Talk:Nirvana (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip to Table of Contents

Nirvana (band) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Nirvana (band) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 19, 2006.

Nirvana (band) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

WikiProject Echo has identified Nirvana (band) as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Nirvana (band) is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help: ChrisB (contributions)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Archives
Archive 1: Feb 2002 - Jun 2006 Archive 2: Jun 2006 - Oct 2006

Contents 1 Wishkah 2 Month and year they became Nirvana 3 Couple of things 4 Curious changes 5 Love Buzz 6 Members / Former members 7 Minor Vandalism 8 Is or Was 9 Pat Smear 10 "Big" John Duncan 11 Requested protection in Wikipedia:requests for page protection 12 hereisnirvana 13 Cobain's Last Days 14 Move 15 Sourced material 16 Associated Acts 17 Trivia

[edit] Wishkah

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

[edit] Month and year they became Nirvana

Two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Couple of things

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Curious changes

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

[edit] Love Buzz

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Members / Former members

That split is normally used to show current members, but that isn't right here. -- Beardo 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, we should include a table or a timeline to show all members and not the members/former members format. Ravenousjh 15:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Is or Was

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pat Smear

Pat was a regular member of the band, this is common knowledge. He was given the YKYR demo to work on his guitar parts and was in numerous photo shoots with the band. He is not given credit in any Nirvana posthumous releases because they never recorded an album with Pat but he was still a member.

Pat Smear was a real member of the band, not a past member. He was with them until the end, and Kurt Cobai, did give him a copy of the YKYR demo so he could add his guitar parts to it later. Please keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.37.142 (talk • contribs).

I beg to differ. Does he get any credit on albums?! --Reaper X 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

He was in photo shoots, he was a good friend of Kurt Cobain, he did demos with Kurt. And yes he does have credits. Get the Sliver best of the box set, he has credits on Do Re Mi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.37.142 (talk • contribs).

Kurt considered Pat to be a full member of the band, and as someone else stated, He was given a copy of the 1/94 session so that he could work out his guitar parts. He has no album credits because (this may come as a shock) the band only had one recording session during the time that he was in the band. Whether you personally consider him a full member is irrelevant; Kurt did, and Pat would most certainly have played on any subsequent albums had there been any. Stop removing him from the list of members, because we will continue to restore the information. 68.124.66.255 01:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Give us the source of your claim, and there will be no argument with "you guys". --Reaper X 02:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Open the liner notes of any posthumous Nirvana release and see what they say as far as who "is" Nirvana. Cobain, Novoselic, Grohl. PERIOD. Even if Smear helped Cobain on "Do Re Mi", he was never officially a member of a band (and would not need to be in order to help him with the song). Everman was also "considered" a member of the band - he was considered a "touring guitarist", which is precisely the role that Smear played. Even if Cobain intended to eventually include Smear as a full-fledged member (which is unproven and unsourced), that action NEVER took place. -- ChrisB 03:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

i think smear was a member of the band. it's just he joined after all records were recorded. that's why his name doesn't appear on them. just because his name doesn't appear on the records, doesn't mean he wasn't a member of the band. if nirvana had continued, smear probably would have played on the next record

He played on the SNL appearance and Unplugged album. Seems like a member to me. Plus the Pat Smear page says as much. BabuBhatt 17:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems all so silly. I generally think of Nirvana consisting of Cobain, Novoselic and Grohl. From the facts I have had presented to me, it doesn't seem like Smear is a full-on member. Smear's SNL And Unplugged album performances are live, making his eligible for the rank of touring member. He has credit on one song, "Do Re Mi", which is an early demo.

Yet my fellow Nirvana fanatic tells me otherwise, saying he was a part of the band, an actual fourth member some time before Kurt died; if Nirvan released another album he would have contributed. I'd check it out but, go figure, he doesn't remember where he had heard it from. Could somone look into this so we can end this silly arguement? --Reaper X 19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go...

...and this is our new guitar player Pat. --Cobain

Said in this video. MTV Unplugged in New York, behind the scenes. Someone please properly reference it. --Reaper X 20:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the interview Pat says how he was asked to become a member of the band and how Kurt always said Nirvana needed a forth member. Pat was also given demos so he could add his guitar parts. That is concrete proof right there that he was considered a full time member of the band. Just because they never recorded another album doesn't mean hes not a member. Kurt Cobain considered him a member just like Krist and Dave. Also Pat appeared in numerous promo pics for the band. It is accepted universally among the Nirvana community that Pat WAS a member of the band and NOT just a touring guitaristMiamiballer2k5 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, no, it is absolutely not universal among the Nirvana community that Smear was an official member of the band. Do a search for "Pat Smear" and "official member" on Google, and you'll find a number of threads where people have discussed this very topic. (Hit Google Groups for more.)

Here's the problem: if Smear never signed documents officially making him part of Nirvana, then he was not officially a member of Nirvana. It's not as simple as "we think of him as a member". Major label bands like Nirvana are business entities and have contracts that control them. When a major label band fires a member, they have to go through a lengthy legal process to remove them as a member of the band. Same thing when they add a member.

EVERY INDICATION is that Smear was never OFFICIALLY added as a member of the band. It doesn't matter if they thought of him as a member of the band, and if they introduced him as "our new guitar player". It doesn't matter if he appeared in promotional pictures (and he regularly did not). (Smear was already with the band when the photo for the January 94 cover article of Rolling Stone was taken. It's the same picture used on the cover of With the Lights Out. The band picture inside the article includes Smear, but also includes Lori Goldston.)

Any source used to support the case for Smear as an official member MUST answer questions like this:

1. Why has he NEVER been listed as an official member of the band in ANY Nirvana release?
2. Why is he specifically listed as "2nd Guitar" on "Jesus Wants Me for a Sunbeam" on With the Lights Out?

If someone can find a SPECIFIC source that says that Smear signed the papers and was an official member of the band, then I would have absolutely no objection. But every indication is that the papers were never signed - that he would have been made an official member of the band had Kurt survived. And if that's the case, then he's not an official member of the band - it's not the intention, it's whether it actually happened. -- ChrisB 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's completely asinine; the moment that you start discussing legal paperwork is the moment that you concede that you're in no real position to discuss Nirvana. To make the argument that legal documents define Nirvana more than the actual members of the band is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and runs completely to the contrary of the band's ideals.The Opressed One 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The band's ideals never extended to how their online encyclopedia article would look, and how it was created, 12 years after the band broke up. BabuBhatt 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Had Nirvana been around long enough to record a fourth album, which was in the begininngs in early 1994, Smear would most definately played on it. I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge him as a member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.9.77.40 (talk • contribs).

I don't doubt that he would have played on it. But he didn't appear on ANY studio recordings. Not one.

So was Melora Craeger a member of the band? What about Lori Goldston? What separates band members from touring members if it's not the legal definitions? Goldston meets every attempted definition of "band member" that's been bandied about here: she played on Unplugged, she appeared in promotional photographs, etc.

And, if Smear was an official member of Nirvana, why does Kurt spend the entire RS cover story (January 1994) describing Nirvana as "Krist, Dave, and I"? And I'd still love an answer as to why Smear was never credited as a member of Nirvana on any Nirvana release including the ones he plays on.

If it's so blatantly obvious that Smear was an official member of Nirvana, why can nobody answer these questions?

I'm categorically not saying that touring members aren't members of Nirvana. I'm simply saying that touring members (including Smear) do not and should not have equal billing to Dave, Krist, and Kurt. -- ChrisB 04:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Taking into account the actual history of the band, the trio are the known members who will go down in history. All others should be in former members or touring members categories. BabuBhatt 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Big" John Duncan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Requested protection in Wikipedia:requests for page protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I think this is the kind of shit that we wanted to stop. Those occured from the 22^nd to the 24^th. It seemed fit to semi-protect it to me. Just until the vandalism rate cools off a little eh? Featuring this article on the main page attracted the vandals like a magnet. --Reaper X 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hereisnirvana

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

[edit] Cobain's Last Days

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

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

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

Illharmonics00

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

I think most reasonable people can see the link:

Main article: Kurt Cobain#Cobain's final weeks

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

[edit] Move

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

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

[edit] Sourced material

In the days before the Reading performance the band stayed at The Pines Hotel, Chippenham, Wiltshire, which was to be the inspiration behind the song "Where Did You Sleep Last Night", included in the MTV Unplugged album.

Can someone source this? Because "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" was a cover. As the Wikipedia article on the song notes, the original author is unknown (although I believe I remember reading in "Come As You Are" that Nirvana's version was inspired by Leadbelly. I may be wrong, so I'll try and double check that) Anyway, at best the article makes it sound as if it was an original song. Just a suggestion. Levid37 02:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated Acts

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

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

[edit] Trivia

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

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

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