Jump to content

Talk:In Utero/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quote

"If you are a racist, a sexist or in anyway an asshole don't buy my records and don't give me your money. Don't love me because I hate you," - That was definatly for "Incesticide" it was only in the original pressing though, if you buy it now it does not contain it.

VANDALS!

Someone has completely wiped this page, I'm not sure how to change it back to the old one though.

repaired

OK I've returned it to its former glory now.

JOKERS

OK, who's the doofus who linkned the "open source" page from the word "open sores"? Admittedly VERY funny, it still doesn't belong here.

little clarification

Hey I just added a quick note, to clarify that although the album's packaging changed the name for "Rape Me" to "Waif Me" (on the Wal-Mart release), the actual audio/lyrics were identical to the regular release. Freddie deBoer 06:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Back of album

Someone post the back part of the CD is f****** awesome concept art!

Happy 13th birthday

As of today, In Utero is 13 years old. Happy birthday!

Don't forget to celebrate Nevermind's 15th birthday in 3 days, too! NIRVANA2764 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC) I fail to see the reason for this post........usally 10 or 20 anniversaries are what are celbrated.Wikimakesmart (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

contraversy

could someone add a citation for Wal-Mart and K-Mart not carrying the album? preferably not an internet source. I'm asking because I am doing a speech on censorship sometime in March, and this is a perfect example. I can only use up to two internet sources, so can it be a magazine or newspaper source? 72.11.37.92 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NevermindInUtero3.jpg

Image:NevermindInUtero3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


— Save_Us † 08:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the Miscellanea section

Revision as of 22:39, 6 June 2007 by Brandt Luke Zorn removed the entire Miscellanea section. In particular the notes regarding the influences from King Crimson are now gone. Why? When removing an entire section some explanations should be given. Can you please provide details and rationale behind the edit? Thanks. Ettorepasquini 17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was unsourced and essentially a trivia section, something we try to avoid. CloudNine 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Wha CloudNine said is basically correct; I looked but couldn't find a reliable source that said that In Utero was influenced by King Crimson (the only one I found was from the King Crimson wiki, but as a rule of thumb Wikipedia doesn't site itself or other wikis). However, if you have or can find a reliable source for this info, feel free to use it in the article, just put it in a relevant section like the "Music" section. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who repeated a paragraph?

I had to erase a paragraph because somebody copied it. Please, stop vandalizing.Carmaster 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

older entries

After several people moved and fiddled with the title of this article, I have moved it back to its original title. There is no need for disambiguation because In Utero has no alternate meaning. As long as there is a prominent link to in utero, the article can be here. It's pointless to move an article to a disambiguated title with a non-disambigged title redirecting to it. Tuf-Kat

Regarding the quote in the article "If you are a racist, a sexist or in anyway an asshole don't buy my records and don't give me your money. Don't love me because I hate you," an anon added: "The previous quote appeared in Incesticide, not In Utero." I can't verify it; hopefully someone knows what's correct. Everyking 02:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The exact quote from the Incesticide liner notes:
At this point I have a request for our fans. If any of you in any way hate homosexuals, people of different color, or women, please do this one favor for us - leave us the fuck alone! Don't come to our shows and don't buy our records.
There are no quotes in In Utero besides the credits and lyrics. Jh51681 06:25, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article says the quote was planned for In Utero but not printed. However, it looks so similar to the one from Incesticide that maybe there was just some confusion. Everyking 12:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

DUMB

The song Dumb was never a hit. It was never a single. There were no promos made for it, so it wasn't a radio hit, and did not recieve radio play. I think someone maybe getting confused because it was included on the Greatest Hits/Best Of. Well what a silly album that was, they didn't even use the the In utero version of All Apologies - which was a hit. They used the crap Unplugged version instead. I think Dumb was included because it was just a good sounding song. However at the time of In Utero, the song Dumb was in no way a hit or radio hit. -- 195.137.109.177

"Dumb" received substantial radio airplay in the summer of 1994 on US radio, particularly Alternative stations. You're right, it wasn't a single. But "Sappy / Verse Chorus Verse" received a substantial amount of airplay that summer as well, and it wasn't a single, either. In the 90s, US Alternative stations had a habit of playing songs that weren't released as singles.
And you don't have to take my word for it. "VCV" was #33 and "Dumb" was #41 on KROQ (Los Angeles)'s Top 106.7 of 1994. [1] KROQ was one of the most influential Alternative stations in the country, and many other stations followed their lead. Check out other 1994 lists on that page, and you'll see "Dumb" on almost all of them. -- ChrisB 17:46, 29 August 2005
Just because it was on the radio doesn't mean it should have it's own article. UnivoxDude15 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
UnivoxDude15, that's a dumb reason. Enjoyer of World (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

reply

Its strange, in the US a song can be called a hit if it just gets played on the radio. In the UK a song won't even be played on the radio if it isn't released as a single. Maybe we should include the KROQ hits in the hit lists here. They were playing VCV in 1993!. Do you know of any other radio chart lists for radio in the US that includes Nirvana ?

Significance

Its actually quite significant that In Utero went straight in at #1 in both the UK and US in the same week. At the time there were less then 10 artists who had ever managed to achieve that in music history ever. - To be number 1 UK & US simultaneously first week of release.

Tracklistings

Is it really necessary to have those old tracklistings that were never used ? Its pretty irrellevant to the page and looks a complete mess.

i don't want to edit anything in case i mess it up - but i noticed that in the opening paragraph it says that 'incesticide' was an album and it wasn't really. It was like an ep or a compilation, not an album (ie studio album) and so saying its an album and commenting on its 'mild success' is misleading.

I agree with you, so I took the part about Incesticide in the intro out. --Surachit 03:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is correct, I edited to list it as "third and final studio album" as the removal of 'Incesticide' means only Bleach, Nevermind and In Utero were Studio Albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.227.146 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

KURT COBAIN ON BASS

Did kurt really play bass on the ALbum. If so could you tell us what songs he played on.

I agree. It is most unlikely Cobain played bass guitar on the album, I have never heard of any sources that he did, apart from that one "allmusic" article. It's more likely that Novoselic played bass on it. I think allmusic got it wrong. United Kingdom Speedboy Salesman 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that Allmusic takes the credits for the album directly from the credits in the album's liner notes? Krist definitely played a majority of the bass guitar present on the album, and Kurt probably just filled in. I'm sure Kurt never played anything near a full song, just snippets here and there to fill in. But if AllMusic is wrong here, then so is the booklet for the actual In Utero CD. --Brandt Luke Zorn 18:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
The booklet lists Cobain solely as "guitar, vocals". Unless there's some other source confirming it, AllMusic is is simply wrong. (I'll point out that none of the other reliable sources - eg. LiveNirvana - mention anything about Cobain playing bass on the record.) -- ChrisB 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's odd, Allmusic usually gets this kind of thing right. Oh well, whatever, nevermind. --Brandt Luke Zorn 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurt's Drug Use

There's a pretty hefty section in the "Background" section that details Kurt, Courtney, Frances Bean, and Kurt's drug use. Is this section vital to the album listing? If not, I suggest that it be moved to the Nirvana page, or made part of the Kurt Cobain page. BFeen (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the song articles?

I'm just wondering wha ton earth happened to the articles about all the "lesser known" songs off In Utero. Songs like Very Ape and tourette's all had their own article but they don't anymore. Is there a way of bringing the pages back, as i think the songs deserve their own articles, considering lots of obscure, unreleased demo's by Nirvana that appeared on With The Lights Out have their own articles (e.g. Vendetagainst, Beans etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarraii (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I Hate Myself And Want To Die?

"The tentative album title would be changed after Novoselic convinced Cobain that I Hate Myself And Want to Die could potentially result in a lawsuit"

How could that result in a lawsuit? Just curious.Mr bouregaurd (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrongful death lawsuits. Some parent could claim that the band "promoted" suicide and argue that their kid killed themselves because of it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Charts

Indopug's right, there should only be 10. WP:CHARTS says: The number of charts should include no more than ten official national charts, and up to ten additional or secondary charts, but no more than eighteen charts total. I'm not sure what the reasoning was behind that. --JD554 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Given all the charts are verifiabled (by you, good sir!) and we're only slightly over the limit, I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR, if no one objects. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My only issue was that the "Chart (1994)" and "Chart (1995)" headers in the middle of the table look big and ugly. And the singles charts are redundant to their own articles. But yeah, its no big deal. indopug (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong objections, it was a rule I noticed after doing this chart. There aren't that many, so it should be fine. --JD554 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand Charts

In Utero peaked at number 3 in 1993 in New Zealand it says so in the official chart book: Scapolo, Dean (2001). New Zealand Music Charts, 1975-2000: Albums. ISBN 0908876343. The number 40 position from the website http://charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Nirvana is from 1994 and is listed because that website archive does not date back any further than 1994. Do you understand ? 193.195.196.238 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason we've been taking it out is because we need to page number to cite it properly. Do you have it? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

References

It might be a good idea to convert the Internet references to the cite web template. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason? WP:CITE states: The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. --JD554 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just that it makes them easier to manage, and almost every FA and GA album article I've seen uses them. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Citation templates aren't necessary for FA (this passed FAC just over 2 months ago without them) and GA as long as the citations are formatted correctly. Personally I find it easier and quicker to create a citation without a template and I tend to only use them if the article I'm editing already uses them. --JD554 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If they're formatted correctly, it's fine. I just find it easier to manage the information and put it in the right order and stuff with the templates. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
And the citations here are formatted correctly, so there's no need to change. --JD554 (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The template makes it really really hard to edit the surrounding text. Far better off without. Ceoil (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's really so much easier to write everything out without the cite templates. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not having citation templates makes it harder to instrument the citations in the article, not that I'm planning on doing so, just if ever someone decided to do so, they couldn't do this article. -- J. Wong (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tourette's

I just saw the track Tourette's spelt as tourettes in the article. Does anyone know the correct spelling? 81.154.146.132 (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's lower-case. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That is the consensus. I own the CD and, yes, it is spelled "tourette's". Tezero (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't we find a source that says that it should be lowercase and cite it anyway? 209.74.22.164 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Every tracklisting of the song lists it as lower-case. There's no dispute. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, CITE EVERYTHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.162.212 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
But aren't we supposed to use proper convention, not stylized ones? This is why we don't use all caps in tracklistings. 112.202.250.71 (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Album ratings

I recently added the 'Professional Reviews' information that was removed from the infobox with the new WP:ALBUMS guideline back into the "Release and reception" section with the {{album ratings}} template next to the paragraph that begins the commentary on the album's critical reception. The reason why they were not included there when they were removed from the infobox in the first place was because of the consensus that they called too much attention tot he graphical representation in table format, and detracted from the more important information contained in the prose. Because of this, I decided to add it with the state argument set to "collapsed" by default. While I can see how the template could be seen to detract from the rest of the section, I still believe that the information that it provides is useful in the way that it presents it, as a kind of graphical summary of the overall critical reception of the album. However, I feel that if we have it collapsed by default, it is sufficiently non-imposing and I don't believe it attracts too much attention to it's "shiny stars", to the detriment of the other content. However, as it is still included, the information is still there, and useful. However, my edit was quickly reverted as before. I don't think it gives too much weight to the simple quantified ratings, so what is the problem with having the template there, collapsed and half-hidden? —Akrabbimtalk 19:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The template is not mandatory, and ratings in of themselves are not essential to understanding critical commentary. This has been discussed at length on the WikiProject Albums talk page. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It is not prohibited, either. I know that ratings are not essential, but I believe they still imbue some useful information. I understand the objections you raised at the WikiProject, and I reasoned that by keeping the template collapsed your concerns would be satisfied. So please, tell me the actual objections you have with my edits. I personally believe that I am trying to improve this page (and Dookie and Be Here Now (album) as well, for that matter). —Akrabbimtalk 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The template isn't that useful for this article. Four out of ten reviews don't use any review scales, instead relying on the subjective "favorable"/"Unfavorable" tags that need to be avoided. The template is merely decorative and doesn't tell readers anything they can't get out of the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well, I strongly disagree that an album is distracting and detracts from the article. In fact, whenever I search wikipedia for album ratings (which I do very often), I always refer to the critical reception table, and can easily see it's basic critical reception. That is why it is not unnecessary and should be present. To conclude, by adding reliable, professional reviews in an easy to read format (i.e. the table), it becomes something that is far more than something that is merely "decorative" as you say; in fact, these critical reception tables are far from being "decorative"; they really are an integral part of the article (as long as a good list of reliable, professional reviews are being used, but that issue is more specific to the article itself, and can certainly be talked about in detail when necessary). And as for "not being able to get anything out of the prose," that is exactly the reason why these professional review tables are necessary: so that there exists an easy-to-read gist of the critical reception, so that one does not have to read through the entire critical reception paragraph, and then form their own analysis on the overall critical reception of the album. Zinger12345 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I proposed this revision of the reception section a while ago, but looking back on it, it would have been useful had I removed the mention of the reviewers' ratings that was in the prose, which would validate the template as a space for the ratings. Either way, as long as the ratings are noted. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I am not understanding what you are saying. All I am saying is that I don't want to have to read through the prose in order to get a nebulous idea about how well the album did critically. I and many others want to have a clear, easy-to-read summary of professional critical reception of a particular album. With good enough sources of critical reception, it can be very useful and very user-friendly, and I don't particularly see the the point of not having a critical reception box template. It doesn't really detract from the article; in fact, it actually helps. Zinger12345 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A paraphrase of what I posted on Zinger's talk page:

Review infoboxes are not mandatory, they are optional per Wikipedia's guidelines. This has been hashed out before on Music project talk pages. Here's the backstory of why those boxes exist in the first place. Originally, reviews were linked to in the album infoboxes. Eventually, the community came to the conclusion that this was not suitable, and that an adequate summary of critical consensus could not be conveyed by listing ten reviews (which is the cap that was agreed on to prevent infoboxes from becoming obscenely long). Now, some editors wanted to continue showing review scores in a template and some did not, so a compromise was reached, making them strictly optional. Still, it was agreed that conveying critical reception in the prose was of paramount priority. To aid the long task of removing review scores from the album infobox before depreciating the field for good, it was decided that in order to avoid discarding potential sources, the review scores would be by default moved from the album infobox to the new review box. Additionally, the ultimate goal is to incorporate those reviews into the article prose.

Now, here are some of the common objections against using the review box, which are relevant here. First, it is inherently limited, as the consensus of keeping it to a maximum listing of ten scores still stands. There are far more than ten publications reviewing music out there, especially when it comes to this album. Our goal is not to quote every single review of In Utero in existence. Secondly, the guidelines for the review box discourages listing any reviews that don't have scores, of which many exist (there's a good reason for this, as some reviews cannot be accurately described as "favorable" or "unfavorable", not to mention ones that editors might not realize are totally sarcastic). This inherently cuts out some major critical voices. Thirdly, it overemphasizes the scores over the actual content of the reviews, some of which are not wholly reflective of the opinions of the authors (for example, it's well-known that the editors of Rolling Stone assign the review score, not the writers). Fourthly, the main goal of listing the review scores is to help convey what critical consensus about the album is to readers. For a new release that understandably does not have an overview of its critical reception written about it, a review box can be handy (but it's still not mandatory). But in the case of In Utero, we have a quote from a book where the author, having researched several reviews of the album and come to a conclusion about them, summarizes the critical consensus about the album in a single sentence, which is thusly cited in the Wikipedia article. This instantly makes this stated purpose of the review box instantly moot. It's right there at the start of the paragraph. Fifthly, most of the time the reviews listed in the box are detailed in the prose, making the box pretty redundant (and of course, the review box is capped at 10 reviews, meaning the prose gives a better overview than the review box does). Sixthly, a review box can at times grossly misrepresent critical consensus. A chief example of an article where a review box would be misinformative and actually detrimental to an article is Be Here Now (album), for as discussed in the prose, this was a record that received effusive praise upon release, yet which critical consensus quickly turned against. That's why that article doesn't use it. Seventh-ly, this article passed a Featured Article candidacy without a review box, and was not found at all lacking, which puts to lie any assumption that a review box is necessary and should be present. As stated above, Gillian Gaar summarizes the album's critical reception in a single sentence. Lastly, you are indeed expected to read the article (and the body of every album article on Wikipedia) to get a sense of the article's critical reception, because looking at scores using different metrics in a box with no attached critical commentary (and in some instances said scores have been affixed from on high by people who didn't write the review) won't tell you much at all really. That's why the ultimate goal is to migrate those scores from the boxes to the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Certification contradiction

The following statement contradicts itself as an RIAA certification is for the United States alone: "The record has been certified five times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America, and has sold over four million copies in the United States alone." It has indeed reached five times platinum; therefore the latter part of the sentence should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettpam (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

An RIAA certification and actual sales in the US are two different things. RIAA only count how many copies are shipped. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Track

Is there any reason to revert what track 13 was originally called a 'bonus' track but i changed to a 'hidden' track, simply because it is. If it is a bonus track in other regions and not a hidden track you could of just added the fact. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Rolling Stone Interview cite.

I removed the following irrelevant Rolling Stone interview reference text, which was replaced with the correct article cite for the reference. I also converted it to a news cite and added the "Excerpt" posting cite for anyone who would like to use it:

extra genre

it should have alternative metal as this album's second genre, it's heavy enough and other grunge bands have alternative metal as second genre's. i think this album was in response to bands like tool & nine inch nails who were getting big around this time. also their are a few sources on the internet that call it alternative metal too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Only a few grunge bands are considered alternative metal, of which Nirvana isn't one. The source your provided was removed for not being reliable, which I agree with. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I restructured the article with these changes that were reverted as unnecessary. The article's sections seemed bloated and unorganized. I also understand that the ratings template was discussed earlier at this talk page, but it does take away the need of mentioning ratings critics gave in prose. So, should my changes be kept? Dan56 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The goal is to avoid unnecessarily short subsections whenever possible, and I don't see how they are unorganized or bloated; after all, they're about they same they were during the FAC, and were diligently honed and rewritten to reach their current state. I The critical reception has indeed been discussed before, and I actually added a sentence summarizing the critical reception since it does a better job than a template full of select data with different metrics can. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
How are the ones I revised short? For instance, in the "music and lyrics section as currently constructed, the first two large paragraphs are about "music"/style, then the next two are about lyrics/themes. Multiple paragraphs on one topic shouldnt be seperated from the next two? Same for the release and reception section. Dan56 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken me awhile to get back to this. In music, the words are very closely linked to the music so it's sensible to discuss them in the same place unless you need to cover them in several paragraph, a la someone like Bob Dylan. Also, in the case of this album, it's not just the lyrics being discussed in the paragraphs, but the song title and the inspirations behind the songs as a whole, so they aren't easily discussed distinct from one another, nor should they necessarily be. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with your changes. They seem right to me. The sections Dan made are used on most album pages. Oz talk 06:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vocalists

Just thought I would mention that Dave Grohl does backing vocals on the song Pennyroyal Tea (during the chorusus). Maybe this should be mentioned in the article.mjgm84 (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to scrounge up a ref for this in the next week or two. His vocals on Nevermind are mentioned quite a bit, but I don't recall reading about him singing on this record. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

January 1993 session to infobox

Seeing as Nevermind's infobox mentions that "Polly" was recorded at an earlier recording session, I'm wondering whether or not this article's infobox should mention that "I Hate Myself and Want to Die Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol..." was also recorded at an earlier session? I was considering adding it but seeing as the song is only on some pressings of the album (whereas "Polly" is on all pressings of Nevermind) it would be useful to get some other opinions. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 16:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a minute. "I Hate Myself and Want to Die" is NOT on ANY pressings of In Utero. It was only released on the Beavis and Butthead compilation album and also as a b-side to the Pennyroyal Tea CD single. There is also the different demo version which was included on With the Lights Out. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My bad, I meant "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol..." Idiotchalk (t@lk) 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I see why that might be something worth noting, but like you I think since the song isn't included on all copies of the record we can leave it out of the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Albini's letter

Someone more familiar with the story behind the recording of the album than I am, might like to incorporate some of the details in Steve Albini's letter of introduction, which certainly makes an interesting contrast with what actually happened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cover Art?

Does anyone know or have have a source for who created the Cover of this album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZordonFreeman (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of deluxe and super deluxe track listings

Was there any discussion before the track listings for the deluxe and super deluxe versions was removed ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No there wasn't. And it seems they keep getting added back in. HedgeHogPower (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Dave Grohl backing vocals?

Dave Grohl has been listed in the ‘Personnel’ section as having had recorded backing-vocals for this album. Is there any documentation of this? He recorded backing-vocals on Nirvana’s previous album Nevermind, but as far as I know Grohl was not once mentioned as having recorded them for In Utero and all backing-vocals on In Utero appear to be from Kurt Cobain. JoeyofScotia (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Pennyroyal Tea, chorus.
@QuintusPetillius: Evidence please. I see nothing to suggest that the backing-vocals for the chorus in Pennyroyal Tea were recorded by anyone other than Kurt Cobain himself. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Recorded by, maybe not, sung by, now that's a different question.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@QuintusPetillius: The Wikipedia article for Pennyroyal Tea has Kurt Cobain as the backing vocalist for that song, evidenced by In Utero's liner notes. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

formatting errors in charts for remastered

some of the citations are not listed properly, they show up as "[[#cite_note-?'"`UNIQ--ref-000000A4-QINU`"'?-134|[134]]]" for me, not sure if it's an error with the article or on my end. RF23 (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding Punk Rock to genre list

I thought it would be appropriate to add 'Punk Rock' to the genre list here. Nirvana's music is heavily indebted to Punk Rock bands, particularly 80s hardcore bands like Black Flag. While 'Grunge' is noted on the genre list and probably still should be included, the term is not really an actual genre, just something coined by the music press and Sub-Pop to describe any 'heavy' band that came out of Seattle. Many 'grunge' bands disowned the term, and while Nirvana would call themselves a Punk Rock band, seldom did they ever call themselves a 'grunge' band, at times talking about how they felt the term and it's application was sort of ridiculous. And while most of the band's output falls under 'Punk Rock,' In Utero was a deliberate attempt by the band to return to what they felt were their punk roots; thus, why they chose Steve Albini to produce, among other creative decisions. Just as well, if other 'grunge' bands from the Puget Sound area that played a similar style, like Mudhoney, are noted as being Punk Rock on wikipedia, there's no reason the band and this album shouldn't.

Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip

There was an AFD for the article Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip It was decided the article had good material but to not keep as a separate article and redirect it to here. I brought in and pared down the content. Please do whatever with it as you feel is best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol

"Non-US CD pressings of the album include "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip". It is listed on the back cover as track 13," I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. Some non-US pressings include "Gallons", others such as in Canada and Mexico do not. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Right you are; I think "non-US pressings include the song" had been intended to convey "some pressings include the song, and all of the pressings that include it are non-US", rather than "all of the pressings which are non-US are pressings that include the song"—but nevertheless the wording was inherently ambiguous and worth clarifying. I found a more specific source and fixed it. —BLZ · talk 04:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Production and mixing

I think the earlier name for this section, 'Production controversy and remixing', was better. 'Production' as a term on its own could easily mean the recording of the album, which we've chronologically got earlier on.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus that capitalization is sufficient to distinguish and/or that this primary over the Latin term, therefore; moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


In Utero (album) → In Utero – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, seeing as most people searching for "In Utero" would be looking for the album as opposed to In utero. DaveTheBrave (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Utero/Archive_1&oldid=1136815318"