Talk:Nirvana (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    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. Even so, 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.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Nirvana (band) is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
ChrisB (contributions)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week This article was a past Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week! You can view this week's collaboration, or view other past collaborations.
Archive

Archives

Archive 1:
Feb 2002 - Jun 2006 Archive 2:
Jun 2006 - Dec 2006 Archive 3:
Jan 2007 - Dec 2007


Contents

[edit] Hardcore punk?

Should hardcore punk be included in their genre list? Some of their songs use strong hardcore punk elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchey (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Belchey. I believe that metal should be added to their list, as well, because a lot of the songs on Bleach utilize Black Sabbath-esue parts. Sadly, our personal opinion does not work here on Wikipedia, so unless we have a source, our edits will be reverted almost instantly. Dark Executioner (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Metal? No... Bleach is classified as "grunge". But please feel free to try and find a source that proves otherwise. ScarianCall me Pat 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, did you hear what I said about agreeing that Nirvana should be (partially) considered hardcore punk? But anyway, here's my solution: is there an "influences" section? Because if so, we could put both hrdcore punk and early Black Sabbath as influeneces. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did hear you. There is an influences section on the Kurt Cobain article if you wish to check that out. I think we should wait for User:ChrisB's input into this discussion before trying anything majorly new. "...we could put both hrdcore [sic] and early Black Sabbath as influeneces[sic]." - Well, you'd need strong reliable sources for those suggestions, friend. ScarianCall me Pat 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Influences aren't what counts when it comes to genre - it's the genre of the music they play. Saying that Nirvana was influenced by hardcore punk doesn't mean that Bleach was a hardcore punk record. Nirvana was also influenced by pop music - that doesn't make Nirvana a pop band. (There isn't an influences section here, but the one in Cobain's article mentions Sabbath, among others.)
The overriding issue is how Nirvana's music was portrayed in journalism. If notable sources say that Nirvana was a hardcore punk band, then it wouldn't be a problem. But Nirvana was not referred to as a hardcore punk band in any consistent manner. (We've got the same problem with those who want to call them a "punk" - they were only called such by a few inconsistent sources.) -- ChrisB (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana weren't hardcore. Influenced by it, but formed after hardcore peaked, never called themselves hardcore, and had little to nothing to do directly with the genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore punk is much different than punk and grunge. Jmlk17 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've checked out the Cobain article. Sorry for causing such a rucus here, I didn't think it was going to be that big of a deal, sheesh! Dark Executioner (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MTV unplugged

"Near the end of the song, frustrated that his amp had stopped functioning, Novoselic decided to toss his bass into the air for dramatic effect. He misjudged the landing, and the bass ended up bouncing off his forehead, causing him to stumble off the stage in a daze. As Cobain trashed their equipment, Grohl ran to the mic and began yelling..."

If the bass was tossed into the air by Novoselic, why does the text say "as Cobain trashed their equipment" then?? Just a dumb question. Skolan124 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've seen the performance, Cobain and Grohl cause damage to the drum kit and the amplifiers, ergo "their equipment". ScarianCall me Pat 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see. Skolan124 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


the bass toss was not on MTV Unplugged. it was on a live, electric MTV performance. i think it was on one of the MTV Video Music Awards. can someone check? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.25.244.77 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely the 1992 MTV VMA's. Kaden Sotek (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posthumous releases section

I think the last paragraph, re Love selling 25% of the Nirvana song catalog, is insufficiently clear. Coming directly after detailed discussion of outtakes, it would appear to still be talking about recordings. However, I imagine it's talking about publishing. A tweak would probably be in order. Also, how did the other 2 guys come to have such a small percentage in the first place? The songwriting was credited to all 3 of them wasn't it? --kingboyk (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When the album came out, yes. But after "Teen Spirit" broke, Cobain demanded a significantly higher stake (75% of royalties, I believe - and sole credit for the songwriting, save "Teen Spirit"), retroactive to the release of the album. Pre-Nevermind tracks (including "Aneurysm", for example) were still split evenly - which is why Channing has a larger stake in Nirvana's publishing than Grohl does.
Cobain's demands almost broke up the band, particularly the part where it was retroactive to the release of Nevermind. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Cobain had a sole songwriting credit for most Nirvana songs before the change in royalties. The reason the whole band is credited on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Aneurysm" is because it they wrote and arranged those songs together, unlike say "In Bloom" or "Lithium", where Kurt wrote the whole thing by himself. Cobain simply doled out his songwriting royalties to the band, which wrren't much when the band started; the whole debacle was about how he wanted to change that after the band became hugely successful. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The original songwriting credit for everything on Nevermind (and all of its b-sides) was "Lyrics by Cobain / Music by Nirvana". It's printed that way in the liner notes of Nevermind and all of its singles - including, in particular, the "Lithium" single. After the deal, all of the Nevermind tracks were assigned solely to Cobain, save "Teen Spirit", which still bears the original credit. (I generally agree with your take on "Aneurysm", though it's hard to say for sure - it may have simply been left out of the deal and had already been released with the original credit on the "Teen Spirit" single.) -- ChrisB (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some of this stuff into the article? I wasn't asking for my personal benefit :), although thanks anyway! --kingboyk (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also please note my original comment about flow. Need to make clear we're talking about publishing, and not rights to the recordings. --kingboyk (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs expansion

This article needs to have an influences and styles section(s) if it is going to keep up to FA standard. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been working on it on a user page. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nirvana Sales Update

Chris B, we seem to have some differences on worldwide Nirvana sales. The artcle you state as your source for 50 million is from a Yahoo web page from Nov. 17, 2002. This article is almost 5 and a half years old and is not the best possible source for sales. This source does not include sales of Sliver: Best of the Box, With the Lights Out, and does not include sales of the Greatest hits compliation, except first weeks sales. Just in the United States alone, Nirvana have sold over 4.5 million albums since this date, according to Neilson Soundscan, which is a verifiable source. Using Soundscan, RIAA, and their worldwide counter parts, such as CRIA in Canada, one can determine an estimate for worldwide sales.

I do agree that it is impossible to get an exact figure for worldwide sales, however, over 60 million is closer to reality over an artcle five years old, especially considering the fact Nirvana has had strong catalog sales since then, once again proven by soundscan numbers. I DO have several sources I could provide you....I'm not sure how to add sources to an article so any help would be appreciated. allaplgies (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is specific: WP:OR. We have to cite a source that specifically says they've sold more than sixty to claim such in the article. People have tried to change this figure in the past, but the guidelines are clear and unequivocal. If and when a reliable source confirms that the band has sold sixty million records worldwide, we can consider changing it.
But, regardless, it's irrelevant. There is absolutely no concrete difference between saying "over fifty" and "over sixty" (and even less value in specifically pointing out that they reached "over fifty" in 2002). A difference of ten million records is meaningless once you've sold as many as fifty million. 99.99% of the people reading this article don't even notice the figure - the specifics are trivia. All we're trying to say is "they've sold a lot of records", which is the precise reason the statement is there. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris....whether something is irrelevant is up to the mind of the beholder. Many would disagree that updated sales are mere trivia. They indicate a bands continued popularity with new generations over time. I do have cited sources stating that Nirvana have sold over 60 million albums worldwide. However, you must realize that it's sometimes impossible to get just one source stating that any band has sold a certain amount worldwide. In Nirvana's case, one could cite published sales data from worldwide sales organizations such as the RIAA in America, CRIA in Canada, and ARIA in Australia just to name a few. By adding up these documented sources, one can arrive at Nirvana's 60 million figure. The Neilson Soundscan company, which measures album sales in the U.S., lists that Nirvana have sold 4.5 million in the U.S. alone since 2002. I can revise the sentence with a verifiable source if you think it would be relevant. Would it? I do rememeber seeing a 2006 documented source that did list Nirvana as selling over 60 million worldwide. Thanks for your response.allaplgies (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is to note popularity (ie, that they've sold more than fifty million albums), so the detail is irrelevant. Fifty million is an obvious demarcation line in terms of sales, and all we're saying is that they've crossed it. It's not there to be an updated sales figure. Updated sales figures go elsewhere.
BTW - changing it from fifty to sixty says nothing about the band's "continuing popularity".
It's so unimportant a statistic that we could strike the entire sentence and it wouldn't hinder the article in the slightest.
The rest of your argument is flawed. No, we cannot use RIAA, CRIA, or ARIA sources because those organizations don't track sales. They track shipments. Shipments aren't sales, and the stat we have is sales. And your Soundscan statment doesn't buy you ten million - it only buys you 4.5 million.
And, either way, it doesn't matter, as WP:OR specifically bans us from cobbling sources together to come up with a figure, particularly when those figures cannot be independently verified - and especially when our existing figure serves our purposes perfectly.
But, again, this whole argument is MEANINGLESS. Sixty million is no more factually accurate than fifty million for the reason already stated: sixty is "over fifty". Even Wikipedia doesn't track sixty: look at their Best selling music artists page and see how they're oriented.
If you can find said published article, fine - post it here and we'll talk about it.
But, again, IT'S IRRELEVANT. We're not trying to put an updated sales figure in the intro: all we're trying to say is that they've sold a ton of records. And padding that by ten buys us NOTHING. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, published sources, as required by wikipedia, are not always accurate either, especially from websites. In the case of your source from 2002, it is accurate, because the author researched his sales numbers directly from a Universal Music press statement. However, many web site sources that are published, even by established companies, do contain errors. As a teacher, I can tell you that Wikipedia itself is not allowed in the school district where I teach because this website as a whole is considered unreliable, even though many aspects of it are good.allaplgies (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why you even wrote this. It doesn't help your argument at all, since you readily confirmed that our original source was correct. By this argument, we should keep fifty million, since it's confirmable. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok Chris...three points I will make then I will drop this argument:

1. Thank you for having the intellectual debate. Too many people here use insults and rudeness to get their point across. You have been generally academic and as an educator I appreciate that. One question I have....who is the ultimate decider of what is correct on this web page dealing with Nirvana? Is it just you or do a group of academic professionals approve all final writings here? I think that is the problem most school districts have with this site, no one knows who is in charge and their credentials. This is in no way an insult to your academic integrity. Most written encyclopedias will have several academic professionals decide if a source is relevant or not.

2. You actually CONVINCED ME me of your argument about the 50 million just being an indicator of overall success, and its not necessary to include the latest data on sales....although I think there will be some who view that sentence and will not make that distinction. I did find that website by the way referencing 60 million, but since you deem it not necessary I will not change your sentence.

3. You are right...RIAA counts shipments while Soundscan counts cash register sales. However, I have always viewed the RIAA as being a more accurate source...as Soundscan does not count sales from music clubs, Big Box retail stores such as Walmart, some online stores, and many smaller retail stores. Soundscan was also new when many Nirvana albums were released. While Soundscan is more accurate today, it was not so during the 1990's when many Nirvana albums were released.

allaplgies (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1) For the most part, it's self-appointed "experts". There are probably three or four "regulars" on this particular page who vet additions to make sure that published sources support them. The goal as far as WP:OR is concerned is that it allows us not to be concerned with our own accuracy - so long as outside sources can be confirmed as reliable and verifiable, then our content should be at least as accurate. There's also administrative vetting by the Wikipedia community: this article was reviewed a couple of years ago and deemed a "Featured Article". However, that's less about content and more about confirming that sources were used to write the article and the writing meets a journalistic level.
To some degree, I agree with many educators deciding to prevent use of Wikipedia as a primary source. To be honest, by its own design, it's a secondary source. But, as a secondary source, I think it's incredibly useful - at least as a stepping stone to further research on a topic. If the article has been written up to appropriate standards, it should have a list of references at the bottom that would be a perfect second step for anyone writing an article on a subject.
It really comes down to certain topics. This one is relatively safe, as most of Nirvana's history is uncontroversial - it follows a specific path of highlights. (Cobain's article is the opposite, particularly given the forceful opinions about his death.) In the case of less notable topics, Wiki articles can be a mess. I mostly work on music articles, and many of the album pages on Wikipedia are appallingly bad (if they contain any content at all) - more often than not, the article is the equivalent of someone writing a review for their college newspaper.
3) The only problem with using the RIAA numbers for sales is that they don't split out shipments that are sitting in warehouses or on store shelves. It's a little bit less of an issue now, as the big chain stores hold fewer copies in storage than they used to, but it's been a problem. One example was Britney Spears' third album. Her label shipped four million copies for day-of-release, and the RIAA certified it four-times-platinum shortly thereafter. But it didn't come close to selling that many copies in the weeks after its release. On the RIAA numbers alone, it'd be impossible to even guess how many copies it's actually sold.
And part of me doesn't mind the exclusion of music club sales from the totals, given that the labels themselves generally don't consider them to be sales, either. Most major label artists' contracts during that era had clauses that counted music club sales as "promotions", meaning that the label didn't have to pay the artist for the "sale". It was one of the more divisive issues among major label bands during the peak era of music clubs. (I've wondered why Columbia House, et al, couldn't keep track of their own sales. But I think the majors didn't want their artists to know how many copies weren't counting.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Legacy" section?

I mean Nirvana is one of the most critically-acclaimed and influential bands ever. (Nevermind ranks #3 on Acclaimed Music's top 3000 list) Isn't it necessary to have a "Legacy" section? If anyone has some sources or something, contact me and I'll help out. Thanks!(SUDUSER)85 06:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's hard to not let that sort of section just become POV and such. Jmlk17 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Been working on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lock?

I've just checked through the history and almost every other edit is vandlaism. Should the article be locked? Titan50 (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music Style

shouldn't This Band Have A Music Style Section, Like soundgarden, green day, and pearl jam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.251.76 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Members

The Page says Kurt Cobain as a current member, But shouldn't he be listed as a Former Member? In articles like the Alice In Chains, Members that have died are said to be former members. Sense Kurt Cobain is dead don't you believe he belongs in former memebers? Listing him as just members might make it seem like he is still alive and an active member to those who aren't familiar with the band. 96.225.208.158 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Layne Stayle has been "replaced" by William Duvall. Cobain, on the other hand, has not been replaced by anyone as of yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)