Talk:Nirvana (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Featured article star 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.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 19, 2006.
Other languages 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 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 included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
ChrisB (contributions)
Archive

Archives

Archive 1:
Feb 2002 - Jun 2006 Archive 2:
Jun 2006 - Dec 2006

Contents

[edit] Suicide??

As I recogniesed, that there is a new Nirvana article on Wikipedia, I just had to rush through, and I realy like it. But i don't think it should be quotet as a perfekt article, as there is to less information about Cobain's suicide. It would be great, if this was changed, otherwise I'll do it myself. Thanks gott 12:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)gott

[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)

Ok, here's my 0.02€; Y'know, it's kinda funny. The discussion so far has been about, what, legal issues, contractual agreements, promotional material, official statements, company partnerships and whatnot. Having played in bands for some 20 years I have never, ever entered into any legally binding partnerships, signing contracts and agreements to be considered "a member of the band". If I played in the band and I toured with them and I played on recordings and appeared on photographs and such, then yes, I was a member. Not once have we had to resort to legal council to determine whether we are "members of the band" or not. There seems to be some kind of dichotomy regarding what Nirvana (the band) is, vis-a-vis what Nirvana, LLC (the company managing Nirvana's assets) is. If you think that Nirvana is a legal term, then Courtney Love is a member of Nirvana, and (strangely) Kurt Cobain is not. Interestingly enough, if one follows this train of logic, Kurt Cobain is actually a "former member". It might come as a shock to many people, but Cobain is not an active member anymore, due to unfortunate and widely published circumstances. To not even mention Pat Smear (and not even Jason Everman, fer-christs-sakes) in the Nirvana roster only displays ignorance of monumental proportions. Smear played on tours, played on multiple recordings, participated in photo shoots, promotional packages, videos, the lot, but he's not a member of Nirvana? Whereas, for instance, Dan Peters, who played on one recording and is known to have played one single gig, is? The same goes for Jason Everman. I mean, the guy played on multiple gigs, even a tour, is featured on recordings, videos, and promo shoots, the cover of Bleach(!), even mentioned as a member(!!) on said album, and he is not a past member? C'mon, perhaps some of you guys should soberly examine your understanding of what it means to "be a member of a band". I'm not re-inserting misters Everman and Smear, but I'm seriously questioning the veracity and disposition of some participants in this conversation. The day we have to ask lawyers who's a member of a band and who's not, is a sad, sad day for the music world. As said, this is only my 0.02€. --Tirolion 09:30, 25 February 2007 (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)

It is most definitely a cover. Kurt was first introduced to the song by Mark Lanegan, and his version was certainly inspired by Leadbelly. Kurt played guitar on Lanegan's cover, so had presumably heard the Leadbelly version, and Leadbelly is credited as the writer in the liner notes of Nirvana. Anyhoo, it was not inspired by a stay at any hotel, anywhere.

As with a much of Lanegan's material Where Did You Sleep Last Night is reworked from a traditional song. The music and lyrics were unchanged for the Nirvana version. The Lanegan version was a demo from a failed side-project featuring Mark Lanegan and Mark Pickerel of the Screaming Trees and Kurt Cobain and Krist Novoselic of Nirvana (vocals, drums, guitar/vocals and bass respectively) which was recorded prior to Nevermind when the Trees were the better known band. The session was significant in several respects - for example the subsequent meeting between Mark Lanegan and Dave Grohl (Kurt decided to introduce his new drummer to a singer he very much admired) paved the way for the pair to join Queens of the Stone Age in 2002.*smb 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Rock

Nirvana isnt just a punk band but Punk should be added to there list of genres, on Bleach the only songs that dont have a punk sound are About A Girl & Sifting, The Incesticide album has a bunch of Punk sounding tunes, On Nevermind Territoral Pissings & Breed are very punk sounding while the rest of the album is grunge.

Punk should be mentioned as a Genre of Nirvana, and if people say that grunge is a genre of music thats infleunced highly by punk and that Punk doesnt need to be mentioned then alt rock shouldnt be mentioned because grunge is a sub genre of alt rock.

Oh Yea and if any real hardcore fans say that Nirvana is to popy to be punk then need to listen Bleach & In Utero then ask themselves whats more Punk I wanna be your Boyfreind or Downer?


I know I am just adding this ann. but kurt Called the Band a Punk band too.

[edit] NO ALTERNATIVE

There's no mention of Nirvana's colaboration to this record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Alternative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ViccoLizcano (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Consisted of..."

Reverted edit in italics:

Nirvana was a popular American rock band originating from Aberdeen, Washington which consisted of lead vocalst/guitarist Kurt Cobain, bassist Krist Novoselic, and drummer Dave Grohl.

The added content makes the sentence false. The main problem is that since the band is defunct, the sentence needs to be past tense. In the past tense, "consisted" becomes false, given that the band also consisted of Chad Channing, Dale Crover, etc. Additionally, the Nirvana that originated from Aberdeen did not consist of Grohl, making that specific sentence false as written.

At the same time, adding this content does not improve the article. The band members are already listed notably in the article and in the infobox. The only way to include the above addition would be to add a POV qualifier, such as "during it's popular run...", which, again, doesn't really improve the article.

But, simply, there's no need to add it. Even the article for the Beatles doesn't list John, Paul, George, and Ringo in the introduction. Pink Floyd doesn't identify its members, either.

"Consisted of" would be fine if the band had been Cobain, Novoselic, and Grohl for its entire run. But that's not the case. -- ChrisB 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Geffen/DGC

Can we clear up this whole thing between Geffen and/or DGC as the record label, and lay down why we wanna stick with what before it erupts into an edit war? -- Reaper X 22:10, 5 February 2007 (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)
I made one today, but now it's deleted. I'll try again now, but I'm not going to do it again if it gets deleted again
We don't need charts. And to answer the two-month old post - the infobox template was altered to allow for "Members" to just be "Members" and not specifically "Current Members", though the variable is still listed as such. (The original artist infobox contained the same.) -- ChrisB 21:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? It's a lot less confusing with charts, you can see who which members came before which and stuff like that
A chart would be absolute overkill for a band like Nirvana. We would essentially be listing Cobain and Novoselic's names over and over again. Since nearly all of the lineup changes were in drummers, why make a completely redundant list when you can simply cite the order of the drummers? I wouldn't personally object to adding months to the existing dates to the existing list in order to clarify their order, but a chart would be completely and totally unnecessary. -- ChrisB 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
^Now that is the best idea so far —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.196.182.194 (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
I've made a new one that works more along the lines of what you said. Please tell me what you think of it before deleting it this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.186.60 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
This isn't even close to what anyone suggested. What I suggested was adding the months of the drummers' terms in the band to the existing lists.
Look, we do not need these kinds of charts here. AT ALL. All you're doing is taking existing information and packaging it a different way. I would readily argue that not only do these charts not supply information in a more useful manner, they make it that much more difficult to obtain the information. It takes what's already accomplished in eight lines and span it across the height of two pages.
Nirvana is not the kind of band that needs charts like these. There were not enough iterations of the band and not enough personnel to warrant something this extensive. -- ChrisB 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I get your point. Just wanted to try another idea. But anyway, what I meant by being more along the lines of what you suggested was having it listed so it wouldn't be such an overkill and wouldn't end up repeating Kurt and Krist's names over and over again. But if you sound pretty serious about this, so I won't bother to say anything else
The months need to be added though, so that (even in the absence of a table, which would be overkill here) folks can work out the chronology for themselves at a glance. --kingboyk 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Everman - who is apparently credited as a member on the sleeve of Bleach - listed as a guest, and Peters - who played on one single - listed as an official member? Who's deciding on member vs guest and what's the source(s)? --kingboyk 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

someone put a picture of the microsoft staff in the article. thats not right.

Already fixed, along with many other acts of vandalism they did. -- Borameer ™ 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title change straw poll

I recognize the title at present is incorrect as it should be (US band), not (American band). The title of the article needs to be changed and clearly decided on to meet the Naming conventions of Wikipedia. As there is a UK band of the same name, a disambiguation between the two are nessecary. Nirvana (band) isn't clearly disambiguated enough to identify that there are two bands by the name of Nirvana, and this is my reason for!voting for Nirvana (US band). I have started a straw poll below to determine consensus among ourselves. And please don't straight vote, please for the sake of consensus discuss it. — Moe 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For Nirvana (US band)

  • See above. — Moe 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For Nirvana (band)

  • Shouldn't this have been discussed before rather than after? This became a FA and went on the main page under the Nirvana (band) title. --W.marsh 07:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I apologize, so could you state why it should be at Nirvana (band)? — Moe 07:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is what I mean... "act then discuss" on controversial issues is a nice way to unnaturally put people on the defensive. Like I said, it was the established name and confirmed by some of the strictest review possible. That alone counts for a lot. To people who listen to music, the Kurt Cobain-fronted Nirvana is the one that pops to mind when people say "the band Nirvana". I guess it really doesn't matter and on a technical level you might even be right, but the preemptive move just bugged me. --W.marsh 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said, sorry, I shouldn't have done this. That's pretty much my argument for, the technical level of this. Of course Nirvana the American band blows the UK band out of the water in a popularity contest, but that really doesn't matter on Wikipedia. The "strictest" review probably doesn't review the names of titles very often, and this discussion hasn't been had in a little while, so it's a reason to overlook it. And the preemptiveness is what Moe's boldness is about. — Moe 07:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That's where you're wrong. Articles should live where readers expect to find them. Nirvana (band) is Cobain's crew to most people, including me, and I say this as both a Brit and a bit of a music buff.
  • Bold, revert, discuss is the truest implementation of WP:BOLD so I'll carry out part 2 now. --kingboyk 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Article titles are based on notability. (For example, there are many Kevin Smiths, but the director gets a disambiguation-free title because he is significantly more notable than the others.) The notability between the US and UK bands is not even close. The expectation when someone types in "Nirvana (band)" is that they're looking for the Seattle band. The very few who aren't are properly pointed in the direction of the correct article. This is absolutely how the disambiguation process is intended to function, and worked quite appropriately before and without this move. (I fervently believe that the UK band does not deserve to be included in the top disambiguation of Nirvana - the only reason that the US band is included there is because of the high expectation of people hitting that article in search of the US band.) And, as noted already, Nirvana (band) survived countless discussions, including the FA process. A move of this degree should not be taken lightly, and should only be made if it's absolutely necessary. (And I would readily argue that it is not.) At present, nearly 2500 articles link to Nirvana (band) - a move of that magnitude would have to be handled by bot (unless you really intended to manually change all of the links.) -- ChrisB 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I can see this from both sides. Is the US band more popular currently than the UK band? Of course - not even close. Is the US band more "notable"? Yes. Are those the SOLE criteria for whether the Seattle band should have the suffix "band" rather than "American band" (or "US band") in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure. ChrisB (whose expertise on the Seattle band I recognize and commend) raises the example of Kevin Smith. But that analogy is not apposite. The other Kevin Smiths listed on that disambiguation page are not in the same sphere of work. If there were two Kevin Smiths who were BOTH filmmakers - how would that be decided? Only notability or popularity? Doesn't chronology or geography play any role?

Take the example of Bill O'Reilly. On that basis - the name would go straight to the article about the US TV commentator. He is easily the most notable today. More casual readers are looking for him. But it doesn't. It goes to a disambiguation page. Because there was a PRIOR Bill O'Reilly who was notable IN HIS DAY. An Australian cricketer and broadcaster. The US TV commentator has become far MORE notable - but he was not at all notable - he was not even remotely known - prior to his becoming prominent on US TV as a perfomer. By far the vast majority of people who use Wikipedia today are probably looking for an article about the US TV commentator. But after several discussions it was determined that CURRENT notability and popularity as evidenced by Google results etc - should not be the sole determinative factor. Chronology of notability came into play.

Assume for the purposes of semi-academic argument that the internet and wikipedia were around at some point prior to 1987. Say at any point between 1967 and 1987. In that circumstance - the UK band - which enjoyed a minor cult status and had a reputation for having released one of the first narrative concept albums (in 1967) - would have had an article titled Nirvana (band) - to distinguish itself from the Hindu concept. Once the Seattle band had achieved some notoriety - say by 1989 - it would have warranted its own article. And that article would have been titled "Nirvana (US band)." The article would not have been able to claim the "Nirvana (band)" article title. By 1991 that band had enormous success (which certainly eclipsed the notability of the UK band). At THAT point - would we have turned round and said - "you know this Seattle band is now definitely better known than the UK band - so let's give the SEATTLE band the "Nirvana (band)" article title - and rename the original article "Nirvana (UK band)"?

I don't think so. Suppose there had been an article about the UK band (which started in 1967) written on Wikipedia prior to the witing of the article about the Seattle band (which did NOT happen.) Same situation. So the question is not about the unquestioned popularity and far greater notability of the Seattle band. But the desirability of Wikipedia being an historically accurate encyclopedia in which disambiguation takes some heed of chronology, logic and geography as well as popularity and popular association. Otherwise "Madonna" would go direct to the entertainer - not the disambiguation page.

I stress one more time. I am not remotely challenging the greater popularity and notability of the US band. (I'm a big fan myself!) But I'm asking us to debate whether those criteria shoud trump chronology, history and geography? Are there other similar situations on Wikipedia we can examine? Davidpatrick 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Album titles and band names suggests that in the case where there are 2 bands of the same name futher disambiguation should be used, giving the example of X (US band), and X (Australian band). Having said that though, in this case there isn't the same difference in notability. M A Mason 18:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] extraneous comment

I do not think this artice stresses the bands massive influence on people. I witnessed the song tean spirit, and it has affected my whole life. I imagine it has had a massive influence on all bands since then and now and this is not stated, by all acounts the band was guineous but we get mearly influential, that is a gross miss understatment of this band.

(the above unsigned comment was added by a new user - Williammoran 6 March 2007)

Not everyone thinks they were geniuses - I myself, for example, do not consider them highly talented musicians. However, their influence is undoubtable, as many bands labelled "Grunge" and "Alternative" today draw heavy influences from them. While not everyone would consider them geniuses, it is beyond doubt that they have had tremendous impact on the genre. Arkyopterix 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use issue: Album cover images

I believe that for fair use, you can only use one album cover image per Wikipedia article. This article has used three. How come? AppleJuggler 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only article to have multiple album covers on 1 article,The Velvet Underground,Green Day,Dead Kennedys, and others. Not too mention discography articles which are nothing but covers. You may be right however, does wikipedia have a policy guide on this or can you point out where in fair use it says this? Case 22:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects on Grunge

I think something should be said on how Nirvana revolutionized and changed the Grunge genre, and how many bands were influenced.

Excuse me if this is already stated.

Sergeant K 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Sergeant K

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/r/Talk%7ENirvana_%28band%29_001b.html"