massive influence on people. I witnessed the song tean spirit, and it has affected my whole life. I imagine it has had a massive influence on all bands since then and now and this is not stated, by all acounts the band was guineous but we get mearly influential, that is a gross miss understatment of this band.

(the above unsigned comment was added by a new user - Williammoran 6 March 2007)

Not everyone thinks they were geniuses - I myself, for example, do not consider them highly talented musicians. However, their influence is undoubtable, as many bands labelled "Grunge" and "Alternative" today draw heavy influences from them. While not everyone would consider them geniuses, it is beyond doubt that they have had tremendous impact on the genre. Arkyopterix 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use issue: Album cover images
I believe that for fair use, you can only use one album cover image per Wikipedia article. This article has used three. How come? AppleJuggler 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the only article to have multiple album covers on 1 article,The Velvet Underground,Green Day,Dead Kennedys, and others. Not too mention discography articles which are nothing but covers. You may be right however, does wikipedia have a policy guide on this or can you point out where in fair use it says this? Case 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very frowned upon. Those articles should not have covers unless they are being commented on in the article. See WP:Fair use for more details. WesleyDodds 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Effects on Grunge
I think something should be said on how Nirvana revolutionized and changed the Grunge genre, and how many bands were influenced.

Excuse me if this is already stated.

Sergeant K 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Sergeant K

Should we add...
Flipper to the associated acts? Novoselic is in the band since last year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghostbear616 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Really? I guess you could.Nukleoptra
 * Seems to be in the article now. Jmlk  1  7  07:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Eyes Adrift, but I don't see Flipper or Krist's No WTO Combo listed...?71.112.66.222 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nirvana logo
deleted from the Article, why? Mr Richardson 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NONFREE. The logo is a non-free (commercial) image.  We can only use non-free images for specific reasons, and require justification explaining said reason.  Using a non-free logo at the top of an infobox does not meet that threshold. -- ChrisB 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially on an article that is not only featured, but is now featured on the main page, nonetheless. Jmlk  1  7  07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Former members
The "Members" section of the table should all be moved to "former members" since the band has um...disbanded. Look at The Ramones. All of their members are in former members, even though Johnny and Joey stayed true to the band since it's end.--FluffyIndieKid 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that; it's the members of the band before they disbanded. So Krist, Dave, Kurt, and Pat were the members at the end, but the others such as Channing were no longer in the band at the time.  Jmlk  1  7  22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While that's what the letter of Infobox Band says, there was notable discussion on the infobox's Discussion page that allows this model. This is specifically the reason that the "current members" title is labelled "Members", not "Current Members".  For example, in the case of the Beatles, it would be borderline absurd to count Pete Best as an equal "former member". -- ChrisB 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A question on the In Utero page
It's stated on that page that Cobain played bass on the album. It states on the liner notes on In Utero that he was just the guitarist and singer, and Novoselic was the bassist. I've never heard that Cobain played bass on In Utero, apart "allmusic.com". Speedboy Salesman 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he ever did. Jmlk  1  7  08:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Para
Sorry but I don't think what I did needed reverting - I left all the facts of what happened, as sourced by the Rolling Stone cite. However there was excessive interpretation in the original version, eg " a bittersweet farewell", a "lighhearted nod" etc. Who said this? This is simply someone's interpetation of what happened, and therefore orginal research, and I removed that part of it - ie I did "fix it", I did not "kill it". The fact that this is the last para, as ChrisB says in his revert summary, is irrelevant - this should be written as an encyclopedia article, not a fan's epitaph to the band, even in the final paragraph (which anyway refers to events in 1997, which occur before other events referred to in the that part). I will change this back again unless given a real reason why I shouldn't --Nickhh 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Stripping the paragraph down to the basic facts removes the notability of the event. Also, the paragraph existed prior to (and survived) the featured article process.   I don't object to rewording it; I do object to stripping it down. -- ChrisB 04:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So long as the paragraph says the three of them were on stage together, the notability of the event is surely self-evident. Adding the phrases "bittersweet" and "light-hearted nod" is going too far - it's one random person's interpretation of what happened. Someone other individual could easily take the view that it was "embarrassing to the memory of the band" or "shambolic" or whatever.  That would be equally valid as one person's opinion of the event, and equally as irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Again, just because it's the last full sentence in the article it doesn't mean all the normal rules about content & OR can be ignored for the sake of ending the article with a rhetorical flourish based on one person's own opinion of what happened.  I take your point about it being there when it won featured article status - but that award doesn't mean the article is 100% perfect and can't be improved or tidied up in very minor areas. --Nickhh 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a real reason in your response as to why my changes shouldn't have stayed. I find it odd that you seem to be an editor who actually cares about accuracy, and objects to overly-subjective language and unsourced interpretation in articles, but seems to have a bit of a blind spot about this one and are exercising a veto over a very minor change that nonetheless improves the article and keeps it more neutral.  I'm sorry, but the sentence as it stands just makes me cringe - but more importantly than that, it simply doesn't use encyclopedic language, and should be cut back to a more neutral wording.  Any other opinions?  --Nickhh 11:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has a 'veto' over any article. I think at this point there should actually be a consensus so as to avert an argument. In my own honest and unbiased opinion I do think the last paragraph [And esp. final sentence] should be edited. It does, in fact, sound like one persons perception of the event. I agree with Nick here. Scar ian  Talk  12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I pulled the whole paragraph. On its own, the statement that the performance happened is trivia.  Dave and Krist have performed together on other occasions, and this performance featured no Nirvana material.  To be honest, it's more notable as far as the Foo Fighters goes, as it was Pat Smear's last full show with the band (which is actually why it happened).


 * But the noted concerns are only part of the problem. I went scouting for more sources, and it turns out that Taylor Hawkins played drums during some percentage of the encore - the "Nirvana" lineup didn't even play a complete song. I'd like to track down the footage of the show just to figure out what exactly happened and how best to describe it. -- ChrisB 04:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Album sales
This seems to be an ongoing issue. Personally, I immensely dislike including these numbers in prominent locations. It's trivia - there is no particular notability difference in how many millions of albums a band has sold, particularly since the numbers aren't comparable between bands - bands don't all release the same number of albums.

What's the difference between "Nirvana sold more than sixty million albums" and "Nirvana sold more than eighty million albums"? It's just a number.

And, frankly, I absolutely contest the numbers on the Discography page. I'm not saying they're wrong - I'm questioning them because they don't make logical sense, particularly since they lack sources. For example, In Utero is listed as certified five million and having sold 5.9 million. Here's the problem: certification is done by shipments. To have sold 5.9 million copies, more than six million copies would have to have been shipped - which means that, if those numbers are correct, In Utero should have been certified six times, not five.

And, honestly, where do these numbers come from? They are completely unsourced on the Discography page. Are they Soundscan numbers? Does Soundscan even track worldwide sales? We can cite fifty million from a 2002 Yahoo article. The only original source for sixty million is, well, this article. That's not acceptable. If we can't find a cited figure, it's irresponsible for us to try and calculate one ourselves, particularly when, at the moment, we can't even back up the Discography's estimates. -- ChrisB 05:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn...you're right on the money there. It is just simple trivia in the end.  Good pickups, and great clarification!  Jmlk  1  7  08:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with sales numbers being mere trivia. For some, they are an indication of the success or influence a band has had with the general population. Catalog sales can tell us how a band such as Nirvana has transcended generations and still continues to be a major seller. The Yahoo article is 5 years old and is no longer valid. In terms of sales data...Nirvana has sold approximately 62 million copies worldwide. While it is impossible to get an exact world total for any band, it is possible to do verifiable research using official audit companies such as the RIAA, Soundscan, and their worldwide counterparts. I have done extensive research in this area for Nirvana. There are literally hundreds of websites and would be difficult to source (although it could be done if asked). Just in the United States alone, Nirvana has sold about 4.5 million albums since 2002. This can be verified through Soundscan data.

In terms of the RIAA and Soundscan. The RIAA looks at certification dates. Bands have to pay to certify each album gold, platinum, or multiplatinum. Actual shipment numbers are most likely higher than what you see for most bands. For example, Nevermind hasn't been certified in over 8 years, even though it has sold an additional million units during that time.

Both the RIAA and Soundscan have their problems. The RIAA counts all albums shipped from the factory to record stores, retail stores, music clubs, online stores, libraries, mom and pop stores, etc. The problem with the RIAA is that certifications often lag years behind what has actually been shipped. For example, Nevermind has sold a million albums since 1999 if you look at yearly Soundscan figures and Unplugged and In Utero are close to 6 million if not already there. Soundscan only counts what is actually sold at the cash register. The problem here is that in the past they did not include music clubs, which were big in the 1990’s. Nevermind alone sold 1,240,000 at BMG record club by 2002. They also do not include supermarket stores like Wal-Mart or Mom and Pop stores. Soundscan began in 1991 and it took a few years for their system to be implemented with a sense of accuracy. Today their analysis is more accurate, but in the early 90’s, when many Nirvana albums were released, it was not.

So in total Nirvana officially have shipped over 25 million albums (RIAA)in the United States and over 62 million worldwide. If you do want accurate sales data in the Nirvana section please let me know and I can do my best to get you the proper data and sources. If not, that is ok. Thanks Allaplgies 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary sources
That last one took the feckin' biscuit... At least one of them was decent enough to stay on there stating Novoselic founded JAMPAC. That is one hell of a fine feckin' reference from a reliable source. The other two sources were just to piss you off because I knew they were crap too... But that one is absolutely fine. I'm putting it back in, if you remove it again, I shall put it back in again and open up a consensus for OTHER PEOPLE to have a say. Scar ian Talk  03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A) Ease off. Civility
 * B) Read the guidelines. They specifically state that a source only needs to be cited in cases of direct quotes or statements that might be contested.  There is no purpose in jamming unnecessary sources into an article, and I can't quite understand how stopping the inclusion of an unnecessary source is something that should be up for "consensus".  The BBC source in the paragraph about the licensing was particularly unnecessary, given that the already-cited source includes the figure.
 * There's a reason this article is a featured article. We have already appropriately cited sources, as judged by the community at-large.
 * Could you at least explain why you feel these sources are needed? -- ChrisB 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll answer your question later today seeing as it's 4:22 am here and a silly argument with you is far from ever being important. Scar ian  Talk  03:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to offer my thoughts and opinions here :). Jmlk  1  7  18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, in reply to what I said a couple of days ago... I just felt that the source was, almost, impeccable. What harm can one decent enough source do? It's not like I'm taking away from the article! Saying Novoselic created JAMPAC is a statement which requires a citation, which I duly did. I apologise for my incivility but I was incredibly tired [4 am!]. I hope we can come to some agreement, friends. Scar ian  Talk  12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly - it wasn't that one source - it was the series of sources in a very short period of time, along with the questionable nature of several of the sources - like the Time source listed as the NME. (Ultimate Guitar is equivalent to AllofMP3.com.  A tab site like that would be illegal almost anywhere else in the world, but it's based in Russia so that they can circumvent those laws.  They're not a reliable source.)


 * But I take bigger issue with the Weasel words / Views needing attribution. (That's the wrong template - it should be fact since the statement is not a "view".)  You basically added that at the very end, seemingly as a way to "win" the argument.  That's a piss-poor (and petty) reason to make an action. (The original claim in the edit summary - "It's got to be cited if it's in the opening para." - is false.)  And that's beyond the fact that after someone changed it to "rock and alternative stations", you changed it back with the completely irrelevant (and arguably self-contradicting) claim that "you heard it on the BBC".


 * Truly, there's no way to source that statement specifically. I found one article from 2004 that might cover it, but my personal feeling is that 2004 isn't recent enough to count as "current".  We can cite radio stats (eg, Mediabase), but compiling them all would arguably be OR.  By the letter of Wikipedia guidelines, we should strike it.


 * However, you and I (and everyone else here) knows that statement is true. You've heard Nirvana on the BBC (XFM and Virgin Radio play them, too); Triple M and Triple J both spin Nirvana regularly in Australia; Nirvana songs get more than 3000 spins in the US every week. That's worldwide and readily citeable.  It's one thing to state an opinion or make an assumption of fact that's controversial or cannot readily be proven - it's an entirely different situation when that statement is essentially "Nirvana still gets played on the radio worldwide".


 * You have to make the decision here. Either remove the template or remove the sentence.  There's no reason to leave it there long-term.  (Either way, you win.) -- ChrisB 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. And no, Christoper, at the risk of sounding clichéd, it is the article that has won. You really are just looking out for the article, and I respect you greatly for that. Scar ian Talk  22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

JAMPAC Unless my memory is totally gone - and forgive me if I misunderstand the controversy here/for butting in - Krist's reason for forming JAMPAC was less for musician rights than because minors were outlawed, via a 1985 Seattle ordnance, from attending shows after a certain hour and/or in certain places. Possibly JAMPAC could be specifically linked back to JAMPAC on Krist's page, as I see that it is discussed a bit further there. Too, there seems to be some issue about WHO formed JAMPAC. Krist discussed JAMPAC and why HE formed it, at great length and with great patience, at the book signing I attended when "Of Grunge & Gov" was released; doing so as part of his explanation as to how grassroots politics (starting in your local Grange Hall per his book's theme) can work. Krist was definitely Nirvana's political mind (rumour in Western Washington is that he just may run for Lt Gov in Washington State...yea!). Airplay? I listen to a "middle-road" Canadian station out of Vancouver BC that has never stopped spinning Nirvana. (Has anyone mentioned how tall Krist is?! He could easily dunk a basketball sitting down..well almost.) I'm new here, so please don't yell at me, as I do think I am late to this party (it's not quite 4am yet, it's only 3), but there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding surrounding Nirvana, Kurt, Krist, Dave, and Aberdeen, that possibly can never be understood by people outside the local area. And that is a "just is" that I'm not sure how, or if, it can be changed.71.112.66.222 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi friend, welcome to Wikipedia, that argument between Chris and I occurred a few months back now and we have since stopped arguing [For the time being :-P]. I have read up on a lot more guidelines since then and am now more erudite and patient. It wasn't that we thought that Krist didn't form JAMPAC, it was more: "Well if it's said, then let's cite it" - or that was my argument anyway. And the statement about Nirvana remaining a consistent presence on radio air time is, of course, true. But it's a statement that can be contested since people may believe otherwise. But well done for commenting and feel free to partake in currently ongoing discussions down below. I do believe the article is currently going through a re-vamp and we could always do with some extra help/ideas/opinions :-)
 * Note: As that anon. I.P. bug is always going to be around, I'd just thought I'd inform you that I have a left a welcome message on your discussion page, friend. Scar ian Talk  10:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you...but what "bug"?71.112.66.222 11:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please check your user talk/discussion page for my reply. Scar ian  Talk  12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible error in article
Under the headline of "Nevermind," the article says how the band still had unfinished lyrics for the songs "On a Plain" and "Stay Away." But "Stay Away" is a cover of the UK Subs song of the same name, so... how could the lyrics be unfinished?

72.185.12.111 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Kristen
 * I think you are mistaken...Cobain wrote the lyrics to Stay Away. Jmlk  1  7  05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * UK Subs covered "Stay Away" for a Nirvana tribute album in 2001. It's the same album that had Flipper's cover of "Scentless Apprentice" that we mention in the article. -- ChrisB 05:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A small question about In Utero
On the credits section it lists Dave Grohl simply as "drums". Didn't Grohl sing backing vocals on some In Utero songs as well? Speedboy Salesman 12:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. He actually didn't sing backing vocals that often, which is the reason that he's not listed as "backing vocals" in the article.  (On Nevermind, he only sang on "In Bloom" and "On a Plain".)  Live, he only sang backing vocals sporadically, and let Smear take over for much of the In Utero tour. -- ChrisB 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen some videos (not able to remember where), that show Grohl singing minor backup vocals on tour. I believe it was some bootleg concert tape, but he was definitely adding some vocals to the show.   Jmlk  1  7  04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I swear I saw Grohl sing the verse of "Heart Shaped Box" live with Cobain but Smear did the chorus, but I just thought he would in the studio, I thought he sang backing on "Pennyroyal Tea", "Dumb" and "All Apologies" on In Utero. Speedboy Salesman 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of those three, "Pennyroyal" is the one that's most obviously Cobain, particularly in the single mix. The (left-channel) slightly off-key screaming is all Kurt.  (If you don't have the single mix, check out the sample on Nirvana on iTunes.)  At the end of "All Apologies" - Grohl would be singing the high harmony at the end, but you can hear Kurt's gravelly voice.  By my own ears, I can't pin "Dumb"'s backing vox for certain, but the pronunciation of "learned" and "burn" sounds more like Kurt's accent.


 * Strangely, before Smear started doing the chorus backups on HSB, Cobain sang the chorus by himself. (Compare the SNL performance to MTV Live and Loud.) -- ChrisB 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that Grohl didn't sing backing vocals - he definitely did. It's just that he didn't do it even on a majority of songs.  I'd have to watch it again to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that over the course of the Reading 1992 show, he only sang backing vox on five songs or fewer.  (For example, during live performances of "Aneurysm", his backing vocals would usually consist of one or two shouts of "she keeps it pumping" at the end - and that song had more backing vocal opportunities than that.  By the same token, he only sang three lines in "Heart Shaped Box" when they played it live.)  It seemed like he used the mic to talk between songs more than anything else. -- ChrisB 22:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well I guess the only way we'd ever truly know is if Novoselic or Grohl told someone about it. Here's another question, on a recorded version of "Aneurysm", there's an added vocal line that sounds like "Beat it! Beat it!", who sang that? Speedboy Salesman 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After listening to the song again briefly, that sounds like Kurt. Grohl's singing in the 90's was more high pitched than it is now. And that part of the chorus was never sung live by either of them. The only vocals that Grohl did on Aneurysm live was the outro, and that was only if he didn't want to keep doing the fills. Scar ian  Talk  06:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But I always thought Grohl sang high because of the harmonies required. Speedboy Salesman 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite possible, as on 'Outcesticide' he sings the chorus of 'Marigold' in conjunction with a higher harmony chorus. But it could also be because of his age and that it was just his style. Scar ian  Talk  01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the rough mix of the SLTS-single version of "Aneurysm" (the rough mix leaked last year), the "beat it" part actually sounds like two voices singing in the same mic (probably Kurt and Dave, though it's hard to tell that for sure). -- ChrisB 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But anyway, shouldn't Grohl get a credit even if it's just "drums, backing vocals on 'All Apologies'"? Because that's blatantly Grohl singing the harmony part at the end. And I think he sings backing vocals on "Dumb" as well, but that's speculation. Speedboy Salesman 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A credit for what? I entirely disagree - as I said already, I don't think that's Grohl on "All Apologies" or "Dumb".  At best, you're guessing, and it's unsourced, so it can't be included.  The only album tracks we know for sure that Grohl sang on are "On a Plain" (at the end) and "In Bloom" (chorus only).  Krist sang the lead-in to "Territorial Pissings" - should we credit him for lead vocals, too?  It's all about notability.  Grohl did not do a notable amount of backing vocals while with Nirvana, nor did Krist do any significant lead vocals (or accordian). -- ChrisB 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Does singing live count? Grohl did a significant amount of backing vocals live. But, I guess you guys are only talking about albums? Not live gigs/concerts/whatever? And if you're talking about notability - Krist got credited with 'vocals' for only saying that one line in Territorial - I can't remember if that was on the 'Nevermind' linear notes or what - but I definitely read it somewhere. I think if it's on the liner notes credited as backing vocals then it should count, what's the point in going into specifics when it's actually on the album sleeve? If it doesn't say that Grohl did backing vocals on In Utero or whatever then don't put it. But if it does, then put it - it's not up to anyone to decide whether he did or not contribute vocals. You cannot go back to the 90's (Unfortunatly) and stop Grohl or Novoselic doing any sort of vocals for the albums just for the sake of a Wikipedia article. If you have a problem, Chris, with whether it's notable or not just let the credits on the album sleeves do the talking. Those notes should decide whether they're attributed with being vocalists in the band - not, I repeat, not anyone else. (I would end the disagreement right now but unfortunatly I have lost my cases for all of my Nirvana albums so I can't check.) Scar ian  Talk  04:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Grohl is not credited with vocals on In Utero. Both Novoselic and Grohl are credited with vocals on Nevermind.  But is that notable?  Novoselic sings about ten seconds of vocals on the album, Grohl less than a minute.  Most "backing vocalists" sing significant elements of most (if not all) songs.  Compare to The Get-Up Kids or Everclear.  If you ever saw Everclear live, Craig Montoya sang backing vocals on almost every song they played.  And, again - watch any full Nirvana concert video (bootleg), and you'll see that Grohl only sang vocals on a handful of songs, and only a few parts during those songs.  They envisioned Grohl to be more of a backing vocalist, but it just wasn't physically possible to play the way he played and put his face in front of a microphone.  (And the ear-mounted microphone was gloriously uncool during the grunge era.)


 * Again, I'm not fully against it. I just think it should be done for the right reasons with all considerations.  If either Grohl or Novoselic is deemed to be counted for vocals, then Novoselic should be considered for the accordian as well.  (When they played "Sunbeam" live during the post-Unplugged shows on the fall In Utero tour, Novoselic pulled out the accordian.)  And Grohl played bass on that song when Novoselic was playing the accordian.  But, honestly, I just don't think any of that rises to notability.


 * Notability is one of the main tenets of Wikipedia - and that's where editorial discretion lies. And that's what discussion is for. -- ChrisB 05:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
I don't think overlinking can be attributed to the names in the photograph. If anything, if they're linked below, the photograph should be linked INSTEAD of 'below' (I'm going by your edit summary, Chris). I say this because, naturally, humans are more attracted towards pictures than words, and will thus look at the picture first. People are gonna wanna know whom is in the picture. Once again, I believe this is a case of: "Will it kill, crush and destroy the article?" - I doubt it. I took a look at Foo Fighters, Oasis Red Hot Chili Peppers, Queens of The Stone Age, Black Sabbath, and Led Zeppelin... Those absolutely massive bands all have their photographs wiki-linked. Pray tell me... Does it kill the article? If it is such a "frowned upon" practice, then why do these articles of big bands (Most of the articles are of, or close to, featured status or at least A/B class) have their photo's wiki-linked? I fail to understand really... No doubt you will slap a handful of Wikipedia policies at me or something else that I won't read. Scar ian Talk  05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you always get into arguments over the most meaningless of crap? Seriously, of all of the useful discussions we could possibly be having, you write a paragraph and a half about this?


 * There is no specific guideline about this. WP:OVERLINK is closest: "there is hardly ever a reason to link the same term twice in the same section."  The Infobox is a section.  The band's members are supposed to be linked in the Infobox under Members, given that all of the members of a given band appear in that location (and don't always appear in the photograph).


 * Featured articles that don't link: Megadeth, Sex Pistols, Pixies, The Waterboys, Uncle Tupelo.


 * But we can do whatever the heck we want. -- ChrisB 01:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Christopher, you caught me. I argue with you over tiny things because I like spending time with you... Haven't you noticed how much I care for you? This is all just a ruse... these petty arguments are all just a show... my heart lies with you, Christopher. You illuminate me. *coughs* Scar ian  Talk  03:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I thought that was the case, I wouldn't have bothered posting. In fact, I'm not even sure why I bothered, since you dismissed my (expected) response before I had the chance to write it: "No doubt you will slap a handful of Wikipedia policies at me or something else that I won't read."  Ha ha.  Seriously, what's the point of guidelines, anyway? -- ChrisB 03:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea. I'll leave you alone now. I just won't get involved in the things that you are arguing for. I won't contribute to the article for fear of being reprimanded (Despite having a very, very, very basic grasp of English... and enclyclopaedic know-how). I'll just have to relegate myself to vandalism cleaner-upper when you're sleep or just not on Wikipedia... *sighs* Has something been written about Love selling 25% of the back catalogue? Nirvana's music was/is/has been going to be used/has been used in 'Lost', anything going to be written about that? Can I have a list please of what stuff you think needs to be done with this article, Chris? What needs to be updated? etc. Scar ian  Talk  03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's really nothing specific that needs to be done. (That's kinda part of being an FA - it sorta implies that it's "done", apart from relevant updates.)  At one point, the music sale and use in videogames (etc) was included here, but I think the decision was to avoid redundancy and keep it in Cobain's article since the deal wasn't specifically with the band, just with Cobain's estate.  (The company obtained the rights to Cobain-penned material.  Any song of which Grohl and Novoselic owns an equal share of the songwriting would need their separate permission, which they haven't granted.  That's why you won't hear "Teen Spirit" in a commercial.)


 * Honestly, where we really need help is Kurt Cobain. That article is kind of an off-and-on mess.  A good bit of that is because we moved most of the notably controversial elements to his article.  But it's also that his history is harder to pin down given his penchant for overembellishing his life's story.  (Krist confirmed that Kurt never actually lived under the Wishkah bridge, for example.  It was just a story.)  Two things I keep wanting to do is write a section about those embellishments (it's a notable topic of Heavier Than Heaven) and split off Kurt's last days into its own article.  (The latter has already been started: Death of Kurt Cobain, but isn't yet a functioning article.)


 * Novoselic's article needs a lot of help, too, but it's a much harder topic to cover given his relative absence (compared to Grohl) in public view. And the album and single articles (save "Teen Spirit") could all use some improvement. -- ChrisB 04:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Krist - I'm sort of an "distant-insider" looking "out" and what I see going on everywhere is a lot of myth and romanticism &/or disdain and confusion etc etc etc, surrounding the whole Nirvana-Kurt-Krist-Dave-Aberdeen affair. And, as I said in my above comment about JAMPAC, I don't know how one can sort the nirvanajam out. Krist has a rather subdued personality, good honest morals, and a serious demeanor (read depth of character), which seems to get him passed over somewhat when it's not being misconstrued to add to the "mystery" of Nirvana (for those people needing one). Krist is still out there - almost as much as Grohl - but mostly in different arenas now (although he is currently touring with Flipper, as of August's end). For one, Krist has been helping some at Quillayute Valley School District's, Insight High School, with the journalism class. I have a few pictures of my own of Krist, as well as Kurt's star in Aberdeen's downtown sidewalk, if you are looking for such. 71.112.66.222 11:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Punk
Whoever keeps changing the page to not say "punk" as a genre please stop. Kurt Cobain said that he felt Nirvana was a punk band, even if their sound of music sometimes did not portray a perfect picture of punk. He also said that he did not like Nirvana to be stereotyped as a grunge or alternative rock. Here is what he said...

Punk is musical freedom. It's saying, doing and playing what you want. In Webster's terms, 'nirvana' means freedom from pain, suffering and the external world, and that's pretty close to my definition of Punk Rock. -Kurt Cobain

That is a direct quote from Cobain about people stereotyping their band. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * The problem is that it really doesn't fall to how a band sees themselves. If Cobain thought Nirvana was Swedish Polka, it doesn't make it so.  Nirvana was not referred to as "punk" by music journalists.  Most of the references were self-made - as in The Year Punk Broke.  Sonic Youth isn't considered punk, either, yet they're the main focus of the film.  Many of the groups in that movie saw themselves as punk because of their non-mainstream status and for their personal beliefs, but The Ramones were the only band in that movie that truly qualified as punk.  Punk was an influence on grunge, hence the similarities.  But Nirvana themselves were not considered "punk" in the true sense. -- ChrisB 22:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "punk" genre from Nirvana's list a couple of times in the past hour or so... It seems an I.P. added it in (Obviously the above I.P.) and a newly registered user. I explained to the newly registered user (Now blocked for being a vandalism only account) that Nirvana aren't notable for being a punk band but rather, primarily, a grunge band. Scar ian  Talk  22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, agree with you both. I have to say though, I tend to take Cobain's words with a pinch of salt these days. The more I read the more I see of his tendency to exagerate, and romanticize. I'm not necessarilly knocking him for it, but it does make our job more difficult, in my honest opinion. M A Mason 22:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Cobain had a rather broad definition of punk rock. Also, it seems to be hardly noticed that he was just fine labeling his band as alternative rock (he described the band as such quite often in interviews and in Come As You Are). Grunge was the genre he never went in for. WesleyDodds 07:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, generally, they were considered to be grunge (Seattle is considered the 'birth place' of grunge, no?) but also alternative rock. That's already in the article isn't it? (I'm not sure, I don't have time to check unfortunately) Scar ian  Talk  16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Olympia, WA is the birthplace of Grunge (K Records, Calvin Johnson, Beat Happening, etc). Kurt referenced them all, and if Kurt said Nirvana was punk...he got a controversy going again, didn't he ;-) 71.112.66.222 11:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I'm fine with the way it is now. Just explaining the band's outlook. WesleyDodds 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unplugged para
"In November 1993, the band decided to change direction and sat down for an appearance on MTV Unplugged. The sessions revealed the depth of Cobain's songwriting, which had often been buried under the sonic fury of the band's sound. The performance included guest appearances by members of the Meat Puppets, as well as cover versions of songs by the Meat Puppets, Lead Belly, The Vaselines, and David Bowie." - Did anyone else notice how unencyclopaedic this paragraph reads? It sounds a lot like POV commentary. Thoughts? Scar ian Talk  16:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was actually far less encyclopedic before i cut out a number of sentences. i'll revamp it further as soon as possible. WesleyDodds 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool. Good work, friend. Scar ian  Talk  22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
Look, I'm not asking for wholesale reversions to what was there before, but there should at least be some courtesy to listen to objections.

1) We have had issues with the 1987 date. I was told during a third opinion request that it should be 1988 because that's the date that the band was officially established as Nirvana.  I don't share that opinion, but Wiki has generally pushed for bands to be listed with the dates that they were actually named that band.  Because of this issue, the date was intentionally left out of the intro paragraph.  If you want to take that discussion up again, it'd be one worth having.  But the date should be left out until there is clear consensus.
 * The thing is the 1987 date is still mentioned on the page, and there seems to be no issue with that. WesleyDodds 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

2) Combining the 1993 tour paragraph with the Unplugged paragraph is ridiculous. We have a whole paragraph about the performance of one song on MTV, yet we're combining Unplugged with the rest of the 1993 tour?  As mentioned already, the Unplugged paragraph should be expanded, not jammed into another paragraph.
 * There's nothing really to add, so it can be combined with another paragraph

3) It's okay if you cite the 1994 edition of Come as You Are. However - I DID NOT.  (I have the 1993 edition.)  If you want to go through and double-check that all of our cites are in the 1994 edition, go for it.  But they shouldn't be changed to 1994's until they're confirmed.
 * Most of the pre-existing inline citations wre insered by myself a while back; I just misread the copyright on my copy. So all the page numbers should line up. WesleyDodds 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Azerrad's opinion should not be stated as fact or used as an editorial opinion. By the time Reading came around, Azerrad had spent an extensive amount of time with the band.  I'm not challenging his opinion - but it's not responsible as far as NPOV is concerned to use the review of someone so close to the band to state what would otherwise be read as an unbiased opinion.  We should use someone else's review of Reading, if such a review is available.
 * I was trying to find a critical observation of Reading; the Rolling Stone one was the first that came up on Google from an established media source, so I went with that. I really don't see the problem with quoting Azerrad, since other members of the press (Everett True and Keith Cameron, to name two) were closer to the band. The point is that I was quoting his opinion in the first place. Plus I was also using that article to cite the fact that at the time there were lots of rumors going around about the band. WesleyDodds 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

5) "While Wallace had used less effects than most pop albums" - THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE. Wallace's mix involves a DRASTIC amount of compression, reverb, and other processing, including samples.  Compared with other pop releases of 1991, it's at least on par in terms of processing.  It's just a different kind of processing.  Unless we can prove (via a source, not someone's opinion) that Wallace used less effects, we shouldn't (and cannot) make this statement.
 * This has been discussed furth down. WesleyDodds 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

6) Wallace's involvement in Nevermind is a KEY COMPONENT of the band's career. Passing it off as one sentence in a paragraph about the album is not sufficient.  That the band initially liked it then claimed to despise it is absolutely notable, especially given the band's later actions to distance themselves from the album (and going for In Utero's sound).  Cobain was concerned that he would be perceived as a sellout, and arguably decried the sound of the album to save face in Seattle.  Wallace's sound is what made the album pop-friendly, is what brought Nirvana their audience, and became a factor in where they went in the ensuing years.
 * It's not, really. Check out the work we've done on Nevermind. It's a small part of the story, and we certainly don't need to go into detail about it on the main band article. Not to mention it's just one example of the band's insecurity with success. Also, it was Albini who was more concerned with In Utero not sounding like Nevermind, not Cobain. Cobain just really liked Surfer Rosa. WesleyDodds 22:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with most of the work that's been done. I think it's a bit drastic under the circumstances (and given that Featured Articles are not supposed to go through major overhauls), but I think most of the changes are in the right direction.

Having said that, it wasn't fair to me just simply revert my edits wholesale. Seriously, one of my edits was to remove the dangling end parenthesis at the end of the sentence about Smear joining the band - WHICH I NOTED IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. (You removed the beginning parenthesis from that sentence, but not the second.)

Scarian, this is where you missed on WP:OWN. It goes ALL THE WAY AROUND. It applies to everyone that works on this article - you, me, Wesley, whoever. Changes and concerns should be made with the input of all parties that share an interest. If someone makes an edit, another person reverts it, and the original editor feels strongly about their edit, then editing on that section should stop until the parties can find consensus (unless an accepted consensus already exists). No one should be disregarded if they feel strongly about something, even if it's eventually agreed that their edit should not be included.

Seriously, Wesley - SLOW DOWN. This isn't Cobain's article or Foo Fighters, both of which could use a major overhaul. This article is already an FA, we don't need to rewrite it in two days. -- ChrisB 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit busy at the moment and will address your points in depth soon. My basic statement is this: we're working heavily on this article because an older FA, Grunge music is currently at Featured Article Review because it didn't adhere to current FA standards, which have become stricter in recent years. We've worked heavily on that article and now it's adhere to current FA guidlines. This article was promoted in 2005 and as it stands, this article is behind the times, and WikiProject Alternative music is hoping to bring it up to code before this article has to face an FAR. WesleyDodds 05:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm eager for the response on my points. But don't blindly revert my changes if you don't have time to address them. -- ChrisB 05:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's true about the FA standards rising (2005 seems like such a long time ago) then it'd be good to see the article go through a re-vamp to 'modernise' it, so to speak. But, on the other hand, it is currently a featured article, I'm not currently aware of how often they do FAR's, is it often? - If the article is secured as an FA, then, I guess, all that needs to be done is general maintenence as per Chris. More information would be needed, though, before doing large revamping without prior consensus (Such as a definite FAR). Just my thoughts. Scar ian Talk  13:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * FARs are not an annual thing; editors nominate articles when they feel they've slipped below current standards. The main issue with this article is that it's not comprehensive (it doesn't talk about their musical style, legacy or influences for example; we should work on these sections in talkspace or something); it does need a major overhaul. CloudNine 13:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Added new central photo to article, I think it one of the best pictures of band

Shows
The band played a lot of shows and a lot of festivals. There needs to be something specifically notable about those shows in order to justify including it in the article. Otherwise, this article turns into a concert chronology (which would be detrimental).

Performing at a festival - by itself - is not notable. If something happened at one of those shows that was important to the ongoing history of the band, then it becomes notable. -- ChrisB 16:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true. Jmlk  1  7  08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing Azerrad's opinion
This is mentioned in the list, but since the statement just keeps getting reverted, I want to make a longer note about it.

We cannot cite Azerrad's opinion as fact. Even if he is a reliable source and verifiable, we cannot include his opinion as a statement of fact per WP:NPOV]. If we do include his opinion, it should be cited as "Azerrad believed...", not simply a cite to his opinion. (Especially when it can be readily argued that his opinion is false.)

On that page in CAYA that includes his statement about how "Wallace used less effects than most pop albums" - there's only one sentence that alludes to that statement. The rest of the page (several paragraphs) are devoted to how much extra production Wallace put into the mix and the band's reaction to it.

Plus, the comparison to a pop record doesn't make sense as a greater point. Cobain directly compares it to a Motley Crue record - is a Motley Crue record a pop record? The bigger point is that they didn't want the album to sound like an overproduced rock record, which was their main concern. It doesn't matter if the album sounds like a "pop record" - the issue as far as the history of the band is concerned is that Wallace's involvement pulled them from an indie rock sound into a more mainstream one. -- ChrisB 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned Azerrad (And most writer's of books) being biased on the Cobain article a while ago. You didn't say anything about it then when I said it.
 * "Wallace used less effects than most pop albums" - Any musician or amateur studio engineer knows that that isn't correct and should be removed on sight. Scar ian  Talk  17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Slightly different issue. We're allowed to cite people's opinions so long as they're framed as that person's opinion and are verifiable.  My take was that a statement of "Cobain's teenage years were difficult" was readily verifiable regardless of who said it, given the statements of Cobain and of his parents.  But I can understand the argument about excluding that statement, so I didn't fight to keep it in.  Explaining the events of his youth says that it was difficult without stating it specifically. -- ChrisB 17:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think sometimes as editors we have to make judgement calls. We can't cite everything, and in any case, we only have to cite anything that might be contentious, or something which people may want to research further. Divorce and the breakdown of family is well recognized to be difficult for all involved, and it's not a huge leap of imagination for the reader to pick it up that he found it difficult growing up.
 * That said, I think there is a potential issue in the addition of too much opinion of Azerrad. I personally would only add his opinion anywhere that there might be a counter opinion, and of course cite that as well. Otherwise we're presenting an article balanced towards Azerra's POV on Cobain.
 * Oh, and shouldn't it be "Wallace used fewer effects"? M A Mason 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Mason, on citing too much of Azerrad as fact... or even opinion for that matter.
 * And the trouble with that sentence wasn't the grammar (Which, I believe you are correct on) but the fact that, in comparison to other records, he used just as many, if not more, 'effects' as other records. Chorusing or double-tracking Kurt's vocal takes was one particularly common one. Scar ian  Talk  20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we'll just say the band didn't like it. WesleyDodds 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Billboard
There have to be a million articles out there that describe how Nirvana brought alternative rock to the mainstream. As of the publishing date of that article, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BANDS had found mainstream success. At the time, Billboard was speculating - they couldn't be sure what would actually happen. That it might have been the first article to predict it might be notable in some other aspect, but that's not a justifiable reason to include it. WE CAN DO BETTER, and we should. -- ChrisB 06:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Oh, I see... Chris please don't use caps. It doesn't matter how pissed you are. Just talk it through :-) Scar ian  Talk  07:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The easy way to get me upset is to re-revert me without addressing my concern. -- ChrisB 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Billboard article was describing something as it was happening. The article features statements from those in the music industry and people in radio describing how Nirvana was changing mainstream music at that very moment. I don't see the problem with it as a reliable source. WesleyDodds 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the title of the article is "Some See 'New Openness' Following Nirvana Success". Emphasis: "Some See".  So was it there or not?  If we're going to use an article like that, I'd rather cite one of the people making statements in the article than take the author's summary of them.


 * Just throwing this in: the article (second section down). It's mostly "might"'s, "maybe"'s, and "hopeful"'s. -- ChrisB 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But my greater point: we already know what happened. We know that Nevermind's success led the way for the mainstream success of Pearl Jam, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc - as well as a new hunt by major labels for other alternative acts (aka, "the next Nirvana").  In January of 1992, the only one of those bands with any mainstream notability was the Peppers, and they were still largely considered a popular college rock / cult band.  Even if Billboard felt the doors were opening, there was no way to know at that point if it was actually going to amount to anything.  It was entirely possible that fifty bands might walk through that door and go nowhere.  (And the reality, as covered by Rolling Stone at the end of 1992, was that most of the bands that walked through the door did not find success.)


 * Another point in this range - I immensely dislike the Billboard quote in that paragraph. It doesn't say anything that progresses the narrative.  It's a sidestep.  That exact sentence could be used to describe a number of bands, most specifically R.E.M. six months earlier.  (Honestly, that statement fits R.E.M. significantly better, given that Nirvana really didn't have much industry respect at that point.  And most of the critical acclaim came after the album found success - Rolling Stone only gave the album three stars.)  We shouldn't just be including media statements for the sake of including media statements - they should actually further the story.  -- ChrisB 18:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Melvins
Should we add them to associated acts? They happened to be involved in alot of projects with Nirvana. —Anonymous


 * good point. In fact, I'm trying to add it right now.


 * The Melvins should definitely be listed as an associated band in my opinion. They had more association with Nirvana during its lifetime than any others we could list. For example...
 * Dale Crover plays drums on three songs from Bleach, five songs from Incesticide and six songs from With The Lights Out. He also toured with Nirvana in 1990.
 * Dave Grohl joined Nirvana with the help of the Melvins.
 * Kurt Cobain produced and performed on the Melvins' Houdini (1993).
 * Fecal Matter consisted of Cobain, Crover, Buzz Osbourne and Mike Dillard. ...Superfopp (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection
I have protected the page for the time being, as it seems all the edits lately have either been vandalism from anon IPs, or registered users reverting the vandalism. Jmlk 1  7  00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Associated acts
TJ Terry attempted to add more bands to Associated acts in the infobox, so I wanted to stop for a second to nail down some consensus.

There was a consensus decision (I believe) in Foo Fighters that we wouldn't include a band in Associated acts unless the band was related to two or more members of the Foo Fighters or had some other direct notability. Grohl, in particular, has participated in too many bands to justify including them all in Associated acts, especially since his participation didn't automatically associate those acts with the Foo Fighters. I think the same applies to Nirvana.

I'm of the opinion we should include acts on this page if and only if there's some direct notability to Nirvana. For the four currently listed:

1. Fecal Matter. No explanation necessary.

2. Foo Fighters. Yeah, Grohl's band. But Krist helped out with early demos and was under consideration as a member of the band. Plus, Pat has had significant participation. The Foos also performed "Marigold", originally a Nirvana song.

3. Melvins. As mentioned above: Novoselic and Cobain met because of the band, Dale served two stints as a temprorary drummer, Buzz hooked them up with Grohl.

4. Flipper. Probably the least obvious of the bunch, but I'd argue for it because: Novoselic joined the band, they've played "Scentless Apprentice" (before and after Krist joined), and because Kurt was a notable fan.

I don't think any other acts should count (barring an assertion of notability), particularly Grohl and Novoselic's other acts. Grohl's participation in QOTSA, for example, had no association with Nirvana. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This list sounds good. However, I think that Eyes Adrift should also be listed, as Novoselic formed the band and it includes Curt Kirkwood of The Meat Puppets, who performed with Nirvana for Unplugged in NY and belonged to a band that Cobain was a fan of. If anything, that justifies it at least as much as Flipper. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I would agree with that list. And I would also agree that the Meat Puppets be included per Brandt Luke's rationale. Scar ian  Talk  11:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording
I notice there have been some revert warring at the beginning of the "Final months and Cobain's death" section. Would it be appropriate to re-word the sentence, e.g. "In November 1993, Nirvana made an appearance on MTV Unplugged" - or something to that effect? It doesn't have to include the word "taped" in it. Despite having google hits I don't think "taped an appearance" is such good grammar. I would recommend that the sentence needs to be changed. What do others think? Scarian Call me Pat 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think my two attempts at improving the sentence don't constitute "edit warring", and was going to let this lie, but seeing as you've raised it here, yes I would support this being changed. The editor who reverted my last edit hasn't come up with any arguments against the wording that I used (as opposed to for the version they prefer), which I thought was ok.--Michig (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I meant "edit warring" as a generic term :-) Sorry for any confusion. Scarian Call me Pat  23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. User:ChrisB pointed out that the programme first aired in December 1993, so it was taped in November 1993, but was broadcast (i.e. they appeared on MTV Unplugged) in December 1993. I think my last version: "In November 1993, an acoustic performance by Nirvana was taped for MTV Unplugged" is less ambiguous in that respect. It could perhaps be expanded with "which was broadcast the following month".--Michig (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that's a solid enough example. Scarian Call me Pat  23:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions here have been to take what is said succinctly with three words and replacing it with ten or fifteen that don't improve the text.

"Taped an appearance" says all of the following:

1) They appeared. 2) It was taped. 3) It was intended for later broadcast.

"Made an appearance" is weak language and a poor substitute, even for simply "appeared". "Appeared" would at least be an action verb, but it doesn't improve upon the time issue (that it was recorded for later broadcast), and still requires the "which was broadcast the following month". All of that is unnecessary - when it aired is completely irrelevant to the paragraph. The salient point of the sentence is to note the November appearance as a taping.

Michig's original complaint was that "taped an appearance" was poor English. I completely challenge that assertion. "Taped an appearance" is a commonly used expression:

Google: taped a performance Google: taped an appearance

...and is widely used in published sources to say exactly what is being said here.

And where is the ambiguity? What exactly is being confused? What, we're worried that someone might think that Cobain, Novoselic, and Grohl were running the cameras and pressing "record"? That's absurd. I can't imagine that anyone would walk away from that sentence believing anything other than the obvious.

Next, you're going to tell me that we can't say that "Nirvana recorded Nevermind at Sound City Studios" because Butch Vig was the one recording them.

Michig's complaint is simply overanalysis of the word "taped". -- ChrisB (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in disagreement with you. The words "Nirvana taped an appearance" immediately suggest that Nirvana taped the performance themselves... It's quite possible that they did, and thus the reader may believe that. You must realise that it's not just Nirvana fans who will read this article; people that have never heard of them may believe that they did tape it themselves. That's what makes it ambiguous. The fact that people might not have heard of Unplugged in New York and may believe, from that sentence, that it wasn't MTV who "taped" it.


 * In terms of grammar; there are better ways to write "taped an appearance" - it just doesn't read too well. Nowadays, "taped" is a pretty archaic word. Even if we replaced it with a synonym, the same effect would occur e.g. "Nirvana filmed an appearance" - feels like they did it themselves.


 * I don't see the problem with extending the sentence by a few more words to make it less cloudy. Claiming that replacing it with "10 or 15 words" wouldn't improve the text is a pretty thin straw to be clutching at.


 * "In November 1993, the band [or Nirvana] made an appearance on MTV Unplugged, which was broadcast a month later."


 * I only pulled that suggestion out of my head right now and it doesn't seem too bad as a replacement. Scarian Call me Pat  02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was generally considered polite, once an issue like this has been taken to the talk page, to reach consensus before going ahead and changing it again. The new version is better than it was, however.--Michig (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)