Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Nirvana (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

EMP/SFM Exhibition & Nirvana.com

I added a little paragraph, including references, of the Nirvana exhibition by the Experience Music Project. Also added the new Nirvana.com link to the External Links section, a domain re-open, as far as I know, on commemoration to the 20th Anniversary of the Nevermind album. This two edits were reverted without a notice or anything, would like to know the reason behind this, isn't this information relevant enough? Thanks --Blodnatt13 (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pat Smear

Why isn't Pat Smear listed as one of the members of Nirvana? I know that he wasn't featured on any of Nirvana's studio albums, but that was only because he became a member of the band between In Utero's release and Cobain's death. He was still a member at the time of Cobain's death, so I don't get why he isn't acknowledged (at least by Wikipedia) as the fourth member of Nirvana.

Pat Smear is credited on the Unplugged album as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--JohnnyLurg (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

He was a touring guitarist, not a full member like Jason Everman had been. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there an actual source on this? On the wishkah album liner notes he certainly gets a mention and he is called out as "our new guitarist" on unplugged vs the other musicians on the show who dont get mentioned in such a way. The band has said Jason Everman on the other hand only received listing for fronting the money to record Bleach. So how is he any more legit than Pat? Have Dave or Krist, or Kurt for that matter ever weighed in specifically? I think the guy should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.89.135 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok seriously. Nirvana is performing a show tonight and Pat Smear is in the lineup. Their first show in 18 years so I don't suppose it was an accident that Pat was there. Can we please get him listed as a real member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiserwil (talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he should be listed as a member. In interviews with Kurt, Pat was mentioned as the 2nd guitarist. He is listed as member in the live albums. Also, you have multiple drummers listed, who were probably more of touring members than Pat was. I say include him. - Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.115.94.55 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.93.170.38, 14 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I feel that including the "former band members" ruins Nirvana's image and makes them seem to have gone through a large line up change. As a nirvana fan myself, I think that including this unnecessary information ruins their image to new users who check out their page.

76.93.170.38 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Including former band members is a standard practice for articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to provide unbiased information on a variety of topics, not promote a particular image for bands and organizations. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an interview out there somewhere you might try searching for where Dave Grohl states that he was constantly afraid of being dismissed the entire time he was in Nirvana due to their long line of line up changes on the drummer chair before him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.66.73 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kurt's death

I being a loyal fan, fellow seattlite and grunge head I feel a little perturbed at the fact that this article says it was a "self-inflicted" shotgun wound when the police report only says that it was a shotgun wound to the head but in the report it say nothing about being "self-inflicted" Itlnlovr5 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Sean Vess

Cobain's death was legally ruled a suicide, thus implying that it was self-inflicted. Sbrianhicks (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 200.52.174.115, 17 February 2011

In the section Formation and Early Years the Fecal Matter's link point to Fecal Matter, which redirects to feces, when it should link to Fecal Matter (band). Also, where it says: "They never actually said 'Ok, you're in.'", it should read: "They never actually said 'OK, you're in'", because there's comma afterwards.

-- 200.52.174.115 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the wikilink, but left the punctuation because that's how it is in the original quote. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Kirk Canning

Why can't Kirk Canning, who played cello on "Something in the Way" on Nevermind be included in the band members section ? Even just as a guest member or something ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason Snowy White doesn't get member listing in Pink Floyd, or Billy Preston with the Beatles. Many bands have sit-ins for one song or another, but they don't qualify as a member, or even a guest member IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

He wasn't a member, he was a session musician. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Kurt and punk

A discussion here, for those interested. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana were a self described Punk Rock band

The fact that the band themselves called themselves a Punk Rock band is enough for them to be listed as Punk rock here. Punk Rock is what they considered themselves. Grunge and Alternative Rock is what the media lablled them. All three probably are correct, but I would certainly go with Punk Rock, as that is what Kurt Cobain actually said on many recorded occasions as what type of music Nirvana actually were. mjgm84 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A band is not an objective source for labeling itself. Furthermore, Cobain called Nirvana rock, alternative, punk, pop, and even grunge (grudgingly) at various times. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is The Experience Music Project in Seattle is having an exhibit called Nirvana: Taking Punk to the Masses. And there is a book coming out with the same title. That will provide a more than adequate source for labbleing Nirvana Punk Rock here on Wikipedia, and there will be no excuse to revert it.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Except Nirvana didn't bring punk to the masses. See: any source on Green Day or punk's revival in the '90s. Simply smacking a label on something isn't enough, or else we would have to label Nirvana heavy metal due to some award nominations. Context is key. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Having seen gigs by every important punk rock band of the two previous punk rock eras (69-75 and 77-82), and knowing some band members from that era personally, I would say that there is no question that Nirvana was punk rock. And it was also unquestionably grunge and also alternative rock and also hard rock and also metal. Evidently it is hard for those who have grown up with Sirius XM channels, to understand that these terms are not mutually exclusive.

Current Members?

Why does the article list Cobain, Novoselic and Grohl as current members, considering the band ended after Cobain's suicide in 1994? Articles on other bands that have split up list their members as "Past Members," so why are they listed as Current?
- Harryathouse (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Some list it some ways, others in other ways. The Beatles list it like Nirvana does, for example. Mainly done to distinguish main band members from minor ones. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Who determines who was a main band member and not a minor one? There's only a few distinctions I can think of, one beingto separate members who were credited as performing on albums as opposed to those that were not. In that case: Jason Everman, Chad Channing, and Dale Crover were all credited as performing on an album (even if Everman actually didn't perform on "Bleach") and should also be distinguished as having done so. The only distinction that works here is the concept of splitting the classic lineup from members of other lineups, but that still does not justify former members of a defunct band being listed in the "current members" section. Burbridge92 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted that yesterday. There are no "current members", haven't been for 17 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines (see Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members) clearly state that all members of a dissolved band should be listed in the former members section, unless there is a clear consensus to placing members in the "current members" section. This consensus still needs to be justified however, and I've seen no such justification so far. Burbridge92 (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While you were at that guideline, did you note the "In some exceptional cases (e.g. The Beatles), and only with a clear consensus, members at the time of dissolution may be listed in the "current_members" field" line? That consensus exists here. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that I clearly stated (and I quote): "...unless there is a clear consensus to placing members in the "current members" section", I'd think that the point regarding consensus was already clearly made. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Touring Members

In 1993, 5 minutes before the show in the Roseland Ballroom, Kurt Cobain OD'd before the show. In various parts of the show, Big John Duncan (Guitar technician) played several songs (Drain You, Tourette's, Anuerysm, and Very Ape). It's also been said he played in other show. Here is a video taken from the show that was featured on MTV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G09HgCz9t6g

There, I have the proof, so please sto deleting.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childress293133 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this there needs to be a clear consensus agreeing that the said individual classes as a live band member, as it is a debatable point. There has been no clear consensus supporting you here, hence he should not be included. Burbridge92 (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone who sits in for a few shows is not a band member. Do not add this person to the article again. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be in your best interest to stop edit warring as well, before I have you blocked for a time. A guy who sits in on a few shows in an emergency is not a band member. Lori the cello player is, because she was hired for that purpose for the entirety of the 1993-1994 tours, same with Pat Smear's contributions. Now please, knock it off. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Nirvana metal by Wikipedia's standard?

I know that this might sound a little obscure on a band--such as on Nirvana, for example, but have you ever heard of the term: "punk metal?" Go to the Wikipedia page: [metal]. Not to make fun of anyone's music opinions and their own ideologies on this topic, it could be metal; but if they're metal, it would be on the "Bleach" album--not the second album "Nevermind" (1991), which has a popish-sound and not a hardcore sound if it does, it's brief if it was (honestly). Their third album,"In Utero" (1993) is more of a hardcore heavy and experimental and progressive-vibe on a couple of songs; that vibe of progressive and experimental is brief, but still you can still hear it.

I know that metal is out of the question for this band, since they're mainly an alternative rock band and a band that is Grunge, for their appropriate genre[s]. But the majority of the Grunge bands were never fully alternative at all, the majority of the bands that were Grunge, at the time were: alternative metal, hardcore punk, straight-up metal, indie rock, and of course, should I forget--alternative rock.

They rarely ever if they ever did have a metal aesthetic and a ideology for metal if they were ever metal, it was a whole 100% punk philosophy. Yes, of course, the anger-angst lyrics, were the most simple to identify that were not metal; they were punk, by the topics of: social alienation, apathy, confinement, and a moment for freedom. One of the easiest to start, the lyrics were from old-school hardcore punk.

Now, the question: "Is Nirvana really metal?" The only "metal" album that I would actually consider album being "metal", by them would be Bleach. Kurt Cobain actually had employed the actually use of both screaming and death growls (not much), but still would you even consider this album, "metal?" Only how I just described it--otherwise, they're not metal fully, probably if they were to be metal, they would have be grindcore; but sadly, they're not even that, only noise-rock.

Kurt Cobain and the band, did listen to Celtic Frost for his inspirations on this specific album, but that doesn't mean he actually wanted to be a metal band, it just came to him to be perfectly honest with you. If He listened it to Celtic Frost, because there wasn't anything else to listen to. That doesn't mean you can't be an alternative rock band to tell you the truth.

Honestly, Nirvana could be metal, only under this definition of "punk metal." Otherwise, they're not metal at all. I'm tired of seeing topics such as this on the Internet. If you count Nirvana as metal. Fine but--can you please not have it have without the umbrella term? 23:22, 12 July 2011. panicpack121|

Yes Nirvana certainly had heavy metal elements to their sound and had heavy metal influences. But they have never been regarded as a heavy metal band. They were just a heavy alternative band and as such are labled "grunge". They were also labled punk rock but that doesn't even get the go ahead on Wiki, so Heavy Metal is certainly out of the question as label for Nirvana's sound. mjgm84 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Current members consensus

It is clear that there is a consensus on here that suggests that the classic Nirvana lineup should be included in the "current members" section of the infobox (and in the members section further down the page), and that is completely in accordance with the artist infobox guidelines on wikipedia (see: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#past_members for reference). However, wikipedia is supposed to be a "encyclopedia", therefore it is meant to be an accurate source. The information given in the "members" is clearly incorrect. Therefore, there should be some justification for labelling former members as otherwise. Burbridge92 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above a moment ago, consensus exists here that the main 3 members should be listed in the "current" section, to distinguish them from the brief, early members. Same as the Beatles do, so Pete Best doesn't look like he has equal footing with Paul, John and the rest. Guidelines are not rigid policy, that is why they are called guidelines; they suggest what is generally done in certain situations, they do not dictate what must be done. We have leeway to make exceptions. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Did I or did I not mention in this discussion that "It is clear that there is a consensus on here that suggests that the classic Nirvana lineup should be included in the "current members" section of the infobox"?

Fallacious argument, the section is entitled "current members", not "major members", the two are not synonymous. There is no difference between Paul McCartney and Pete Best in that respect, nor is there a difference between Dave Grohl and Dale Crover in that respect. I'm not arguing with the fact that there obviously has been a consensus here (although I've yet to see a discussion where a majority stood for the inclusion of the classic lineup as current members) and I'm not suggesting to make alterations that go against said consensus, nor did I assert that the guidelines give the users the leeway to make such decisions. Those are clear straw men. However I am entitled to ask for justification for such actions (although I suspect that there is none, this topic was posted purely to discover if I was wrong), as all wikipedian's should have the right to question any false information on wikipedia, afterall, it is an encyclopedia, and flaws such as the ones shown on the page are an example of things that are wrong with wikipedia. Burbridge92 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at and you're right, it is entirely fallacious. I don't suspect there is a reason that would make sense to you regarding this, maybe there is, maybe someone will comment on this with it. However, you are right to leave it alone. Editing wars are pointless and entirely futile, and there is a consensus. It is what it is. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was merely trying to discover if there was a reason that made logical sense with what the section was about. I'll check occasionally over the coming months to see if anything else is stated. Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You ar not "merely" trying to do anything, you come in here screaming about fallacious arguments, straw men, and allegedly false information. I pointed out what a guideline is. I pointed out what the relevant guideline says about exceptions. That you not like those answers is not my problem. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

why do people say that its a violation to change the style to grunge, they are a grunge band so i'm not doing anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggerboman46 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

genre

shouldn't hardcore punk and noise rock be added if Bleach was — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.226 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Bleach was neither of those things: it was a grunge album in the purest sense of the term. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind as "one of the most successful rock albums of all time"

User:ShizlGzngar is pretty insistent about amending the sentence "After signing to major label DGC Records, Nirvana found unexpected success with "Smells Like Teen Spirit", the first single from the band's second album Nevermind (1991)" in the lead section with "which has since been widely credited as one of the most successful rock albums of all time". Now this presents a few problems. The more mundane one is that its insertion isn't well-placed. Given the follow-up sentence is "Nirvana's sudden success widely popularized alternative rock as a whole, and as the band's frontman Cobain found himself referred to in the media as the "spokesman of a generation", with Nirvana being considered the "flagship band" of Generation X.[1]", the insertion comes off as very jarring. More importantly, it's a debatable fact (what does most successful mean in this context?) and certainly not "widely credited" (I've read plenty of Nirvana sources over the years to know), and given the statement it stands out that it's never again addressed outside of the lead, making it come off as a mere superficial addition. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "one of the most successful rock albums of the 90's" is a better statement. It has sold 30 million worldwide. But I believe Metallica's Black album which also came out in 1991 has sold more. And at one point Pearl Jam's album "10" had outsold Nevermind but has Nevermind re-taken the lead over "10" with the 30 million mark ? Maybe I am going into sales to much but Nevermind is definitely one of the most successful rock albums of the 90's. If you look at "of all time" then in other decades there are many other rock albums which have been just as successful but I suppose Nevermind still ranks among the best of them.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I myself don't feel it's a very illuminating statement to feature in the lead. As you point out (and I pointed out to ShizlGzngar), it certainly sold a lot, but lots of other records have outsold it, before and after. The placement of the statement is ill-considered, too. I think the lead as it is concisely explains the album's impact and--most importantly for the subject of this article--explains why this album is relevant to Nirvana. In the context of this article's lead section, it feels like an awful lot of puffing-up insert for an album that's already summarized as important to the band's career. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For such a sentence to be included, there would have to be more than one reliable source that credited it as "one of the most successful rock albums of all time." However, the BBC source provided by ShizlGzngar before did not state support the statement. The NovaFM site does support this but, again, this is the opinion of one website. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the important aspects of the article and this statement that is constantly being added is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I agree, the statement is unnecessary and (as WesleyDodds said) ill-placed considering the follow-up sentence. HrZ (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

timeline

we should make a timeline. i try to make one but im not really good with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leer5454 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I made one a while back but someone deleted it... 82.24.144.215 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A timeline is superfluous. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I like timelines. I understand that Kurt and Krist's lines will be all the way across, but I think that it will show the patterns for the drummers, which could interesting. You could see how long someone was actually involved, graphically. Perhaps even through in "touring guitarist" to get the full idea. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.35.254 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How does it convey the information about how long a band member was with the band in a way that prose does not? Because I see no difference aside from one having a graphic. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain was the lead guitarist

Ok I added lead guitar to Kurts band member list because the man not only identified himself as the lead guitarist (as seen in the video link I provided at the end) and by live preformances and studio work all the lead guitar parts are done by Kurt. Now everytime it is added it gets deleted and now I'm "in trouble" for adding it. Unless someone can give me a good reason I am going to change it back. Now the part in the video he states he plays lead begins at 1:31

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCbtRMz0ADY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinchair3 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

For most of Nirvana's existence, he was the sole guitarist. Also in that video he says he "still likes playing leads sometimes" (paraphrased). It's not him saying "I'm the lead guitarist in Nirvana". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WesleyDodds But he wasen't the sole guitarist. For their first album Jason Everman was the rhythm guitarist then Pat Smear came around and then the band ended. I wont argue with Kurt being listed as just guitar as long as the other two are listed as rhythm guitar. If Wikipedia is going to be totally accurate it needs to let people know that one guy does lead guitar and one does rhythm. Its just lazy to put guitar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, Jason Everman didn't actually play on Bleach. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WesleyDodds In a situation where there is more then one guitarist we need to say which took which role and Kurt always played the lead guitar parts. Look at any live video or anything Pat Smear never played lead anything. Just because Kurt was the only official guitarist through most of their exsistence they had a live member so we need to say who does what. It is lazy to say just guitar and it leads to potential confusion because some might not know anything about the band and believe something untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatguyinchair3 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, exactly, do we need to say that someone was a lead guitarist? This just seems to be an attempt to pigeon-hole a band into a paradigm that doesn't fit it. Nirvana, absent a reliable source to the contrary, doesn't have a "lead" guitarist. Achowat (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of rigid "everyone has a set role" mindset of classic rock, not alt/indie. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Achowat (talk) Ok I give up if you wish this page to be lazy and inaccurate then I won't contest anymore. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't care if people become misinformed. Shows what people say about it are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But people aren't being misinformed . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)