Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Skid row?

Skid row were an early influential grunge band on the sub pop label, and never consisted of anyone even associated with Nirvana. I'm going to remove it from their list of early names and if anyone disagrees well...

Please provide a source. WesleyDodds 05:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana performed under the name Skid Row in 1987. Just because there were other bands named Skid Row (which there were) doesn't mean that Nirvana didn't play under the name. They did. For example, the performances of "Anorexorcist", "White Lace and Strange", and "Vendetagainst" that appear on With the Lights Out were recorded while Nirvana was still called Skid Row. They didn't adopt the name Nirvana until March of 1988. -- ChrisB 05:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See [1] in "Live Nirvana". See also in the songs the section "Recording Session(s)", in which that session is referred as "April 17, 1987 - Evergreen College, The Skid Row demo, KAOS Radio show" --69.79.206.21 16:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Skid Row is not grunge, more heavy metal or thrash metal. --Boneka 00:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Is there any way we can add more fair use pictures of the band? I mean, album covers are good and all, but perhaps some performance photos (particularly from something like their Reading performances) or a screenshot of one of their videos would be a nice addition. WesleyDodds 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe that that is legal since the videos of those performances are owned by somebody and unless the release the writes we cant use those pics

NINANDNIRVANA(who forgot his password)

Notes/References

Shouldn't some of the information in the notes section , be included in the references section. There is only one thing in the reference section and I think more should be included. Bill102 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Come As You Are definitely belongs there, since it's a semi-official biography that is cited several times in the article. WesleyDodds 09:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass renaming of Singles by artist into Songs by artist

In a recent mass renaming of categories, we renamed nearly every category of Singles by artist into the appropriate subcategory of Songs by artist. We did not immediately rename the few categories in which there was a large number of both singles and non-singles separated, just to make sure there was no absolutely pressing reason that fans of those few acts (the Beach Boys, the Beatles, David Bowie, Nirvana, Oasis, Prince, Radiohead) wanted the singles by artist category kept. So one last chance: Does anyone think that category:Nirvana singles shouldn't be merged into category:Nirvana songs, as all the others except the ones listed have?--Mike Selinker 08:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so, im a Nirvana collector, and their singles are very important, Love Buzz single and the Pennyroyal tea singles let alone have enough history to fill full websites, which they do hehe. Its hosted through digitalnirvana.net i believe.

Agreed, nirvanas singles have more relevance and backstory than the rest of there songs and then most other bands songs NINANDNIRVANA (who forgot his password)

Website

Nirvana doesnt have a offical website, the Interscope Site is for the best of package, it just describes it. The sub pop page have biography, photos of band and discography. I say we use that page insted, not the interschope one. -tourettes1992

Can I ask that we don't start a revert war here? an we set up something such as a straw poll to come to a concensus between whether [www.interscope.com/nirvana/ The Interscope site or The SubPop Homepage is appropriate? -- Reaper X 00:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nirvana is" vs. "Nirvana was"

Please note that it should be was as the band is non-existant anymore. ie. The Doors article reads "The Doors were...". -- Reaper X 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wishkah

I can't find any info on this, but it should be noted that the live portion of Verse Chorus Verse (the two-disc set that was to contain Unplugged along with electric live material) was not made up of the same recordings as what was finally released as Wishkah. 68.124.66.255 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Month and year they became Nirvana

Two things.

The article currently says they became Nirvana in February 1988. Wikipedian Chris B. - who I respect as a great authority on the band - has stated above "March 1988" Is there a way to verify if it should be Feb. or March in the article?

Second thing - Like many bands - they didn't start out on Day One with that name. They went through some earlier names before they settled on Nirvana. Just as the Beatles and The Who and many others did before they settled on THEIR names. And it is commonly held that the abnd actually BECAME Nirvana in 1988.

I raise this because I've noticed that on many other articles about bands - the panel at the top of the page where the band stats are listed with a photo - the "Years Active" header always list the years as the years when the band were actually KNOWN by the name of the article.

eg 3 of the 4 Beatles were playing together from 1958 onwards - under a variety of names - but they didn't become the Beatles till 1960. So the article lists their "Years Active" as 1960-1970. The same with The Who. 3 of the 4 members played as The Detours etc in 1962-3 - but the article lists the Years Active of The Who as 1964-1982. 1964 being the year they became the Who.

On that basis of precision - shouldn't we list Nirvana as Years Active: 1988-1994? Davidpatrick 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No reaction yet from anyone - so I went ahead and made those 2 minor changes. I believe they are valid. We'll see what others say! Davidpatrick 22:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I swapped the text out, but it's one of those things that could go either way. Nobody knows when for certain Nirvana became Nirvana. They played the 1/23/88 show as Ted, Ed, and Fred, and played the first show as Nirvana that March. The name change happened sometime between the two. "Officially", you could argue March, given that the March show was their first billed as Nirvana, but at least one source (LiveNirvana.com) says February - though, again, they don't know, either. I'm okay with February, only because I assume LiveNirvana has a source for that, and it seems reasonable.

And, in this case, I think it's reasonable to consider Nirvana to have started in 1987. Regardless of the name and drummer changes, the material was the same. They were simply working through names until they found one they liked. In the case of The Beatles, The Quarrymen actually broke up and reformed as The Fabulous Silver Beatles, eventually shortened. And, in the case of the Who, the Detours had a different singer. I can't really argue the details, but I can understand the logic that's used in those articles. Regardless, in the case of Nirvana, the band considered their first show to be a house party in early 1987 with Burckhard on drums. (Off the top of my head, I don't think they had a name at all for that show.) -- ChrisB 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. First of all - I totally appreciate your change on the month issue. That's a good improvement. Deals with the known facts nicely.

On the starting year - I respectfully disagree. It's inconsistent with the known facts and the way other articles in Wikipedia are done with major music artists. The Quarrymen never broke up. There was an ongoing band from 1957 onwards that eventually evolved - without any break-up - into the Beatles. The nucleus of John, Paul & George were at the heart of every lineup from early 1958 onwards through several name changes. And the repertoire they played in 1959 was pretty much the same as they played in 1960. And that's when they finally settled on the name The Beatles. The Beatles wiki article had this debate about whether the info panel should state the band's starting date as 1957, 1958, 1959 or 1960 - but eventually it was agreed that the year of first official billing was the only proven fact. Not the similarity of lineup or material or band concept. Same thing with The Who. Roger Daltrey had become the lead singer of the Detours in 1963. And it was the same key 3 players who became the Who - pre-Keith Moon. (Moon joined in May 1964) But early 1964 was when they were offically billed as The Who. So the wiki article says 1964. Not 1962 or 1963. Same thing with The Kinks (ne The Ravens), The Beach Boys (ne The Pendletons) The Turtles (ne The Crossfires) etc etc. In all cases it is not when the lineup is in place (even though some of those bands had ALL their members in place before the name change - unlike Nirvana, Beatles, Who) not the material they are performing, not the idea for the band, nor when two members of the embryonic band considers that it played its first gig (such as a private party played without a band name). It is simply the first year when the band became known by that name - either at a billed public performance or on record or on a signed contract. So to be true to the Wiki aspiration for proven factual accuracy - it needs to be the first year that Nirvana were known as such - which by all evidence is 1988. Out of respect for your passion and knowledge about Nirvana - I won't make the change till you respond to this. But as you can see - I'm not making a Nirvana point (on which you are a respected and proven authority)- but a wiki historical accuracy point. Respectfully Davidpatrick 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule about this. Consensus at one article doesn't mean consensus everywhere. And there is no specific guideline on this subject. Not that I particularly care about this issue - as soon as you change it, the first person to notice will probably change it back.

But here's an example of the problem: one of my old bands lasted six months. We rehearsed for five months without a confirmed band name. We recorded a three-song demo, and our guitar player ordered cassettes with a band name on it. We scheduled our first show under that name to take place a couple of weeks later, but we had to cancel week-of because the drummer had a last-minute conflict. We disbanded the next week. The tapes arrived a week after that. So what date did the band form? Was it the day of our first practice? The day our guitar player ordered the cassettes? The day of our cancelled show? The day we received the cassettes (ie, after we disbanded)? If, for some bizarre reason, we qualified for a Wikipedia article, how would you frame it? Were we only a band for three weeks? One week? Negative one week? Or would you count the entire six months that we were actually a band? We formed in October of 1994 and broke up in April of 1995.

There is certainly ample room for editors to make judgement calls. And, given that there isn't a Wikipedia guideline at play here, I don't see how you can make that call in a unilateral manner. Though, again, it's not something that particularly concerns me. As a musician, I simply take an intellectual issue with how this is being framed.

The band and several notable sources consider Nirvana to have formed in 1987. And that's enough for me. (And, frankly, it's enough for Wiki guidelines.) -- ChrisB 05:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys are WEIRD. This doesn't even MATTER and you're getting all worked up about it! Just stick to one month or the other, it's most likely March. AirCombat 09:24, 3 Novemeber 2006 (EST)

Couple of things

"the band's popularity expanded in the years that followed [Cobain's death]." Is that true. Are they more popular now than they were in 1992 ? Can we demonstrate that ?

"Instead, the performance ended up being one of the most memorable of their career.

"Less than two weeks later, Nirvana put on a memorable performance at the MTV Video Music Awards."

Too many memorables ? Or at least say another memorable performance ? -- Beardo 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pat Smear should be listed as a regular member of the band not as a touring.

Curious changes

Someone appears to have a clever script changing 'popular' to 'overrated'. I was about to edit the latter out as POV, but - suddenly - it changed to the former, with no entry on this page! Magic! Be vigilant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TresRoque (talk • contribs)

Love Buzz

This article says that love buzz was released on white vinyl whereas the love buzz article says it was black. anyone know the correct colour? Jammus 10:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change this entry to match the single's article so there's some consistency.Jammus 10:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

leave it like that for now and ill do some research, i believe it was released on white, black, and possible other colors but i cant quite remember —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.229.81 (talk • contribs)

Jammus, read that section again. The article doesn't say that Love Buzz was released on white vinyl - it says that Bleach was released on white vinyl, which is correct. -- ChrisB 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops eggs, chips and beans on my face. Jammus 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism

Since Nirvana became the FA of the day there has been a good deal of vandalism by a single unregistered user. Should we protect it? rorsach 16:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. Someone has been adding sexually explicit description of Cobain in homosexual scenarios, "auditioning" prospecitve band members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs)

If its just one user, give him warnings until he reaches test4 (if he gets that far) and report him to Admin Intervention. Protecting the article would be unnecessary. -- Reaper X 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Really? I'd like to read that! How can I? Which user did it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.52.201 (talk • contribs)

I don't know, ask Rorsach what IP he's referring to. -- Reaper X 20:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what the page is supposed to look like, but it is sorely missing a lot of information. I don't understand how it could be the featured article with only a paragraph of text. -(Don't remember my own Wikipedia name/password)

Click refresh and everything will be back. You're just looking at a older vandalized version. Its been fixed. Gdo01 18:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized that the article is today's featured article, and that is what's inviting alot of the vandalism. I have put in a request for protection. -- Reaper X 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the result of todays edits. I might have put the request for protection in a little late, but I'm still freakin pissed off that it was never responded to. Cheers to everyone being on their guard and fighting the hurricane of vandalism. You guys did good. -- Reaper X 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is or Was

I changed the second word of the article from was to is to try and emphasize that they were still popular bu then my friend pointed out that it should be 'was' because the band had broken up...ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.78.70.218 (talk • contribs)

See above, #"Nirvana is" vs. "Nirvana was". -- Reaper X 18:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To expand on that, "is" should be used when something or someone continues to exist. Nirvana no longer exists, though their music does (hence their albums continue to use "is"). Kurt Kobain "was," but Dave Grohl "is." ♠ SG →Talk 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify on the grammar, Nirvana is a sigular noun, so it should be was, not were. -- Reaper X 23:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana as a WORD is a singular noun, but when referring to the band in which was made up of smaller units, it should be were, at least I think so anyway. Makes more sense to me. AirCombat

It is widely stated on WP that British usage would be "were" but American English insists on "was". -- Beardo 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Big" John Duncan

Scottish guitarist Big John played with them on tour at one stage - shouldn't he be listed as touring member ?

(Three degrees of separation - Big John was previously in the group "Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie" with Shirley Manson, who later formed Garbage with Butch Vig, producer of ..... -- Beardo 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended in asking this - but where are folks like you arriving from? Seems like there's somebody every six months coming by and asking why he's not listed.

He was a roadie for them - he played with them for four songs at one show. (It was the 7/23/93 show at the Roseland Ballroom in NYC.) Literally, that was it. -- ChrisB 02:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry, I hadn't realised that it was asked before. Perhap Big John has a lot of fans out there ? Or maybe just the Brits wanting to be able to say that one of ours was part of it ? -- Beardo 09:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if that question was a little odd. It was honestly a major surprise the first time someone tried to add Duncan as a member of Nirvana. I considered myself pretty knowledgable about Nirvana's history, and had never heard anything about his involvement. Yet most of the folks coming through seemed to be under the impression that he had significant involvement in the band, which made me wonder where and how people had heard about it.

One story I read was that Duncan's four songs that night may have been considered an audition of sorts - Nirvana were looking for a second guitarist for the fall tour. If that's the case, it's assumed that it didn't work out, and they started with Smear a couple of weeks later. -- ChrisB 03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested protection in Wikipedia:requests for page protection

This is the third time the article is requested for protection from IP addresses and/or registered users making disruption to a harmless article. We might notice that vandal wars are unstoppable. I put this article into my watchlist, and I saw some disruptive vandals made by IP users. How many more times I can request protection after declinations from others? --Gh87 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It has now got semi-protection, meaning only registered users can make changes. Hopefully that will cut down all this to-ing and fro-ing. -- Beardo 12:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell the only "vandalism" that occured on 24 October 2006 was the addition of the following information in the section "Courtney Love and licensing."

In October 2006, Cobain's posthumous fame among mainstream media was revived when Forbes Magazine® ranked him as the top dollar-earning dead celebrity, earning an estimated $50 million from October 2005 to October 2006. In the six years of the list's publication, Elvis Presley had topped the list every year, but The King fell short of Cobain's earnings by about $8 million. This was the first time that Cobain appeared on the list, and according to Forbes writer Lacey Rose, his debut atop the list is largely due to the deal brokered by Love earlier that year.

This information was later deleted and then protection was requested. This information was deleted from the Kurt Cobain Bio [see Kurt Cobain discussion] as well. I agree that there have been several submissions that seem aimed more at defaming Cobain or Love than presenting historically relevant information, however I saw this information as a good addition to the article based on its wide-scope relevence. It was well written and well documented. Although the cited article was recent, the fact that Kurt Cobain made headlines in Forbes and in the same sentence as Elvis will give the event historical merit and is worthy of inclusion.--Atomicskier 17:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So can we add it back and talk to the person who originally posted this passage? --Gh87 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] I think this is the kind of shit that we wanted to stop. Those occured from the 22^nd to the 24^th. It seemed fit to semi-protect it to me. Just until the vandalism rate cools off a little eh? Featuring this article on the main page attracted the vandals like a magnet. -- Reaper X 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

hereisnirvana

Is the new official Nirvana site. LTSO is finally being released on DVD, and unlike the last 3 release of Nirvana, a site that covers all media has been put up. So please keep it noted. [[User talk:tourettes1993]]

Cobain's Last Days

I realize after trying to include a small paragraph about Cobain's last days, that it's not going to get in. A fair compromise is to attach a heading of "Cobain's Last Days," which does not alter any of the original text, but rather highlights a link to the subject, where conspiracy theories are discussed.

User ChrisB has a fair point that the last days should be on another page, which they are. However, I also have a fair point, in that the link to the last days page is obscure, and buried within a paragraph. It deserves a heading of its own, so that readers can easily access it without going over things with a fine-tooth comb.

It in no way modifies anything besides putting in a heading of "cobain's last days," to help reader navigation. Perceived "uselessness" should always yield to perceived usefulness.

Illharmonics00

That's in no way a "fair compromise". Nirvana had nothing to do with Cobain's death. His death ended the band. Getting into any discussion about the circumstances of his death has no usefulness here. This article is intentionally devoid of anything having to do with the conspiracy - it has no bearing on Nirvana as a band, and allows this article to be absent of anything that could be construed as POV with regards to his death. That's why this article doesn't in any way declare how Kurt died - it simply says that he died, because that's all that's relevant to Nirvana as a band.

I think most reasonable people can see the link:

Main article: Kurt Cobain#Cobain's final weeks

and figure it out for themselves. -- ChrisB 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

Why was the page moved without any discussion? Please someone revert it! --200.118.166.103 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved back. I agree that it should not have been done. -- Beardo 00:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Associated Acts

When I added to associated acts I only included those of the three main members. Should I include ones related to some of the lesser known members like The Germs, The Melvins, and Mudhoney?

There's no reason to include every band that Grohl or Novoselic have participated in. They have their own articles, and all of them can be mentioned there. -- ChrisB 05:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't think the trivia section added is appropriate, it is a guideline to avoid trivia may I remind you. -- Reaper X 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• As this is an FA the trivia should go swiftly. It's funny how these things just creep into articles... people love trivia-style information. I'd say try to integrate it into the article rather than just delete it... I've done one so far, it's much more time consuming to integrate this than it is just to add them as bulletted sentences. --W.marsh 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's unnecessary cruft. I simply removed the section. WesleyDodds 11:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

sliver.it links

Someone just inserted several dozen links to http://sliver.it through Nirvana-related articles, in a spam-like fashion that drew attention from the WP:WPSPAM project. I removed them since it was one person adding so many in a rather obnoxious manner. However, sliver.it is a Nirvana discography site with some fairly detailed info about editions (aimed at record collectors) so maybe they're of interest. I suggested that he put them on the article talk pages so the regular editors could use their own judgement. I see there's also a lot of links to the livenirvana.com index page, that looks spammy too--I'm going to remove those but there are also a bunch of links to internal livenirvana.com discography pages that have some nontrivial content and have been there for a while. Do you folks want them there? 67.117.130.181 18:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Expert help needed at Capitol Hill massacre

Please answer at Talk:Capitol Hill massacre#Nirvana song (not), not here: Does anyone know definitively that there either was or (more difficult to demonstrate) was not an obscure, unreleased Nirvana song called "I Want to Know Now"? This Google search turns up unreliable sources for such a song, but nothing reliable. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)