Talk:Nevermind/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why isn't the text wrapping around the album cover? Tuf-Kat

Who says it isn't? It looks fine to me. --Paul A

What many people don't realise or speak out openly about is the fact that Nevermind is also a masterpiece of minimalist sonic abrasiveness, raw and bleeding but bandaged up with beautiful, pink, pop melody band-aids, all presented in a highly conceptualised and fully realised package of submerged truths and earnest confessions.


"I swear that I don't have a gun" - Kurt Cobain,1967-1994

Contents

[edit] Chronology

I think the next album in the chronology should be Incesticide, as Hormoaning was only an EP, and a Japanese-only one at that --Surachit 22:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong

Hormoaning was also released in Australia. It was included in both the Australian and Japanese Album charts, so therefore it can be classed as an album. If EP's sell enough they will either be included on albums or singles charts depending on how many tracks are included. EP's are classed as 4 to 8 tracks. 6 or more tracks it will be included in the album charts, 5 or less it will be included in the singles charts. There has never been any charts for just EP's.

[edit] Rolling Stone rank

I think it is simply balls irrelevant whether the Rolling Stone magazine ranked 'Nevermind' as the 17th best album...

[edit] Exposed Genitals

I find it rather odd that the kid's penis is sticking out, and nobody mentioned it or wrote something about criticism received from people. Maybe nobody criticized. Just wondering.

It is mentioned in the article - the sticker part. Also, the Classic Album-Nevermind DVD said music stores were asked to completely remove the big windows adverts or cover the babys genitals. Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe cross reference with the Rape Me/Waif Me cencorship of Wallmart? Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Rock

I added punk rock to the list of genres because if you listen to the non-singles tracks of the album, the majority of them sound like nothing other than punk rock. "Territorial Pissings", "On A Plain", "Stay Away", "Drain You", "Lounge Act", and "Breed" all have enough punk influence to catagorize the album as at least somewhat punk rock, in my opinion. Feedback please. - Razorhead 16 August 2006 3:46 AM PST

I agree, I actually think their more "punk" than "grunge," coincidentally I was just reading this a few hours ago: --Surachit 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Grunge, as we came to know it through MTV and commercial alternative radio, consisted of craggy and/or heavily reverbed, jangly guitars ... Where do Nirvana fit into this legacy?
Well, maybe they don't. With all the facts laid out, Nirvana begins to look much more like a plain old punk band that happened to exist at the heart of a cultural movement they wanted nothing to do with."

--Surachit 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana is in many ways the definitive alternative rock band. The thing is alt-rock evolved out of punk rock, so there will still be some stylistic similiarites. But it's a misnomer to list their genre as punk rock. WesleyDodds 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is first and foremost an alternative rock record, but I think there is enough punk on it for it to qualify as punk rock as well. - Razorhead 12:52 AM PST 18 August 2006
But that's not our job. We don't classify things ourselves. It's ultimately classified as alternative rock, or more specifically, grunge. WesleyDodds 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm going to wait for input besides your's, if there is any, before I completely rule out the possibility of Nevermind being labelled a punk rock album Razorhead 3:55 AM PST 18 August 2006
I think you're somewhat missing the point. It's ok for you personally to think it's a punk rock album; that's your opinion, after all. But when it comes to reliable sources that we can cite (such as Allmusic.com and so forth) they don't classify it as one. And that means we can't label it as one, or else it would be original research. I mean, a lot of underground bands in the 80s considered themselves "punk"; that doesn't mean they didn't create a new sound. And anyways, why do we need to list three genres on an album page infobox? I say we just list grunge (like all the other Nirvana albums do) and be done with it. WesleyDodds 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you convinced me actually. You're right, I was basing it on my and a fair amoun t of other people's beliefs, but honestly you're right, not enough reliable sources say it is a punk album for it to qualify officially as one. But in my mind, it is definetely a punk album, but I'll keep my opinion out of genre classifications on wikipedia. - Razorhead

[edit] Happy 15th Birthday

Yes, it was 15 years ago today that Nevermind was released. The face of rock music hasn't been the same since. Thank God. NIRVANA2764 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nevermind's musical influence

I think there should be more about the afterwards impact on music scene of this album and also some of the names of musicians or albums influenced by NEVERMIND. Although his is considered to be the one of the best in 90's, it'd be much better to include more evidence or support to back it.211.37.49.159 07:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] censcorship

There should be a section about the censorship of the cover art in the re-release. The original has a baby being led to danger by a dollar bill with a hook. The re-release has the baby being led to safety by a dollar bill attached to a loop, which is the opposite meaning of the original. Also, the genitals have been censored.

[edit] NPOV

Much stuff here sounds very POV.. --84.249.253.201 22:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Track

If the length of the hidden track is 06:45 and the length of track 12 is 03:50, then why does it say that the hidden track brings the length of track 12 up to 20:34? That doesn't add up, last I checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.118.86.149 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The hidden track begins around ten minutes after Something in the Way, i.e. 3:50 + 10 + 6:45 = 20. --Lorenzarius 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of album

I heard it once said that the name of this album comes from Nevermind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Worth a mention, if anybody else has heard this too.23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inner sleeve

Should we include an excerpt of the lenghty "piece of poetry" (a collage of various texts and lyrics) that are found in original vynil releases?Doktor Who 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A sentence would be fine. WesleyDodds 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Pop

Can somebody explain in the article why the Nevermind release has the SubPop logo on it as well as geffen? that would be groovy.

Dunno. It's also on all of their other albums too.: --User:Lgndkllr777 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Because Nirvana was still under contract by Sub Pop when they signed with Geffen, "Then there was the matter of that darned Sub Pop contract. The then-struggling indie label receieved an initial $75,000 buyout fee, a reported two points (2 percent of sales) on the next two records, and even got the Sub Pop logo on the back cover of Nevermind." (Azerrad, 1993) --Surachit 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

You click on the Wikiquote Nevermind link and there's nothing there Speedboy Salesman 16:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the un-cited Music section

I think I have a source that could go with that section. It's Thurston Moore's review in the back of the "With the Lights Out" album booklet. He seems to describe the same thing as in the "Music" section of this article during the 6th paragraph of his review. Would this be considered a legitimate source? If we can't find a source then that section might need to be removed, but it makes a valid point so I would hate to take it out of the article. Connör (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that no one is against using that as a source, so I am citing the booklet and removing the tag. Connör (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm just wondering why this isnt at GA status... I dont see anything wrong with the article Connör (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
A number of use were working on the article but have become involved in other projects. Not quite GA status yet, but could be there with some effort. WesleyDodds 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)