Jump to content

Talk:Nine Inch Nails live performances/Archive 1

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

Creating this again

[edit]

This was formerly an article solely about what songs NIN had played live, which was rightly deleted as listcruft (see the page log). However, I have resurrected it in order to find a home for some unweildy information, moved at the suggestion of Dark Kubrick, to help whip the main NIN article up to featured status. There is also a list of guest performers that I have created largely from memory - please help find some proper sources for it. BotleySmith 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Songs not played live?

[edit]

Is this section necessary? Most bands don't play every song in their catalogue live, and devoting a section to NIN doing so seems trivial. Also, a list of every song that NIN hasn't played is equally listcrufty to the previously-deleted list of songs that NIN has played live.

The rest of the article is quite nice. -- Rynne 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very, very frequently-asked question - and the fact that TPD and another of the band's big radio hits ("We're In This Together") haven't been played in public yet is pretty notable, I think. But delete it if you must. BotleySmith 21:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Perfect Drug has never been played live?! Surely that can't be true?Lugnuts 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to delete it! I'd imagine it would of been played live, esp. since the heavy airplay rotation it got when it was released. Lugnuts 20:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trent did an interview on the eve of NIN's 2005 arena tour saying that they had rehearsed the song, but it didn't fit in with the other material, given that lot of the synths and drum loops are unplayable. He also mentioned that it wasn't in his "top 100" NIN songs. Given that less than 100 unique NIN songs have been officially released, it's pretty safe to assume that he'd simply rather forget about it. BotleySmith 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really need to include the EP tracks? Namely A Violet Fluid, Memorabilia, March of the Fuckheads, The Great Collapse, and Metal. I don't think anyone's dying to hear any of these live, and even if they are it should be obvious that none of them have been played.
It should be obvious that The Perfect Drug and We're In This Together haven't been played live, but obviously it's not; and it isn't obvious that Closer To God and Piggy (Nothing Can Stop Me Now) have been played, so leaving out other EP tracks isn't very conductive to establishing anything. I'm not arguing that the list should stay, but removing individual tracks from the list is pointless.
Perhaps some kind of rephrasing similar to: "nine inch nails have performed all tracks from their albums, with the notable exceptions of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J, and with the notable inclusions of Z, Y, X, W, V and U, which are all lesser known tracks appearing on remix cds and soundtracks blah blah". That should eliminate the need for a list as such, while retaining the pertinent information - although it's going to be a very long sentence, and will need to include dead souls, burn and any other non-album songs that HAVE been performed live - ok, now i look at it, it's a terrible idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.254.103.149 (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It should be obvious that The Perfect Drug and We're In This Together haven't been played live Why hasn't WITT not been played? Lugnuts 11:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trent's official explanation now is that it's too hard to sing (apparently, the chorus is RIGHT at the top of his range - and "Last" goes a semitone higher); however, on the Fragility tour he told Chuck Palahniuk that he was tired of hearing it after working on it so much in the studio. BotleySmith 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "We're In This Together" was just played for the first time, on top of "Last" the previous evening. :) BotleySmith 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Sunspots get played in Manchester last night, or did I imagine it?!? Maybe worth adding when longtime no-players get played for the first time on the article. Lugnuts 10:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. Also - Year Zero hasn't been released yet, so I'm taking those songs off the list until it is. BotleySmith 18:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "At the Heart of It All" should be on there; it's an Aphex Twin track and not a remix. There are a couple of other tracks on there that are questionable, as well ("March of the Fuckheads" in particular)... BotleySmith 17:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "All the Love in the World" because I saw it.. idk how it was still on the list, it was like 2 years ago it was played, too. I forget the date, but it was at St. Louis in the fall if anyone wants to look up a set list or I will in the near future. Also, At the Heart of it All was a remix, Aphex Twin stated he used samples from when TDS was composed, although some of the samples may not be used completely/at all in TDS.

Several of the songs on the list were played at the concert I was at in Oslo on 8 August this year, so it's not a correct list. I frankly don't see the point of the list anyways, if it's particularly notable that a song has never bene played live it's fine to include it in the article but a semi-long, erroneous list of songs has no place in the article in my opinion. I removed the songs I specifically remembered from the concert, though I'm fairly sure a couple more of the Year Zero songs were played too. Pegster 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the live show

[edit]

This article doesn't describe the live shows themselves. There are some possibly unique and noteworthy points to make:

  • the screen that drops halfway through the set, onto which images are projected
    • Self Destruct: Eraser/Hurt/The Downward Spiral (video of the first 2 on Closure)
    • Fragility 1.0? La Mer/The Great Below/The Way Out Is Through
    • With Teeth: Eraser/Right Where It Belongs/Beside You in Time (political message: war footage and Bush, and how Trent was hesitant to play BYIT, but the proposed imagery effect convinced him otherwise)
  • lcd panels
    • fragility 2.0: the 3 huge vertical ones that went up and down (that guy's commentary on AATCHB)
    • with teeth: the teeth panels, and the light grid/cage
  • picture(s) from Closure/AATCHB or fan cameras, if these are allowed
  • key songs:
    • intro recording to pump up the crowd: pinion/the new flesh/byit/pilgrimage (contrasted with the sudden beginning of Somewhat Damaged on the last tour)
    • use of samples
    • reworking of old material (e.g. Closer/The Only Time and Hurt)
    • the earlier lack of variability in the setlist (reason: the effort involved with the lightshow planning, or trent's perfectionism?)
    • Head Like a Hole = signature closer
  • how Trent threw a mic stand at Vrenna and he still kept playing (Closure)
  • corn starch, drugs, instrument destruction, self-destruction

I'm not sure whether to do anything with this, just felt like jotting it down. Pomte 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a video component to "Eraser" (instrumental version) and "Subterraneans" on the Bowie tour — they projected onto the curtain separating NIN's equipment from that of Bowie's band. There was also an intro track for "Terrible Lie" on the Hate 1990 tour (though not on the Bowie tour). NIN also played "Now I'm Nothing" as an intro at Lollapalooza, which is a song that they've never recorded. Primary reasons for the unchanging setlists have to do with backing tapes: NIN usually plays to a fixed click track so that they can keep in time with pre-recorded samples. The problem with noting all this is that a lot isn't really verifiable (I got most of my information from bootlegs, for example). BotleySmith 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ya know...

[edit]

if you guys were up for it you could create a list for live shows performed by nin. --AlexOvShaolin 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll link to the NIN Historian. Pomte 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs only played live

[edit]

If this list should stay, how about adding "Twist", "Maybe Just Once", and "Supernaut"? –Pomte 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not "Supernaut" as it was A) not a NIN song and B) never played at a NIN show.  Tabanger  10:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live Band Line-up change

[edit]

Since the final concert with the current line-up in Hawaii has been performed, I'm going to go ahead and move everyone but Trent Reznor into the "former members" section of the info-box. Any opposed to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.252.201 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragility V2.0

[edit]

Article needs to be created (Its Pytch.. Hon (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notability? –Pomte 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Not/Only played live

[edit]

I was thinking about removing these sections, but I thought I'd mention it here first. My problem with them is that, by nature, they're unreferenceable, and therefore too contentious. In fact it's borderline original research. Does anyone have any strong feelings about it? Drewcifer (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same about some of the past members, whom I failed to verify. –Pomte 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit easier, but I'm working on it. Basically I think I need to find concert reviews, so we'll see how that goes. But the problem with citing songs not played live is that you can't really source a lack of something. No one writes a review or an article about what songs they didn't play, right? Drewcifer (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

proposed move to: Nine Inch Nails Live

[edit]

In a number of recent articles and the credits of BYIT, the band is called "Nine Inch Nails Live." That is, they actually have a name, therefore I don't think it's necessary for this page to be called something vauge like "Nine Inch Nails live performances." I'd like to move the article, any thoughts? Drewcifer (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the band is still called Nine Inch Nails. Seems more like a descriptor as in Live: And All That Could Have Been. Could this have a little to do with the fact that this article was called Nine Inch Nails: Live for 9 months? –Pomte 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I do vaguely remember it being named something else a while ago. Was this discussed anywhere? Drewcifer (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I agreed with the move and so didn't start a discussion. –Pomte 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I could go either way on a move, so unless anyone else has any strong feelings about it I guess it can stay. Drewcifer (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to change the scope of this to Nine Inch Nails live band though to split off Nine Inch Nails tours? I think the table in your sandbox can fit here and still be a reasonable length. –Pomte 22:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Looking at Category:Concert tours, the convention seems to be to not italicize tour names. –Pomte 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category seems to be kind of 50/50, so I'm not sure... I brought it up here, so I guess we'll see. Drewcifer (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to one way of typesetting the With Teeth tour. The manual of style suggests getting rid of the underscore as it is purely decorative. Should there be a space after the colon? –Pomte 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should probably be "Live: With Teeth". No underscore, with a space. Drewcifer (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question (should we divide the article up or expand it?)

[edit]

So, in my sandbox, I'm working on some info concerning each tour. Stuff like opening bands, different legs, etc. At first I was thinking of making it it's own article (Nine Inch Nails tours), but now I'm not so sure that's necessary. A possibly better solution would be to put each table into the appropriate section in this article. So each section would have some text, possibly a picture, then the table breaking the tour down. Or the separate article... Any opinions on this? Drewcifer (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added one table (Live: With Teeth) for reference. Drewcifer (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible tables

[edit]

Any opinions on the collapsible tables? I think it's a nice way of presenting the info but not forcing it on the reader. Any concerns/complaints? Drewcifer (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, the reader who wants to take in all the info has to click a bunch of [show] links. I don't care though. –Pomte 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I agree, but alot of the info is repeated in the prose. And with all the tables expanded it makes the article alot less easy-to-read, I think. Drewcifer (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are necessary. As Drewcifer said, a lot of the information is repeated. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you didn't think it's necessary to have them collapsible, or that you don't think they're necessary at all? I would disagree with the first, but I strongly disagree with the second, since although some info is repeated, only the most notable facts are repeated in the prose: the tables give a much broader stroke for things like individual legs, dates, and other acts which might not be worth mentioning in the prose. Drewcifer (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intended both meanings. Essentially this is a band article (albeit a highly unusual one), so discuss the formation of each new lineup and changes made during tours in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, I would think it would become a very very dry read. Listing all the changes in group members, tour legs, supporting groups, etc, etc. Additionally, I think such information is better presented (ie more understandable) in table format. Changes in the lineup, legs, supporting acts, etc, are easily cross-referenced in table format rather than prose. For example its very easy to see that the Further Down the Spiral spanned 1994-1995, James Woolley (who had been with the band since the Loloapalooze tour) was replaced by Charlie Clouser (who stayed with the band through the Fragility tour) midway-through, and that Finck, Vrenna, and Lohner played as well, in North Amercia, for 82 dates, and blah blah blah. But to do that in prose, like I attempted above, isn't terribly interesting. Drewcifer (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a table would be a very dry read, which is why lists and tables are generally avoided in biographical articles and converted to prose. Working it into the prose can give it context. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if "read" is the right word for a table. Obviously it would be a dry read, that's kind of the whole point of a table: to get info/stats across in a quick and manageable way. But you're right, tables aren't generally put into biographical articles. My original plan was to split the article into a separate list, with this kind of info in it, but it didn't seem like a substantial amount of content to warrant its own article. I also thought about putting the tables into their own section, but it seems silly to split them apart when there's already a section per tour. So putting it in the main article and collapsing them seemed like a good compromise. So I suppose I would argue that this would be a good exception to the no-tables-in-bios precedent, since, as you said, its a highly unusual article in the first place. And I would argue that the prose that is already there gives plenty of context to the tables: historical/biogrpahical info putting into context the more raw-data type stuff of the table. I admit, it's a little unorthodox, but hey, whatever it takes to get info across most effectively. Perhaps this might be a good topic for the current GAN and/or the FAC I hope to nominate it for soon? Drewcifer (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is rather sizable, and there's the fact that there's a lot of redundant information between the tables and the prose. Alos, the script for the tables could be harder for other editors to deal with (on a related note: shouldn't this article be "Nine Inch Nails live band" or something, with a separate article dedicated to "Nine Inch Nails tours" structred in list format?) WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was another thing I was toying around with. Basically, as I redid the article, I kept wondering if I should split the article up or not, or if I should rename it. So I decided not to do any splitting up or renaming, and I think I'm satisfied with the way it turned out. But it's obviously not completely up to me. Drewcifer (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should create a separate list article for the concert tours, as its a common practice (see List of U2 concert tours and the Featured List List of Kylie Minogue concert tours). Treat this article more as you would an article about a band, since ultimately this is about a backing band for a solo artist. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a little more complicated than those examples since it covers more: the live band/band members, tours, and live performances. The only logical way to handle all three topics is to either put it all into one long article (and it really isn't that long) or split it up into three separate articles. I personally prefer the former since the three potential articles wouldn't be very long, and because they're so interconnected that alot of info would be repeated between them all. Additionally, like I said above, having it all in one place makes it much easier to cross-reference it all together. Drewcifer (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split it into two articles: the live band/band members and a list format for the tours and live performances. Right now this article is almost as long as the main Nine Inch Nails page. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← I'm doing the GA review below. Collapsibles (which are a very clever device) reduce the need for a split, and the split would be at the expense of a good article for a process that doesn't need to happen: the collapsibles already elaborate explicitly on the lineup. The two articles would be inseparable anyway, and at least now you only need one window/tab open. This is a good article, and much of that is due to its smart layout. The split would sacrifice the layout and much of the prose, and simply move it to another location; and both would still need to explain the nature of the lineup (tours being part and parcel to the lineup, and lineup being part and parcel to the tours). Just IMO, but I think that the article is GA as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this article is two articles in one: a band biography and an article/list about concert tours. That's mainly why I think it should be split. And really, the tables use complex script to convey information which is already conveyed adequately in the prose. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me I would combine all the collapsibles into one big table (sort of like how the lists used to be), and put that under "Live band members", eliminating the 2-column list there and the colour timeline (despite how nice that looks). This would get rid of the whitespace, and have one table that's easiest to read. You can't really talk about band member changes without the tours, and vice versa. The length isn't excessive for this scope. –Pomte 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems we have a wide array of options/opinions on our hands. The suggestions amount up to:
  • One article, collapsible tables in each tour section, timeline, etc. (basically leave it as it is now)
  • One article, one combined non-collapsible table for all the tour data, no timeline.
  • Two articles (tours (list) and live band/band members).
So, here's my suggestion: leave things as is until after the GA process is finished. Then bring the article to either peer review or FAC (both processes where we can get multiple opinions on the subject, as opposed to the one opinion of the current GA reviewer). Then we'll see what happens. That seem reasonable? Drewcifer (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor detail: I just tried to click the little a, b, c's in a citation and it ddn't lead anywhere (due to the collapsed tables), leading to confusion for a second. However, readers probably don't do this sort of thing so it's not exactly an issue. –Pomte 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

This is a very well written article as it stands, and the layout is very smart. Going over the quick list:

1. Is it well written? It conforms to WP:MOS
Lastly, the mosh pits and lighters under Visual elements seems a little out of place. I think the section could be rewritten a bit to reduce the number of one-and-two-sentence paragraphs, possibly by focusing on the visual elements generally and moving specifics up to history (this seems like bad style, but I think the layout makes up for that; this is all personal opinion on the article structure, though). ← this last bit is not very important, but it remains the only problem (small) in my mind
2. Factually accurate? Yup. I'm giving some of the things that might need citations a pass, because they haven't been flagged as needing such.
3. Broad in coverage? The editors have done a fantastic job of covering both the tours and the line-ups in the history section, and nothing suffers much (but see the Visual elements note above).
4. NPOV? Despite the topic, unwarranted enthusiasm is nearly non-existent. It's very professional.
5. Is the article stable? Yes.
6. Images? All fair use and attributed, all well placed. Personally, I think the first gray-scale image (Reznor screaming into a mic) deserves better placement (but that section has whitespace issues, so I'll wait and see) ← personal opinion
Thanks for the review! Here's my progress:
  • Re-arranged the lead a bit.
Good
  • Expanded the History introduction a bit. Moved two sentences from the lead to the History introduction.
Good
  • Combined the two collapsible tables in the early tours / PHM tour section. As for the white space issue in that section, I think that's somewhat unavoidable. I forced the code to put the table after the picture since it kept getting squished by the table. So it's either a squished table or a little whitespace, and I think a bit of whitespace is the lesser of two evils in this case. I don't think that moving the tables up in the subsections would be a good idea. Since this is primarily an article (rather than a list), the prose should come first, I think. As for confusing the tables for the section below it, the tables are named the same as the section they apply to, so I'm not sure where the confusion comes in.
My bad :)
This still doesn't look right...Humm...I think it qualifies more under visual elements than history (I should have moved the lighters and elements->history into separate paras). I suppose there isn't much to do about this, unless there are other aspects about the audience that haven't been written in. Maybe readers can infer that mosh pits and lighters are inevitable? (aside: Hurt live performance doesn't mention the audience)
The problem now is it reads like "many of the songs generate (audience effect), many of the slower songs generate (professional effect) and (audience effect)", and the professional bit isn't right in that sentence. Sorry... move it back to visual elements and we'll be done with that :p Xavexgoem (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit: (which I'd do myself, but there might be something about the audience the article doesn't mention but maybe should?) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I put it back. I'll try and find some time to add a bit more related info to give it some more context. For instance "Head Like a Hole" is almost always the last number. Stuff like that. I don't have time to do that right now, but I'll try and get that done soon, which would hopefully make that sentence a little less awkward. Drewcifer (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. As for the tables, I'd leave them unless they become a large problem. If someone edits a part, hopefully they'll do it by sub-section and not the "edit this page". Xavexgoem (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NIN/Bowie tour title?

[edit]

Is there any information on whether the Fall '95 tour should be called the "Outside Tour" or the "Dissonance Tour"? There's a wikipedia page calling it the Outside Tour and "Outside" seems to be the more common name used by NIN fansites, like the NIN Historian tour dates page (not to mention one of the reviews cited by this page). The term "Dissonance" shows up on contemporary official NIN merchandise, but it's not clear that label refers to the tour title. Does anyone have any verifiable information one way or the other? - rynne (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On various sites it is taken that the NIN portion was called Dissonance while the Bowie portion or even the whole thing was called Outside. I don't know whether the word appears anywhere other than the shirt and I can't find any tour reviews that mention it. –Pomte 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I went to that tour and was under the impression at the time that it was just called the Outside Tour. But I’m at a loss to produce any source for that aside from my own recollection. Just wondering if there was any concrete info available on the subject. - rynne (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tour in support of Ghosts announced at nin.com...

[edit]

And how are we supposed to reference to it now? The post can disappear any day. Litis (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already added mention of it. The page will most likely be changed pretty soon though, so the reference will no longer be appropriate. I'll keep an eye on it, but within 6 months Internet Archive should have an archived version of it to link to. Drewcifer (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of the FAC

[edit]

Italicized comments by Laser brain:

I'm not sure the first sentence is accurate. Suggesting that the studio musicians are a "component" of the live band implies that the studio musicians are a sub-set of the live musicians. That's not true, is it? Aren't there studio musicians that aren't in the live band?

This seems to misinterpret the sentence. Perhaps it can be reworded to be more clear.

"...where the band "stole the show" from headliners Jane's Addiction despite numerous equipment problems." Ooooo. Like what? Being smashed on stage?

???

Why do some statement about band lineups have 2 or 3 citations? Only one please, unless the item is likely to be challenged. Otherwise, it just looks like source-stacking.

Question for Drewcifer and others: The first source for Vrenna in the Live band members section only says that he was a drummer for NIN. Is this needed in addition to the other source? The second source doesn't even say this explicitly, and neither mentions the years. –Pomte 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV source doesn't specifically give a year, but the article was from 2001, and it says Vrenna says left the band, so I'd say that's a good source for his end-date. As for the other, if I remember correctly it mentions the keyboards and samplers stuff. That's why their both there. Drewcifer (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There is likely a place for this in article, don't have time to integrate but here's the info.

  • Nine Inch Nails: stopping ticket scalpers - [1]
  • Nine Inch Nails hammers scalpers with new policy - [2]
  • New NIN Ticket Strategy Puts Fans Up Front Billboard Magazine[3]

AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've integrated these sources into a new section called "Tickets" AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References are now properly formatted. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts

[edit]

I just wanted to list my rationale for the associated acts I've listed. I listed acts significant to the current touring members and acts that are worth noting as derivative of NIN.

  • Guns N' Roses - significant because of current guitarist Robin Finck's longtime membership. Worth noting as well because of the high profile nature of the band.
  • Marilyn Manson - Reznor discovered, signed, and produced the first albums for the band. Also, Chris Vrenna and Jeordie White, both current members of Marilyn Manson, also toured with NIN.
  • Filter - Former guitarist Richard Patrick's band. Notable due to the success of Filter.
  • Modwheelmood - Current keyboardist Alessandro Cortini's band. The band is utilizing a independent approach to releasing music similar to that of NIN's.
  • The Vandals - I thought of this as notable due to the fact that in my opinion this is the band that springboarded Josh Freese's career, and he remains a member of the band to this day.
  • Black Light Burns - Former NIN member Danny Lohner and current drummer Josh Freese contributed to Cruel Melody, the band's debut album. Lohner has been mentioned as a future contributor, and at one point Reznor offered the touring guitarist spot to Wes Borland (founder, vocalist and multi-instrumentalist of BLB, and ex-Limp Bizkit) before Aaron North joined.
  • A Perfect Circle - Highly successful project of which Josh Freese is considered to be a core member. Former NIN touring members Jeordie White and Danny Lohner also contributed to this band.

That about sums it up for my rationale for these acts. Mattpaige (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nine Inch Nails live performances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nine Inch Nails live performances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nine Inch Nails live performances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nine Inch Nails live performances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nine Inch Nails live performances. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nine_Inch_Nails_live_performances/Archive_1&oldid=1137047076"