Talk:Come as You Are (Nirvana song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a Nirvana song!!

This is not actually a Nirvana song! It's an Elvis song that Nirvana did a cover of. Most people don't know this. - James Foster 17:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry! The above is totally full of crap. - James Foster 18:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rofl.

Hahahaha, oh my god...

Hard Rock Magazine

There no reference cited for this. Whoever added it should also add a proper MLA-style (or similar style) reference for it. -- LGagnon 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Come As You Are

Is the "Canadian worker-owned sex shop" Come As You Are really notable enough to warrant a link at the top of this page? After the song page was moved here "Come As You Are" became a redirect. Then someone added the sex shop stuff. I fixed dozens of links to Come As You Are that were supposed to go here, and there wasn't a single link that was meant for the sex shop. -Jon Stockton 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the sex shop article questionable too. It is nowhere near as notable as this song, and might be astroturfing by someone involved in it. Either way, this article deserves top mention, not the sex shop. -- LGagnon 03:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

At the moment Come as You Are redirects here. Since there's no need for disambiguation, this page should be moved.--NPswimdude500 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

pearl jam and GNR sections

Pearl Jam and GNR sections have nothing to do with the single Come as you are. Can we either put them on the nirvana page, or remove them?--Skellyscribbles (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversies: the Damned

I know there was no lawsuit over it, but the bassline for Come as You Are IS the bassline from the Damned's Life Goes On (1982, predating even the Killing Joke song). There's a great annectdote somewhere in which a music journalist asked Captain Sensible what he thought about Nirvana ripping off his bassline, and Sensible answered something like "Kurt had great taste in music, terrible taste in women". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.161.135 (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative?

This is my first time posting here on Wikipedia, so bear with me if I have trouble with this.

Anyway, I think that this song could be considered alternative, or at least have it added to the genre box. It just doesn't sound grunge to me. The guitars aren't distorted or loud and what-not, the lyrics aren't really angst-filled, it's not really a loud song, et cetera.

Just a suggestion. Cheezer Rox (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lesser Known

Is there any reason why KJ are referred to here as "the lesser known band Killing Joke".. obviously they aren't as popular or as well known as Nirvana, but calling them this in this sentence makes it appear as if they were some ultra obscure local band that no-one has ever heard of that crawled out of the woodwork simply to sue Nirvana and maybe make a quick buck... 213.202.149.42 13:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it fits calling them just "lesser known." I mean, it's not like they're saying, "the nearly unheard of band Killing Joke," they just said "lesser known," which is true. Cheezer Rox (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of the song/article

Hi! On both the Nevermind and Unplugged in New York album back covers the song name is written Come As You Are, instead of Come as You Are. Is there a specific reason why this article is named the latter? I mostly edit the finnish Wikipedia, so I'm mostly interested because I discovered the finnish article is named differently. -- Piisamson 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Piisamson is correct. According to The Chicago Manual of Style the correct capitalization of the title should be "Come As You Are" as opposed to "Come as You Are". Additionally, it appears on the back of Nevermind with the "as" capitalized. Stephen Hoffman 02:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevesbones (talk • contribs)

Limp Bizkit Cover? Is there any proof of this like a video on youtube or something because as far as i know the only Nirvana song LB covered is "You Know Your Right" TG 50 (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ALBUMCAPS, the article should be at Come as You Are. Prepositions aren't capitalised; what it says on the cover itself is irrelevant. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should be changed to what it says on the record. I mean, if that's the way that the song was meant to be spelled, then wouldn't that make it the correct way of spelling it? I mean, I could name a song "iCE cReaM" and, regardless of how grammer says it should be, I want it to be spelled like that, and it's MY song, so that's what it's supposed to be. Cheezer Rox (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Album track listings tend to capitalize the initial letter of every word, ignoring style conventions. Nevermind does this too. Along with "Come As You Are" the back cover lists "On A Plain" and "Something In The Way" with all initials capitalized, so the back cover doesn't really apply to Wikipedia, which follows WP:ALBUMCAPS.

Cobain himself didn't seem to care much about capitalization, as he handwrote titles like "floyd the barber", "On A Plain", "Smells like Teen Spirit", "Come As You Are" and "Something in the Way".

Also, Nine Inch Nails initially printed the majority of its track listings completely in lowercase ("head like a hole", "terrible lie", "down in it", etc.), yet Wikipedia does not follow this style. --jh51681 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, your right, that makes more sense. Cheezer Rox (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Adam's Song

WesleyDodds removed the information about the similarity of a line in Blink 182's "Adam's Song" and, but for an edit conflict, I was going to do the same. I think it's worth pointing out that not even Nirvana biographer, Michael Azerrad, thought it was worth noting in an article he wrote for the New York Times[1] which discussed the topic of "Adam's Song". --JD554 (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Life Goes On

A sourced paragraph from a notable publication relating to the Damned's "Life Goes On" was deleted with the editor rationale "totally irrelevant".

I'd suggest the passage certainly is relevant in the context of a discussion of the similarities of "Eighties" versus "Come as you Are" - a discussion which constitute a large part of this article section. For one thing, it demonstrates that a cut-and-dried "this song is like that song, end of story" argument is not possible when it comes to this rock riff.

On the contrary, the existence of a potential common origin for the disputed riff, identified by a notable rock publication, should be provided in the article, allowing the reader to decide for themselves whether this information is "totally irrelevant" or not - no? --DaveG12345 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant and notable. I've restored the paragraph. --Replysixty (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. No discussion by reliable secondary sources = no verifiability = no inclusion. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a primary source, but is supported by secondary sources right on that page. That is, discussion within the Youtube discussion section as well as in the description of the clip refer to the clear and incontrovertible similarity to the riff. If that's not authoritative enough for you, you can find them elsewhere (google "Damned" + "Life goes on" + "Nirvana"). Here's one. Here's another. I'll just use the first. --Replysixty (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like an explanation for reverting my grammar edits and the claim of "copyright violation" when reverting my edit-- it is not the violation of any copyright to link to material on another site. --Replysixty (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Youtube users does not equal discussion by reliable secondary sources. indopug (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I provided non-youtube discussion links as well as the description by the initial video poster. However, I take issue with your assertion that youtube comments are not reliable secondary sources. A source is authoritative and reliable always within a certain context related to the scope of the subject matter at hand. A prominent doctor may be a reliable source for a medical claim, for example, but her opinion may not be relevant for an article about art or history because that lays outside of the scope of her expertise. In this case, however, the claim is merely that two guitar riffs are similar, and one does not need to be a musicologist to be reliable in making that claim. The fact is on its face true in light of the primary sources, but if wikipedia generally requires a secondary source, in this particular case the bar does not need to be very high because the claim is not in any way controversial. Regardless, I have cited a more authoritive source, and many more are available. --Replysixty (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on YouTube

I am seeking clarification on the policy of inclusion of the song as a reference. According to external link policy, youtube videos are not prohibited, but copyright is a concern. Leaving the use of flash out of it for the moment, I don't see why it's our job as editors to investigate a video's copyright status. I know that Youtube has various agreements with various content providers who blanket license their content. I also know YT has a policy of policing their own content for infringement. I have not researched who owns the publishing rights to the song and whether they are one of the companies (or are owned by one) who have given YouTube permission to host their content. I don't even know if that information is publicly available. However, the legal theory that linking to a Youtube page in good faith could constitute "contributory infringement" to me is absurd. I have read about overzealous editors who delete any youtube video for fears of copyright, and apparently have run into one. However, if this is truly WP policy, I guess the best solution is to create and upload a fair use excerpt to illustrate the similarity. I invite comments. --Replysixty (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One further thought-- this suggests it's perfectly fine to link to the wayback machine. Why is the wayback machine okay? If I can find the wayback machine's archive of the song, it would then be okay to use? What's so special about the Wayback Machine? No, this policy is does not jibe with how the Internet works. Another way of looking at it-- even though the article may no longer contain a link to a suspect YouTube page, the articles' numerous archive instances will always continue to do so. These pages are just as "real" and available as the current article page. If "contributory infringement" were truly a concern, wouldn't ANY link to the alleged off-site infringement also have to be scrubbed from wikipedia? --Replysixty (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Damned" Reference in "Killing Joke controversy"

A certain user is trying to remove from the "Killing Joke controversy" section the fact the The Damned have a song called "Life Goes On" that sounds like both "Come as you are" and "Eighties" and pre-dates both and has been repeatedly discussed in the context of this debate. It's inclusion is relevant because:

• It has been mentioned all over the web, including in the major music publication "SPIN Magazine".
• It is always mentioned in the context that "Eighties" sounds very similar to it and in the context of the copyright allegations.
• If it's relevant to the debate to be mentioned in a major publication and in other wikipedia entries (including the "Eighties" entry), then it's relevant here.
• This issue has been added to the article many times over with many different sources (see "Life Goes On" discussion below).
• I believe the user has some personal beef with this issue. They have continuously un-done my edits and I feel like are acting now on a personal urge rather than using reason. They did not like the first 4-5 sources I used, and when I found a source from a major music magazine which was talking specifically about this Nirvana/Killing Joke issue, they decided to just undo it because of their own personal beliefs.

Here's the SPIN magazine source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0yvyxlaTDXMC&pg=PA71&dq=%22killing+joke%22+%22life+goes+on%22&hl=en&ei=J3HsS7eqGsOclgeS_Km1CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22killing%20joke%22%20%22life%20goes%20on%22&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.226.68 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not "personal beef with this issue". It simply isn't important. Killing Joke attempted to sue over this song, The Damned didn't. Plenty of songs sound similar, the reliable source you (eventually managed) to provide really doesn't make a big deal of the matter and neither should we. To do so would be to give the matter undue weight above what it deserves. Simple as that. --JD554 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and obviously there are others (who have tried to put this in before) who agree with me. If the issue wasn't relevant to this issue, SPIN would have never published anything on it. Nor would there be a decent number of blogs and forums reporting on it. It doesn't deserve its own section, but it is relevant to this topic and adding a short mention on it does not give it undue weight.

Spin doesn't directly compare "Come as You Are" to the Damned song, instead comparing "Eighties" to it. It's not directly relevant here. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WesleyDodds - Did you read what was written in SPIN? It's on the exact topic of Nirvana / Killing Joke / The Damned song similarity. It's certainly worth mentioning the The Damned's song if Killing Joke's song is going to be talked about. Patorjk (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't this a good article by now?

All of Nirvana's singles are titled 'good articles' except this one? It's long overdue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)