Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Talk archives for Nirvana (band) (current talk page)
<< 1		Archive 1	Archive 2 >	3 >>

I added them for you man. But tell me the labels cause i have no idea? i only got the release dates from the book that came with the With the lights out box set the only one of these i own is the beavis and butthead experience. -- 203.45.126.19

Re-read what I wrote a few lines down from here. I wasn't asking for those comps to be included: my questions were rhetorical. There are way too many compilations to include them here. There are already several comprehensive Nirvana discography websites out there - there's not enough room in this article to repeat what those sites already carry. (The article is already over Wiki's guidelines as how long an article should be.) -- ChrisB 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You should write that then cause it took me ages -- 203.45.126.19

Curious, why isn’t Nirvana’s contribution (Return of the Rat) to the album ‘8 songs for Greg Sage and the Wipers’ in the Discography? It was a real album released on a real label (TimKerr) that ended up in real stores… With a real good story behind it, to boot… Granted, its not a single, and not a nirvana compilation, but… -- 209.206.232.149

You just answered your question. The article is already borderline too long for Wiki standards, so including the story isn't going to happen. And Nirvana appeared on numerous compilations. Why isn't The Beavis and Butthead Experience included? How about No Alternative? What about Teriyaki Asthma or the Sub Pop comps? Same deal: too many releases to list. Most of the compilation songs are on With the Lights Out or Incesticide anyway. -- ChrisB 06:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is "You Know You're Right" really one of Nirvana's hit songs? If nobody objects, I'd just as soon not see it on that list.
Junjk 05:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely, it was on the greatest hits, it had a video, it reached the top of some charts so yeah.

It was pretty popular when it was released. It hit the #1 spot on some charts (see the article for the song for the exact chart listings). -- LGagnon 05:35, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, as it reached number one on "Modern Rock Tracks" and "Mainstream Rock Tracks", it probably belongs on the list. I guess my feeling on the matter was that it's probably the last song on the list that most people would think of if asked to name Nirvana's hits. Personally, I wouldn't have thought of it at all. I'm sure it's totally different for younger fans, too, though. Anyway, though, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal of opinion, and seeing as how it charted as it did I'm fine with it. Junjk 13:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was really popular. It is on their Nirvana cd which is their greatest hits so yes it was. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Nirvana should be credited with reviving hard rock radio.

What in your opinion is hard rock radio? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting in the early 1980s along with the middle aging of the baby boom generation rock and roll radio stations softened their playlists. This softening continued throughout the 1980s along with baby boomers hitting their late 30s and early 40s. Nirvana's Nevermind was such a hit and had such heavy airplay that it drove most of the soft rock to oldies staions and/or adult contemporary stations.

A fundamental question: Was grunge music a reaction/rebellion to baby boom oriented music?

Can anyone shed some light on what age demographics are targed by different marketers and how this affected the music played?

If marketers want to hit a demographic group, they advertise where that group is. If enough demand occurs for advertisement space, media formats/styles/content will change to provide the format desired by the marketers.

See also:

• Generation X

---

I don't know if this belongs on this page in particular, but maybe if someone knows a better place, it

could be moved around:

I took a class at University of Southern California on "The History of Rock and Roll", which began with the Jazz players in the 20's and proceded up through modern day (well, 1994, when I was taking the class).

One of the things that becomes plainly obvious in looking at its history in such detail is that it has always (and always will) follow a fairly predictable cycle, and this bears directly on the question above.

Here is the pattern it seems to always follow:

Contents 1 Phase 0: The Old Music 2 Phase 1: New Music Sprouts in the Underground 3 Phase 2: Emergence 4 Phase 3: The Music Gold Rush 5 Phase 4: Copycats 6 Phase 5: Manufacturing 7 Other bands called Nirvana 8 Nirvana fans, please note 9 A few things... 10 "unwarranted and unexplained deletion" explained 11 Mjgm84, stop posting redundant pictures 12 Somebody whitewashed this article 13 Picture clutter 14 Celtic Frost 15 Cobain vs Axl Rose 16 Changed pic in early days 17 References 18 Discography Issues 19 Peacocking 20 This started it all 21 Discography Issue 22 In Utero Tour 23 Picture Posting 24 You Know Your Right - a hit 25 In Utero 26 Success Story 27 Success continued 28 continued 29 continued 30 continued 31 continued 32 Blew EP 33 Featured Article 34 Celtic Frost 35 Dumb 36 reply 37 Continued 38 Suggestion 39 Radio Hits 40 Cronology 41 Kerrang! 42 NEW NIRVANA ALBUM 43 Discography update 44 Images Deleted ?? 45 The name Nirvana 46 The Main Page 47 Nirvana Album 2002 48 Nevermind DVD 49 Discography/Promos 50 Need more bands like these gods 51 Do Re Mi 52 Do Re Mi....continued 53 Incesticide/Sliver 54 Band names 55 Other members 56 Cobain "Written Out" 57 Response re: Nirvana dab 58 Chart Table 59 A live track 60 Music Video Table 61 Article too long 62 "Bleach" 63 Nirvana band member a monk? 64 Two measures from SLTS (from User:Manboobies)

Phase 0: The Old Music

There exists some prevalent form of music, which is widely listened to but in general considered to have limited artistic merit. At the various points in history where this phase has been active, a variety of names have been given to it, such as "Commercial", "Pop", "Mainstream", or etc. Often there is a high degree of homogeniety and polish present, and/or a strong, almost formulaic adherence to the "rules" of the musical style. It also frequently tends to be tightly controlled (and often generated) by the music industry. There is often a feeling that the whole industry is "locked up", and that nothing which does not "fit the mold" will be accepted. And in fact, often there is strong resistance to anything "unproven", "objectionable", or "corruptive". The effect on the music is that it takes on an image of being "bland", "watered down", "sappy", or "monotonous".

Phase 1: New Music Sprouts in the Underground

Meanwhile, there has been a strong undercurrent of some new form of music, distinctly different from the Commercial/Pop/Mainstream music. In many cases it is shunned by the industry, because it is considered "unmarketable", "targeting the wrong demographics", "unlistenable", and so forth. Sometimes it is simply too revolutionary and causes fright or revulsion in some segment of society. Perhaps this is intentional.

In any case, this "New Music" gathers strength in private dance halls, college FM radio, coffee houses, or other "underground" locations. In many cases the style is localized to a particular geographical area, such as Mersey/Liverpool, the CBGB, or Seattle. The music is often "rough but infectious", "artistic", or "meaningful". There is rarely expectation of commercial success, and in some situations there is an active desire _not_ to become commercialized.

Phase 2: Emergence

Inevitably, the music is "discovered". A small number of bands will be identified by someone with some association with the music industry (e.g., a talent scout or record producer) and groomed for commercial airplay. Since this first scount has "the pick of the litter", the first band from this group tends to be above average, and usually also experienced crowd-pleasing musicians who merely need a little help in the studio for producing some records. The new music strikes a chord among listeners, who are starved for something new, different, revolutionary, and exciting.

The "objectionable" nature of the music is often its biggest draw to the new audience, who find it thrilling to be part of something counter to prevalent culture. The important part is that it is *different*, in a revolutionary sense rather than an evolutionary sense: For example, if the Old Music was dark and dreary, the New Music may be uplifting and danceable, whereas if the Old Music was filled with lighthearted love and joy, the New Music could be angry and anti-social. The music industry doesn't actually care much about the content of the music (in spite of whatever position it may take publically); its duty is to make money, and if the public wishes for something objectionable, and if there is enough money, the industry will follow like an alcoholic to his bottle.

Phase 3: The Music Gold Rush

The success of the "pioneer" draws other talent scouts like bees on the first day of spring, who descend on whatever locale the movement calls home and snap up every viable band (and some that are not so viable). Excitement, panic, and a rush to "cash in" opens the floodgates for new bands. Producers fear missing the next wave of music and be left standing with the suddenly uncool Old Music bands, and so will be willing to take risks in signing bands very different from the "pioneer". This has the effect of injecting a huge amount of diversity into the mainstream music scene, yet it can leave a feeling among the original fans that their bands have "sold out". In many cases, that is exactly the case.

One downside to the influx of money is that exploration of vices becomes much easier, which (according to VH-1, anyway) often results in tragedy.

Phase 4: Copycats

The original community of bands surrounding the "pioneer" band is, of course, limited. Eventually the talent scouts run out of bands to hire, and are forced to look in other geographical areas. Sometimes they are deliberately looking for "the next Elvis" or "the next Beatles" or "the next Nirvana". Sometimes the unsigned bands out there feel that in order for them to be signed, they must conform to the "New Music", and thus devote themselves to mastering the "rules" of this genre.

In either case, what occurs is a growth of bands that are strikingly similar to the originals. Sometimes this results in good, with bands who add the new style to other well developed styles, and thus produce "fusion" blends of several musical styles. In other cases, the bands strictly seek to replicate the "pioneer" band's success as accurately as possible.

Phase 5: Manufacturing

Over time, the supply of copycat bands becomes overwhelming. The music industry developing a strong confidence in its understanding of "the formula", begins to adopt a "mass production" mentality to the process, focusing as much on the image, business, and marketing aspects of the music as on the music itself. It is in this phase that the music industry is able to best apply its muscle to the load, and when the industry feels itself to be in complete control. Yet as its understanding of the New Music increases, and as its formulas become rules (or even crutches), its openmindedness decreases. Why should it bother with unusual bands, when it can pick from thousands of mainstream bands, honed via competition to the point where the talent scouts can be very selective.

And Now Go To Phase 0.  ;-)

Reggae, Rap, Punk, Folk, Protest, Grunge... the list goes on and on. All have followed this "Rags to Riches to Decline" cycle. Begun as a reaction against the prevalent form of music, within

a short while (a few years, rarely more than a decade), the rebel becomes the master. Ironically, this success brings with it a sense of loss that is often hard for idealistic artists to accept, who feel that their beautiful wild animal has been harnessed to an ugly machine. Yet much as we might wish otherwise, there will always be people into the music for the money (or the sex, drugs, and parties).

The cycle is not regular; in some cases it has stuck in phase 0 for many years before getting kicked forward. At other times, the new music has overtaken the old music in very short order. Nor is there necessarily only *one* cycle at a time; indeed it is not atypical for several styles of music to be developing on their own cycles at the same time, often each in different phases. Shifts can go quite quickly, over a period of weeks or months. It is very important to understand that in each shift, the initial belief is that the culture has returned to "real", "true" music, yet inevitably it too will succumb, and be replaced once again.

As an aside, it's worth noting that since only the best music from a given cycle remains in circulation, there is a nostalgic tendency to think that music "in the old days" was better than what is around today. Yet really, there was likely to be just as much crap back then - it just wasn't retained. It would be most interesting to note if the retained songs were mostly ones that came at the start of a cycle, or if the selection was semi-random.

I believe that this cyclical nature of music will always hold true, and in fact that it is a healthy and natural sociological process. It appears to continue irregardless of technological shifts, political turmoil, war, and economics; indeed, such instabilities appear to amplify or accelerate the cycle in many cases. Kids seem to not wish to listen to whatever music they grew up with. The cycle is also good, because without it there would be little chance of new music coming to our awareness. But I hope we do not linger too long in the 4/5/0 phases.  ;-)

ANYWAY... to answer the original question, Grunge was indeed a reaction to the existing music of the time.

(Warning, the following is assertions based largely on opinion and my dated remembrance of the period.)

However, not Baby Boomer music, but rather the "conscience" music typified by bands such as REM, U2, the Cranberries, etc. which in turn had emerged in 1987 as a reaction to the Glam Metal "hair bands" that had become prevalent during the 80's. The Old Music in this case had emerged from college-based underground radio and tended to have a high "cerebral" nature, typified by pointing out tragic humanitarian issues, social problems, and so forth. The "rules" of this music required musical complexity, use of unique instrumentation, and clearly expressed (though sometimes highly symbolic) lyrics to drive home the musician's points. By the early nineties, this style had evidently grown tiresome and we were ready for something new. Grunge was the perfect counterpoint: It discarded social conscience themes, focusing instead on the dire situation (emotionally, spiritually, and economically) of the everyman. Whereas the previous generation of music had prompted its listeners to take a stand and save the world, this one glorified apathy and standing for nothing. The Activist was replaced by the Slacker. The freedom fighter was replaced by Beavis and Butthead. Instead of attacking and taking over the commercial music industry, the grunge movement revelled in its unpolished, "uncommercial" look. Rather than soft rock with clear meaningful lyrics, grunge adopted a much harder edge, de-emphasizing lyrical clearness.

                          This also applies to the Britpop movement which
                          was a reaction against grunge.- heresiarch

Well, that's my biased thinking on this subject. It is of course silly and dangerous to make assertions and blanket statements on a style of music, since there are always counter-examples to be found by people

more familiar with it.

Regarding age demographics: It is always the youths who are at the leading edge of musical development.

Was it in "Almost Famous" that it was said that the music you listen to between 15-25 stays with you for life? In any case, IMHO, the only time that the Baby Boomer drove the musical culture was from The Beatles to the Bee Gees.

           1963-67? You forget that the Bee Gees were a very successful
           band who had quite a few hits in the 60s,although they were
           more or less grouped as a Beatles wanna be - or are you 
           assuming that the Bee Gees began with "Jive Talkin'"" 

The backlash against disco was not driven by the Baby Boomers.

           Punk was by and large made by baby boomers, although its
           fan audience would be best described as late=boomer or in 
           that amorphous transitional subgeneration born between 
           1957 and 1965. 

 Again, IMHO.  YMMV.

-- BryceHarrington

---

Thats a good article, that certainly deserves to go somewhere...

The basic thesis is strong.

I can't agree with some details, as they apply specifically to grunge, and heres why:

Taking Nirvana as epitomising grunge (dodgy, but bear with me) the idea that its a reaction to college radio is flawed. They're just insufficiently different.

                  Considering how Nirvana were influenced by REM, it
                  does not stand up. 

Grunge was, if anything the first successful synthesis of college radio and heavy metal, and got popular by appealing to both audiences.
 
                  More or less a matter of timing. Hüsker Dü were 
                  doing something pretty similar to Nirvana a few
                  years later and got ignored. 

 Firstly, the lyrics are stylistically similar (abstract, unclear, mixed low) and the lyrical concerns aren't unrelated.  There are cerebral, humanitarian issues in Nirvana songs, they're just hard to spot.  

Occasionally, even the music was kinda similar (go play "All Apologies" and "Seven Chinese Brothers" back to back, cf the cellos on Nirvana Unplugged). The second tier of grunge bands weren't like this, but were just old metal copycats cashing in.

                  This is inevitable, and has been seen in all rock
                  movements, how key figures have ties to previous 
                  eras now thought embarrassing - this continues today,
                  with people making fun of Jack White having been in a
                  "glam metal" band as a teenager. 

On top of that, college radio never really went away.

I'd say a reaction to the self importance and bombast of stadium rockers like U2, Bon Jovi, the vapidity of Guns N' Roses and the folkie niceness of Tracy Chapman,

                  G N'R don't belong in this company - they probably 
                  helped pave the way for Nirvana

Suzanne Vega and the second coming of the singer-songwriter movement (DIE Julia Fordham, DIE!).  It didn't help that mainstream pop was undergoing one of its period lulls (see 1961, now).

Gareth Owen

---

Thanks Gareth.

Yes, I admit my application to Nirvana was weak. I did not really follow grunge too closely, and am not as familiar with the various bands as other readers must be, so beg assistance in figuring out how the hypothesis actually applies, or if it is just inapplicable here. I used Nirvana as the example mostly because I needed to tie my article into the topic.  ;-) Like I said, I don't know how well the hypothesis fits here on this page.

However, I do think that there is truth to my assertion that grunge is kind of a reaction to humanitarian oriented aspects of the previous music. Not to say that Grunge was *against* humanitarian issues, just that it was on a different level. I don't see Marylin Manson at a Farm Aid convention, nor mosh pits at a Tori Amos concert.  ;-)

It is true that college radio never went away. Yet similarly, big band crooners did not disappear when Elvis showed up; disco dance halls did not close down just because Bruce Springsteen became popular; neither did the recent swing craze completely eliminate grunge fandom. These music style movements are not sequential; they overlap and make periodic re-emergences, judging from history. Can we make generalities of college music, or does this invite the same danger of equating "urban music" to rap and "popular music" to dance?

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. I can see I'll need to do more research into grunge if I want to use it as an example. Btw, where do you think we are, musically, right now? Is there any indications where we might be going next? (I have wondered if the increase in protesting might spur on the mainstreaming of anti-authority / protest bands, or else if electronic music might make a resurgence? Being 30, I'm sure my musical preferences are fairly irrelevant, so I'd hesistate to make any predictions, myself.)

                Electroclash, anyone? Or early 80s post-punk new wave
                revival meeting electroclash? 

-- BryceHarrington

---

Why not both? What I'm seeing in hip-hop is increasing political awareness--don't get me wrong, it's always been politically aware of at least some issues, and I think it would be hard not to be, as a black man in the United States, but I'm seeing increasing references to capitalism, class warfare, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, other forms of systematic exploitation ;-) ... not just "The Man" anymore. But the two option aren't mutually exclusive. And has electronic music already been big and gone away? I've just discovered it. Between Moby, Bjork, The Jungle Brothers, AK1200, The Orb, and the Chemical Brothers, I think it's the find of the century. --KQ

---

A local (Toronto) DJ and alternative music historian, Alan Cross, advanced the thesis that Nirvana broke big because the hard rock stations had ridden their form of music into the groun by about 1990. After the ten-millionth playing of "Stairway to Heaven", their audiences were fading away, and they had relied so much on the old standbys that the new bands in the genre (Poison and Ratt, for example) were extremely lightweight -- many of them were turning to power ballads anyway (remember them? Extreme's "More than Words", forex? Huge fad in 1988-90, everyone was sick of them by 1991). The rock stations started casting around for something new just as a synthesis between college rock and heavy metal were developing and BAM! Nevermind sells eleventy-three million copies. This opened the door for everyone else.

I buy this theory myself.... --PaulDrye

---

Other bands called Nirvana

I'm pretty sure there was a "Nirvana" in the 60s. -- Tarquin

There was -- User:GWO

---

So the page lists Krist Novoselic as "backing vocals." I'm really curious if anyone knows of, well, anything else, other than the opening screaming on "Territorial Pissings" that Novoselic did any vocals on. And should that be considered enough to actually list him as doing backing vocals? I was under the impression that Novoselic didn't do vocals because he was, um, well, not a good vocalist (to put it politely)

---

removed

In memory of Kurt Cobain (February 20, 1967-April 5, 1994)

Wikipedia is not the place for this. Tokerboy 21:59 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

---

Nirvana didn't so much start something new as much as they rekindled the fire. From what I've read, Nevermind was not done the way Kurt wanted it. So basically it was engineered to cause a scene. The following, In Utero, was more to his liking, but, of course, didn't sell as much because it went outside of the proverbial mold.

I do believe Krist had some back up vocs on another song, but neither my memory or CD player is willing to cooperate with me right now, so no proof.

~James Johnson 12/15/2002

Krist did vocals on some very early songs, such as their cover of "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves." They performed this song at live shows before they were known as Nirvana. No studio recording is available, but it can be found on a bootleg made from a home demo. He also did vocals on their cover of Kiss' "Do You Love Me" which appears on Hard To Believe: A Kiss Covers Compilation. (The album was reportedly pulled off the shelves two weeks after its release due to the fact that Kiss never gave permission for the use of their songs.) So, yes, he had a few vocal performances, but probably not enough to warrant the title "background vocalist."

-- Brian Rogers 9/18/2004

---

Now that there's an article on the other Nirvana entitled Nirvana (60s band), should this article be retitled Nirvana (90s band)?

-- Lee M ___________________

As Nirvana were not the only people doing the postpunk/collage/hard rock/metal/ whatever crossover at the time, it could have been someone else...maybe Teenage Fanclub (referred to by some Americans as the "British Nirvana" at the time) or Redd Kross...and wasn't the college/metal crossover first done successfully by Jane's Addiction before Nirvana had made it out of Seattle? ...and given that Hüsker Dü had done more or less something very close to what Nirvana had done, the time wasn't really right for them...it's ironic considering that Redd Kross and Nirvana had the same management, how the McDonald brothers wanted to be big stars and Kurt didn't, yet it happened to him and not to them...I guess though this is how it goes...

What Nirvana did have going for them were great songs (Teenage Fanclub also had this,and so did Redd Kross despite their littering their set with too many Beatles covers), great lyrics, an enigmatic, troubled genius frontman and coming out of a scene that was intent on drawing attention to itself. Redd Kross coming from L.A. didn't have the same need to draw attention to their scene, which ironically led to that scene being eclipsed in terms of public attention. Being from L.A. became a disadvantage, turning the tables on how things had been. What attention to grunge didn't go to the Pacific Northwest went to Sydney. For the first time Southern Cal. was NOT the "happening spot" on the Pacific. - heresiarch

The idea that Dave Grohl's next band isn't even worth a mention is just silly. It needs linking to, for one thing. The Beatles mentions Wings, after all. -- User:GWO

____________________________________________________________________

I had never heard of Redd Kross until you mentioned them here. I acquired some of their music to listen to (they appear to focus on covers for a large part of their work) and can see why Nirvana made it and they did not. They stink. I wouldn't even put them in the same style, let alone class. Teenage fan club is a ditto on this, rubbish! Nirvana's true contemporaries at the time included Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains. I agree with some mention of the Foo Fighters in a link as well.

-John (3-24-2005)

Nirvana fans, please note

There was some confusion at the With the Lights Out article when a new user, trying to understand how Wikipedia worked, posted a phony tracklist as a test. There's also apparently been some outright vandalism (see Talk:With the Lights Out). It would be a good idea if some of you could watchlist the article. I know zilch about Nirvana so I'm afraid I can't help. JamesMLane 06:43, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few things...

This article is sometimes incorrect, Nirvana was founded 1987 by Cobain and Novoselic. Before that Cobain had a band called Fecal Matter in 1985 (founded with Dale Crover on bass, and Greg Hokanson on drums) that disbanded (with Buzz Osborne on bass, and Mike Dillard on drums) in 1986. Some of the members of that band (Hokanson, Osborne and Dillard) were never members of Nirvana, yet they are listed as Early band members. When Novoselic heard a Fecal Matter demotape he agreed to Cobain to form a band in 1987.

Also it is unknown when Cobain and Novoselic met, as Cobain was a friend of Novoselic's younger brother Robert. Oh, and shouldn't Suicide dispute and Diaries be part of the Kurt Cobain article? The band didn't committed suicide and also it did not write journals, Cobain did.

"unwarranted and unexplained deletion" explained

Someone put this back in the Nirvana bio (Nevermind portion), so I wanted to mention why I took it out, and why I’m taking it out again:

“DGC Records had reportedly hoped Nevermind would sell as well as Sonic Youth's Dirty, which had seen profitable and respectable sales of some 250,000 copies.”

The poster probably meant Goo, which is the record SY made before Dirty. The statement as it is has to be false. DGC Records could not have hoped that Nevermind would sell as well as Sonic Youth’s Dirty, because Nevermind was released on September 24, 1991 and getting what Wikipedia calls “massive airplay” by late fall of 1991, which is at least six months before the release of Sonic Youth’s Dirty, in June of 1992. Because I don’t know Goo’s sales, I’m deleting the false statement entirely. If someone wants to verify, they can feel free to put it back in. As it is, it’s clearly untrue, and deleted. Thanks.

Ok, point taken. Still, you should practice proper ettiquette in deleting info by explaining why you are doing so. Otherwise it simply appears to be vandalism to those who don't know the reason for it. -- LGagnon 00:54, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Mjgm84, stop posting redundant pictures

We already have an image of Incesticide's cover at the album's article, and we don't even need that image in this article; it takes up space and gets in the way of the In Utero image. Until we have more text relating to Incesticide, it's best not to fill up space with an image. When we do have more on it, then we can add an image, but it should be the one we already have. Stop adding that redundant image back in. -- LGagnon June 30, 2005 13:02 (UTC)

I'm guessing Mjgm84 doesn't read the talk page. His picture has been deleted again and again, and removed from the article four times already, and yet he continues to upload it again and add it to this article. -- LGagnon July 2, 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Somebody whitewashed this article

Hey, here's a surprise - bad stuff happened during the band's career. The US In Utero tour was NOT a success - ask around to people who ACTUALLY attended shows. Some of them sold out, but MANY were seriously undersold. I've seen the 11/29/93 Atlanta show referred to in an article as a sell-out, but I know people who attended that show and confirmed that while the floor was full, the seats were less than half-full. (And that's not the only example.)

And who gives a damn if the fans enjoyed the shows? You could put dancing monkeys on stage and the crowd might enjoy it - doesn't mean the performance was any good. Watch the video for the 2/22/94 Rome show and you'll see Kurt bored out of his fucking mind. Read the reviews on livenirvana.com. The last two weeks of shows SOUND good, but Kurt clearly didn't want to be out there anymore. They were a well-rehearsed band that was going through the motions.

Newer Nirvana fans want to believe the myth of the majesty of Nirvana's career - the truth is that it was often FAR from that. Rewriting history doesn't do anybody any favors.

For the record, the band's lack of studio time was not a factor in Incesticide's release. Only two years separate Nevermind and In Utero, which is TYPICAL for a major label band. DGC wanted to cash in on Nirvanamania, and the band wanted to beat the bootleggers. Period.

And, to anybody editing this article: could you fucking READ it first?!? Two paragraphs talk about the release of Nirvana before the paragraph noting the date of its release. So somebody added the totally redundant "greatest hits/best-of" to the third paragraph. Nice effort. -- ChrisB July 2, 2005 04:11 (UTC)

Picture clutter

One of Wikipedia's big problems is that many of the editors for it don't understand how to add multiple pictures without making an article look cluttered. We end up with several articles where the text is straining to move around a bunch of pictures that, for whatever reason, were piled together in one spot. Let's try not to do this with this article, as having even two pictures side by side can get in the way of the text and make the article look unprofessional. -- LGagnon 21:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Color me slightly confused: side by side? They were one above the other in every browser I've got. It's a standard magazine layout - two pictures in a single column, one above the other. With them separated, the paragraph looks like it's jammed between the two, and, in my opinion, looks rather unprofessional.

Regardless - how about a compromise? I hate the picture that Mjgm84 added (the In Utero tour pic). It's got a giant line down the middle because it was scanned from a CD booklet. (It actually came straight off of LiveNirvana.com.) And, regardless, it's just not a good picture. There are countless other In Utero tour pics that could be used instead, but, frankly, I think the Nevermind tour pic works just as well. So how about we just move the Nevermind tour pic back down to the In Utero section or to the Early Days section? Or just ditch them both (as I can't quite figure out why we need all of these pictures). -- ChrisB July 12, 2005 04:25 (UTC)

The problem, as I found from a little experimenting, is that it doesn't render right in the Classic skin (which I use). Apperantely the coders missed a bug. Separating the pictures is really the only way to get them to render right in it. As for your suggestion, that's fine with me. I personally don't care for Mjgm84's constant (and often redundant) additions of pictures we simply don't need. -- LGagnon 06:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Frost

I never heard of this band being one of Kurt's influences. Got any sources for this? -- LGagnon 14:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The band listened to Celtic Frost a short while before the recording of Bleach, hence the detuning on some tracks. I could be wrong, but I believe this is mentioned in the With The Lights Out booklet and Kurt's Journals.-Calum

Cobain vs Axl Rose

Why do we have this in parenthesis? It looks odd to have an entire sentence, let alone more than one sentence, inside of parenthesis, which are usually used within a sentence. -- LGagnon 21:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Because it's an aside. The paragraph is already a mile long, and, frankly, I'd rather ditch the entire explanation. It's totally unnecessary, as "a bizarre encounter" covers what happened well enough to explain it to anyone looking for general information about the band. It's the same way that "an infamous incident with a bouncer" in the paragraph about L!T!SO! covers that story sufficiently. Sadly, I knew someone would add more info when I wrote the paragraph. Using parentheses this way may look odd, but it's condoned by Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. -- ChrisB 00:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Changed pic in early days

I changed the picture in the "Early Days" section. Here is the old one:

Feel free to change it back if you wish.

References

We can´t get here with only 1 reference. igordebraga ≠ 01:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of what I added to the article was anecdotal, or were items that I saw happen myself (eg, "You Know You're Right" leaking online). There were a couple of references buried in the article itself that I split off and moved to the Reference section. I also went through what I had on hand (Azerrad / Rolling Stone) to connect with elements from the article. I'm not sure it's right, but hopefully, it's closer to what we need. -- ChrisB 03:35 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Citing LGagnon's complaints, I added a few more references. For the love of ... , please make note if there are any more "facts" that need references. -- ChrisB 06:14 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Discography Issues

Okay, since 195.137.109.177 keeps changing it to something I believe is unacceptable, let me explain my version of the Discography as carefully as possible.

We have categories of "Albums" and "Compilations and Box Sets".

• Incesticide - is a compilation by every possible definition of the word. The tracks on the album were recorded at a variety of locations over numerous years. Half of the tracks on the album were previously released elsewhere, and the last half of the album consists of demo recordings not used on Bleach. The band didn't set down to record a singular album when they pieced it together, and it has no unified theme that would otherwise make it an "album". Yes, all of the tracks were recorded in a studio, but several of them were recorded for radio sessions, and weren't recorded in the same way they might have been had they been recorded under normal studio circumstances.

• MTV Unplugged - is an album. Yes, it's a live album. But the band sat down in one session and recorded the entire thing, front to back. They picked a setlist and followed it. It is categorically neither a "compilation" or a "box set", so why on earth would it be listed there?

• Muddy Banks of the Wishkah - is a compilation. Yes, I can understand how it's also a live album. But the disc itself covers numerous different concerts recorded throughout the band's career. I could accept an argument for it to be an "album", but only if the two above are considered as they are. But I would more seriously argue for it to be considered a compilation, only because it doesn't bear any resemblance to the band's actual setlist from any period of their career, nor does it cover, say, a particular series of shows. The thing is a cobbled together mess, designed to pick out highlights from a number of different eras.

For the record, AllMusic considers Unplugged and Muddy Banks to be albums and Incesticide a compilation. I can accept that version, but I cannot FATHOM how Incesticide deserves "album" status when it so clearly is a compilation. -- ChrisB 13:14 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Peacocking

Please read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. It seems like someone is adding them to the article ("the band's enduring mystery" being particularly questionable). -- LGagnon 01:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

So remove it. Venting a little: I'm getting more and more aggrivated by what seem to me to be arbitrary "rules" for wiki entries. The original intro to the article seemed entirely sufficient to me. But there's some abitrary rule says that a 30k article needs more than two paragraphs of intro? So, naturally, when there's nothing left to say, more and more junk gets introduced into the article. Journalism is journalism, it shouldn't be bound by rules and regulations. (I'm waiting for someone to point out that the article is over 30k and needs to be split in half. I'm quitting when that happens.) -- ChrisB 08:27 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This started it all

I read somewhere that Nirvana attributed a part of the success of "Nevermind" to "Weird Al" Yankovic and his parody "Smells like Nirvana". I think there is a bit on that in the Weird Al wiki-page. Just wonderin' if there is some agreement to having heard Nirvana say this in an interview or something. Might be worth adding, if it was a part of Nevermind's success. - Jason

You've got it a little backwards. Nirvana didn't attribute part of the success of Nevermind to Weird Al. What they said was that when a band has a song parodied by Weird Al, it proves that they've "made it" as a band. Nirvana saw "Smells Like a Nirvana" as an official mark that they'd become a successful, popular band. -- ChrisB 08:24 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Discography Issue

• Ok I disagree, MTV Unplunged and From the Muddy banks, should be in the same catogory, They are both live albums and were both released after Kurt Cobains death and the end of Nirvana. The only difference is From the Muddy.. was from different concerts which isn't that much of a difference, these two albums should still fall into the same catogory.

• Ok Incesticide is a "compilation". But It is all studio material, and I think it is more eligible as a main album than "Unplugged" is, Unplugged is a live album.

• Also doing it my way means the albums flow nicely in date order. Incesticide 1992 inbetween Nevermind and In Utero. Which brings me to the point that maybe the discography here is being catogorised wrongly. I think it is important that they go in date order. Incesticide is currently the 'odd' one out as far as listing by date is concerned.

• To order them in date order, it could be done in two new catorgories. Releases when the band was still going and posthumous releases after Kurt died:

1989:Bleach

1991:Nevermind

1992:Incesticide

1993:In Utero

1994:MTV Unplugged In New York

1994:Live! Tonight! Sold Out!!

1995:Singles

1996:From The Muddy Banks of The Wishkah

2002:Nirvana

2004:With The Lights Out.

2005:Sliver

• see it flows nicely in date order.(Incesticide 1992).

In Utero Tour

Ok, It was reported in the media that the In utero tour was not a succes. This is wrong. The tour in the USA was pretty bad although the first few shows started off well and than gradually declined. In fact some of the US shows in 1993 were awful. I have watched most of the DVD bootlegs, so it is fair to say that the US part of the In Utero tour was bad.

However the European part was great!. I have about 50+ Nirvana live DVD bootlegs, and I have to say the European 1993-1994 shows the band played were the most crowd pleaseing shows of their career. They really did play well, maybe not as energetic as before but the band sounded more proffesinal and cleaner. They were afterall now on an "arena" tour as opposed to a "club" tour with Nevermind. The crowd seemed to sing along to all the new songs off In Utero, and it has to be said the European part of the tour was great. Even band members Dave Grohl and Pat Smear have said the European In Utero tour was great. Outside of the live shows it may have been bad with Kurt on heroin etc.. but this part of tour was a success.

I am having a hangover...

Picture Posting

Sorry if you didn't like the In Utero tour pic, apart from the line down the middle I thought it was a great picture. It was also me who posted the Nevermind tour pic, the one that is inside the wishkah and Aneurysm promo. You like that one didn't you!

I won't post the Incesticide one again, but I thought it deserverd to be recognised, maybe it is not needed. I also posted most of the pictures for the singles discography, Aneurysm, Heartshaped Box,Pennyroyal Tea, All Apologies. I don't always sign in when I edit though.

I also wrote the page for the 1995 Singles Box. I also started the page for Live! Tonight! Sold Out!!. It has since been re-arranged but thats great! In fact I have done loads of stuff on here which I can't be botherd to metion...

I understand that people will agree and disagree about things. I think this could be the best site on the net for Info on Nirvana. Nirvana kick ass better than any other band ever has!

You Know Your Right - a hit

In response to the post at the top of this page YKYR, was a hit. The rules for the official Hot 100 Billboard singles chart have since changed from when Nirvana were around. Back then that chart was based only on singles sales, and the last single they released to buy in the USA was Lithium(More were released in the rest of the world). Now the rules have changed to take into consideration radio airplay and internet downloads which allowed YKYR to chart. I think all other countries still base their singles charts on sales only still. -- 195.137.109.177

In Utero

I'm going to have to say this again. The US part of the In Utero tour was bad fair enough - no arguments there. But the European In Utero tour on the whole was a success until the rome incident. I think whoever has wrote on this page may have been taking to much notice of what has been stated in the media- which isn't always correct. The only real way to tell how Nirvana played is to watch the bootlegs, and you will be surprised to find just how well they played in Europe. -- 195.137.109.177

Read this. It's a well-referenced article detailing the European tour. And, strangely enough, it's precisely the version of events that has been told since the tour happened. I even clarified what was in the Wiki article to note that the lowest point was the Italian leg of the tour. (What I wrote: "While the tour started off well, the performances gradually declined" is precisely the summation of the above article, though I hadn't read it prior to writing the statement.) Yes, certain shows were amazing. But most of the last half of the tour were average at best. -- ChrisB 20:24 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Success Story

Another thing is that Nirvana's success seems to be entirley put down to Smells Like Teen Spirit. Ok, it was their first and biggest hit but it wasn't their Only hit, their were hits after which continued success. I think if anything it should be put down to the Nevemind album as a whole rather than Just Teen Spirit.

And after all In Utero, Unplugged they were a success 5 million albums + each in the US alone, just because they were not as succefull as the 10 million for Nevermind does not mean they were not successful.

I mean 50m albums worldwide had been sold by 2003. 22m of that 50m was for Nevermind. The other 28m must be for the Other albums. -- 195.137.109.177

I don't get this. The article doesn't put Nirvana's success entirely on "Teen Spirit". But it cannot be understated that "Teen Spirit" was the most significant song and moment of the band's career. None of Nirvana's other singles came close to that song's success and impact.

Even by your numbers, that other 28m covers the rest of their catalog. Nevermind covers nearly half of their sales alone, which is significant. No matter how you split up that 28 million, none of the other albums comes close to Nevermind's success.

At the same time, the article doesn't say that Unplugged wasn't successful. It doesn't even bring the subject up, and for good reason. It's impossible to determine how successful the album would have been had Kurt lived. In fact, the album may never have been released had Kurt lived. Neither Pearl Jam nor R.E.M. issued their Unplugged sessions on CD, and those bands that had to that point were largely pop bands. Kurt's death plays a large part of why the album was a success, and that's just not a topic that should be brought up in a subjective article.

And the article doesn't say that In Utero wasn't a success. It says it wasn't as successful as Nevermind, which is a fact. It's difficult to tell in Nirvana's sales numbers alone, but the band had fallen out of popular favor before Kurt's death. Pearl Jam had eclipsed them, and it wasn't close. Before Kurt's death, Nevermind was certified five-times platinum and In Utero was certified single-platinum. By comparison, Pearl Jam's Ten was certified six-times platinum, and Vs. (release mere weeks after In Utero) was certified five-times platinum. Pearl Jam's star was ascending at a time when Nirvana's popularity was fading. The fading stopped when Kurt died.

I've said this before and still think it's true: it's nearly impossible for a fan who fell in love with the band after Kurt's death to see the band as it was during its existence. Nirvana has eclipsed Pearl Jam's popularity largely because Pearl Jam is still here. A significant portion of Jimi Hendrix's fame comes from the fact that he died before his time. No living guitarist can possibly compete, because he or she is competing with a legend. Nirvana's success today is played in large part by the fact that the band is no longer here to make mistakes, no longer here to expand (or tarnish) their catalog, no longer here to be affected by what's happening today. -- ChrisB 20:24 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I really HATE "Teen Spirit", but since in the FAC they called for a "bigger introduction", I needed to mention the "rise to fame". Nirvana has so much acclaim because they made many fun songs, as "Lithium", "Sliver", "In Bloom", "Heart-Shaped Box" and "Come As You Are". I only have that black "supposed" greatest hits album, and I like every song in there, except for SLTS. igordebraga ≠ 22:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

True, but keep in mind - Nirvana sold three million copies of Nevermind before "Come As You Are" was released as the second single from the album, and sold only two million copies in the two years after that. "SLTS" seems less impressive today, largely because so many bands spent the next decade trying to replicate it. But at the end of 1991 and through a large part of 1992, it was the biggest song on the planet, and there was nothing out there like it. The song ended up hanging over the band like a shadow during the In Utero tour - the band was sick of it, but a lot of people went to shows for that one song. (A lot of people got upset when the band said in Rolling Stone at the end of 1993 that they were no longer playing the song live, even though the statement wasn't true.)

People today discover the band for all of their songs. But, while they were around, it was "Teen Spirit", "Teen Spirit", and "Teen Spirit". -- ChrisB 22:49 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Success continued

Your right Teen spirit was their most successful song. But that wasn't their only success. The other singles after that were successful as well, and so were the other albums after Nevermind. Just not AS successful.

I think one of the reasons In Utero had a lack of success was because of a lack of promotion: Only one music video for one single 'Heart-Shaped Box' and few promos for the second single 'All Apologies'.

Maybe I've been watching too many bootleg DVD's but Teen Spirit wasn't the most popular song live. In fact the songs which the whole crowd used to sing along to were 'Lithium' and 'Rape Me'. Maybe they didn't know the words to Teen spirit! -- 195.137.109.177

"Just not AS successful." Correct. Which is why it says what it says in the article.

I don't think promotion can be blamed for the lack of immediate success of In Utero. When Pearl Jam's Vs. came out, they didn't even make a video for it. MTV took to playing the band's performance of "Animal" at the 1993 MTV Video Music Awards because they had nothing else to air. Pearl Jam didn't even tour to support the record in the US until the Spring of 1994, and even then, only in medium-size venues. Yet Vs. sold five million copies in its first six months of release.

Nirvana was living in Pearl Jam's shadow at the end of 1993. Kurt even complained in interviews about Pearl Jam releasing Vs. right after In Utero, claiming that kids didn't have enough money to buy both. (A dubious argument, btw, given that In Utero came out three weeks before Vs.)

In Utero didn't catch on for all of the obvious reasons. Nevermind was mixed as a pop record, and appealled to the masses. In Utero was a challenging, noisy record that did not. To be perfectly honest, as a die-hard Nirvana fan of the time, I actually loaned out my brand-new, purchased-on-the-day-of-release copy of In Utero five days after I bought it because I couldn't wrap my head around it. It was too noisy, too abrasive. (The person returned it to me a few days later with the same review.) It wasn't until after I watched the band on MTV Unplugged that I pulled the album back out, got past the noise, and fell in love with it.

Again, keep in mind that coming at this after the fact is completely different from what happened as it happened. In Utero wasn't considered a major "masterpiece" until after Kurt's death. (Fricke was one of a mere handful to give it a near-perfect review - most popular reviews were significantly more scathing.) The band wanted to make themselves less popular and succeeded.

When you're falling into Nirvana after the fact, you're already aware that In Utero is a brilliant record. But in 1993, most of us had no idea. -- ChrisB 16:24 17 August 2005

continued

Compared to Nevermind it didn't do well at all, but there are lots of other bands who would have been quite happy with a million selling album simoultaniously No.1 in the UK and US in the same week. Are you in the US ?. I'm in the UK, Heart-Shaped Box actually charted higher here than Teen Spirit did if thats any indication of there popularity here at the time. I suppose Pearl Jam did steal the spotlight, but I never thought they were anywhere near as good or as exiting as Nirvana. I think there should be some mention of Nirvana's MTV "Live and Loud" show aired to promote "In Utero", Hey! an In Utero tour show in the US that really kicked ass!

I also happen to know that most of the European shows of late 93-94 were sold out. Also all the planned UK shows in 94 had all sold out, but they never got to play those UK shows because Kurt O'd. Also Nirvana made a record first, the first artist to have 3 nights in a row sold out at Londons Brixton academy, shame they didn't play.

Some DVD's you should buy or download from eMule: Modena Italy 21/02/94 Rome Italy 22/02/94 The above two must be the amongst the best Nirvana shows I have ever seen. Also Milan 24/02/94 and Milan 25/02/94 are great as well but not as good as Rome, wow...i was gobsmacked by that show. Most of the 93 shows were crap apart from Unplugged and Live and Loud. Have you seen Rio De Janerio, Hollywood Rock Fest Brazil 93? - That was scarry yet sad. -- 195.137.109.177

I'm not sure we should be using the Talk section of this article for this, but just to cover what you're addressing:

The "Live and Loud" show really wasn't that notable in their active history. Nobody saw it. The ratings for the show were so bad that MTV scrapped subsequent "concert" productions (which they had done for years) in favor of showing the Times Square countdown. Actually, the New Year's show that MTV aired the next year was a clip show of performances from throughout the year, with a simulcast of a piece of a Janet Jackson concert that was taking place elsewhere that night. The "Live and Loud" set got way more airplay after Kurt died. But, even still, it's an amazing set. Still my favorite version of "Scentless Apprentice" (and I can't tell you how psyched I was when they put it on Muddy Banks in remixed form).

The US shows aren't all bad, it's just that they weren't as well-documented as the European shows. The 12/31/93 Oakland show is definitely worth tracking down, and I still love the 12/14/93 Salem show for the stellar version of "Man Who Sold the World".

The UK singles charting positions really can't be compared. Let me put it this way: Everclear had an album that never charted over 33 on the US chart, and one that peaked at number 9. Which was more successful? The first one sold twice as many copies, just spread out over a longer time. "Heart Shaped Box"'s peak more than likely came on the first week of release, whereas "Teen Spirit" had weeks of building to reach its peak.

Honestly, selling out Brixton on several nights doesn't say much, given that it only holds 5,000 people. If it was a record, then it had to be because no one notable had tried. If they had sold out an arena on multiple nights, that would be more significant.

The single greatest criticism of the Rome show is that Kurt didn't do a damn thing during the show. He doesn't move from the mic, even during the solos, which was rare for his performances. Seriously - the guy was known for how much he jumped around the stage and rolled around the floor during performances (see the "Lithium" video). But in Rome, he didn't do ANYTHING.

Man, I love that 1/23/93 vid. It's just hilarious. From the crap instrumental of "Carmen" to the Hollywood Cigarette references to Flea on "Teen Spirit" to the jam on Aerosmith to the extra extra extra long version of "Scentless Apprentice", just a great show. Even if Kurt was drunk/high/whatever, it's still a fun whacked-out show.

continued

I agree with most of what your saying, so really the In Utero tour should be given a better review than it does here on Wikipedia, apart from the fact Kurt wasn't as active or jumping around as much, the band as a whole sounded great on most of the shows. Oh and in the UK charts Teen Spirit went in at number 9 peaked at number 7 and Heart-Shaped Box went in at number 7 and peaked at number 5. Not that it makes any difference. I just think the In Utero era as a whole gets more criticism than it deserves and less praise than it deserves. -- 195.137.109.177

But what's written in the article is accurate. Just read Fricke's interview with Nirvana in the January 27, 1994 issue of Rolling Stone. Fricke loves the band, and points out that the show he witnessed that night was sub-par. He largely blames the venue and the audience, but pans it. There were good shows during the tour, but, by and large, the tour was not successful.

It's like loving a one-star movie. Just because a movie got a one-star review doesn't mean that nobody will like it. Nirvana fans love those shows because they love Nirvana. But when independent reviewers pan the shows, or point out how lackluster the band played, you can't just write it off. Heck, the guy who wrote the European tour review that I linked earlier is a die-hard fan. He's seen all of the shows on DVD, and gives several of them (ie, the early European shows) good reviews. But, as is written in the article, the performances gradually declined, with Kurt looking bored and distracted.

We shouldn't be sugar-coating the history just because we're fans. Compared to the rest of their touring history, the last half of the European tour was weak. They're still enjoyable shows to fans, but they're not representative of the band's career. -- ChrisB 18:16 18 August 2005 (UTC)

continued

Right, the band wern't anywhere near as energetic Dave,Kurt or Krist. Kurt didn't roll around on the floor, stage dive or smash everything upi after every show. And the band were not as happy themselves and Kurt was doing Heroin. Tose are the main downfalls.

As far as the Sound of the band, it was better than ever, cleaner shaper and more profesional sounding. And as for the crowd; well the european shows, the crowd were mad for it, they sung along to every song off the new album 'In Utero', more so than the Nevermind songs actually and the shows were very crowd pleasing. All the European shows I have seen were like that. The US shows of 93 are all bad Kurt even had shoes thrown at him a couple of times by the audience, although he did Piss in one and throw it back which was cool!

So US shows mostly bad. Euro shows all good. -- 195.137.109.177

So you're conceeding that their European performances weren't as energetic (ie, not as good), yet claiming they're "all good".

The crowd's enjoyment of the show has NOTHING to do with whether the show was good or not. If the band threw out a dancing monkey and the crowd went bezerk, it doesn't mean it was a quality show. The whole point of the article is to take the tour history from the band's point of view. During the end of the European tour, the band - especially Kurt - was putting VERY little energy into the shows. Kurt didn't want to be there, and it showed. Track down the two Milan shows and see just how horribly weak the end of the European tour was.

The sound of the US and European tour was the SAME. The main difference was that several of the European shows were professionally recorded. There are more quality bootlegs from the European tour than from the US tour. Several of the US shows have no surfaced recordings, period, and many of them have truly awful analog audience recordings as the only available source.

Download more of the US shows and see for yourself. The performances are very similar, and are similarly weak, with a few exceptions. If anything, the US tour was the opposite of the European tour, with the shows improving as the tour progressed. You're generalizing entire tours based on one or two shows, which is absolutely unfair. Did you miss people throwing crap at the band during the Modena show?

Take this test: compare the average Nevermind show versus the average In Utero show, and the Nevermind show wins hands down. It's not even close.

There is no reason whatsoever to change what's written in the article. It accurately describes the tour based on ALL of the available reviews. -- ChrisB 19:29 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, you don't have to section every comment you make. A simple separation by way of signature works perfectly fine, despite the size of your comments. -- LGagnon 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but first you gotta get people to sign their comments. -- ChrisB 02:24 19 August 2005 (UTC)

continued

I think the In Utero tour is being called bad because the band didn't jump around as much. In fact because Kurt didn't jump around as much the band sounded better. Just because they stood still throughout the Rome show doesn't mean it was a bad show. They probly did that to silence some of the critics at the time who said Nirvana had to smash things up and jump around to make up for the poor quality sound, Ok the In Utero shows were less aggressive, less violent and less exiting but the music was good and the crowd loved it. when a big crowd sings along to a song it is definitely a good sign, and there was moore singalongs on the in Utero tour than the Nevermind tour. Rape Me seems to have been Nirvana's top sing a long tune. -- 195.137.109.177

Are you even reading what I'm writing? An audience can still enjoy a bad performance - it doesn't mean the performance was any good. If the song sounds even remotely like it should, people will sing along. The Nevermind tour had fewer sing-alongs because the album had JUST come out. Sing-alongs don't mean ANYTHING. The summer 1991 festival performances were all better than the In Utero tour, and the album hadn't even been released yet, so no sing-alongs. If you want to see a Nevermind sing-along, check Reading '92. "Rape Me" was a big sing-along because the lyrics are fucking obvious, same for "Lithium". The "Teen Spririt" lyrics were so hard for fans to decipher that MTV took to running them across the bottom of the screen when they aired the video at the end of 1991.

Look, I'm tired of this. This article isn't supposed to be a fan's perspective, claiming that every Nirvana show was awesome because Nirvana was awesome. The performances at the end of the European tour were SUB-PAR regardless of how the fans in the audience liked them. Okay, so the fans went bezerk - does the article even talk about the fans? NO. Because that's not the point. The article is trying to convey what was going on WITH THE BAND during that tour. Because of all of the crap, the performances weren't as good. PERIOD. I don't think there's any need to continue discussing this. -- ChrisB 16:47 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Blew EP

Oh and I think the Blew Ep should be put into the singles cronology. Ep's are often classed as singles and are usually included in official Singles charts if they sell well not the case here but an EP with 4 songs is more 'Single' than it is album. Hormoaning should still go with the albums though. -- 195.137.109.177

Hormoaning is an EP by every definition. The old-school guidelines classified EPs as having five to eight songs and running between fifteen and thirty-five minutes in length. -- ChrisB 16:24 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

WE WON THE FA!

igordebraga ≠ 22:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Congrats, everyone!! -- ChrisB 22:52 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Celtic Frost

Why not? When you think of Kurt Cobain rarely do u think about Black Metal. I mean the celtic frost reference adds flavor and shows that Nirvana was influenced by very different bands. Jobe6 07:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rarely because no source(s) have mentioned it, which is exactly why I asked for it to be removed. You've got no proof that he was inspired by them, and you made no attempt to prove it. -- LGagnon 21:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have sources and ChrisB reverted it to an earlier version. This says that Cobain was influenced and tells the article and what issue he said it in. [http://nirvanaclub.net/facts/nia/facts.txt Nirvana Club also has says that Kurt and Krist listened to Celtic Frost.

I feel the quote on CF's website is dubious. They only provided that one sentence with no context. Plus, it's unbelievably self-serving. However, the real problem is that nearly anywhere else the quote was made, it was attributed to Novoselic, not Cobain. And in at least one of them, the emphasis was on the Smithereens, not Celtic Frost.

However, since it's clear that Novoselic made the statement on several occasions, including one readily available Rolling Stone interview, it seemed like adding that one sentence was a reasonable compromise. -- ChrisB 02:44, 26 August 2005

(UTC)

Dumb

The song Dumb was never a hit. It was never a single. There were no promos made for it, so it wasn't a radio hit, and did not receive radio play. I think someone maybe getting confused because it was included on the Greatest Hits/Best Of. Well what a silly album that was, they didn't even use the In utero version of All Apologies - which was a hit. They used the crap Unplugged version instead. I think Dumb was included because it was just a good sounding song. However at the time of In Utero, the song Dumb was in no way a hit or radio hit.

So please stop saying it was a hit on the In Utero page. Let's just say it as it is or "was". -- 195.137.109.177

You seriously need to chill out on your additions to Wiki. In this case, your viewpoint is entirely misinformed.

"Dumb" received substantial radio airplay in the summer of 1994 on US radio, particularly Alternative stations. You're right, it wasn't a single. But "Sappy / Verse Chorus Verse" received a substantial amount of airplay that summer as well, and it wasn't a single, either. In the 90s, US Alternative stations had a habit of playing songs that weren't released as singles.

And you don't have to take my word for it. "VCV" was #33 and "Dumb" was #41 on KROQ (Los Angeles)'s Top 106.7 of 1994. [1] KROQ was one of the most influential Alternative stations in the country, and many other stations followed their lead. Check out other 1994 lists on that page, and you'll see "Dumb" on almost all of them. -- ChrisB 17:42, 29 August 2005

reply

Its strange, in the US a song can be called a hit if it just gets played on the radio. In the UK a song won't even be played on the radio if it isn't released as a single. Maybe we should include the KROQ hits in the hit lists here. They were playing VCV in 1993!. Do you know of any other radio chart lists for radio in the US that includes Nirvana ? -- 195.137.109.177

Hmmmm. I dunno - I wouldn't. The KROQ lists aren't officially published; they just run a countdown on their station at the end of the year. People couldn't hear KROQ nationally, but a lot of stations would mimic their playlists. I lived in Atlanta back then, and 99x played "Sappy" and "Dumb" in heavy rotation that summer.

But that was just the way Alternative radio was in the 90s. They'd pretty much play anything they felt like, single or not. The major labels eventually started complaining, because it was impossible for them to build a marketing strategy for their singles. Now it's a far more rare occurrence (though it does still happen on occasion).

The key with the Alternative format in the 90s was that most singles weren't released as physical singles that you could buy in a store. Many very popular songs never charted on Billboard because of it. Another example at the time was Pearl Jam's "Yellow Ledbetter", which was #12 on that same KROQ chart. At the time, it hadn't even been released in the US. Stores began importing mass quantities of the European "Jeremy" single just so they could meet demand for the song. (The list on the Vs. page is misleading - the version of "YL" on the European "Daughter" single is a live version, not the popular studio version.)

In fairness, "Dumb" was not as big a hit as the real singles like "Heart Shaped Box", mainly because Top 40 stations tended to stick to official singles only. But it was an Alternative radio hit and did get airplay. (That's why it's on Nirvana, and why a number of people were confused when "Sappy" wasn't included.) -- ChrisB 15:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Continued

an just out of Interest I see that they list it as Verse Chourus Verse, were they actually playing Verse Chourus Verse or were they playing the song officially know as Sappy ?. I had heard both years ago but know the "With the Lights Out" Box set has been released they have their own official names. -- 195.137.109.177

It was "Sappy". "Sappy" was released as "Verse Chorus Verse" on the No Alternative compilation. When the original "VCV" went unreleased, Kurt re-used the title. (Check the page in the back of the booklet of With the Lights Out where they list the contents of Disc Three - it says "14. Sappy (retitled "Verse Chorus Verse" for release)".) -- ChrisB 15:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I created a navigational template for the Dream Theater article, {{Dream Theater}}, that might be of use to the Nirvana article (and its related pages). The Iron Maiden and Rush articles use the same template style, and it seems to work well for bands with many members and releases. Someone with enough knowledge to complete it for Nirvana should consider doing so, it is very useful. plattopus^talk 02:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Radio Hits

I can Understand why VCV/Sappy wasn't included on 2002 NIRVANA. It wasn't on any of the main Nirvana albums, at least Dumb was on In Utero. VCV/Sappy was just on that compilation album so it wasn't really as important I suppose. Still there were one or two things about that 2002 NIRVANA album which I didn't like: 1. They used the unplugged version of All Apologies which wasn't a hit where as the In Utero single of All apologies was. Some say it was because the unplugged video was used as promotion for the song in 1993. Still it should have been the single version. 2.There were not enough songs from Bleach. I think the singles 'Love Buzz' and Blew should have been included. Best Of albums are usually all of a bands singles even the ones which arn't hits. Also 'Negative Creep' is classic Nirvana and should have been included. Love Buzz, Blew, About A Girl, Negative Creep -fine. Still About A Girl from Unplugged was a hit and the Bleach one wasn't but I dont think that was so important. 3.No songs from Incesticide apart from Sliver. Ok it was a rareities album, but Aneurysm is possibly the favorite song of all amongst Nirvana fans. 4.Oh and 'You Know Your Right' should have gone at the end after the unplugged songs. and 'Love buzz' should have opened the album.

Cronology

I think it needs noting that Lithium was definitely released as a single before In Bloom was.

Kerrang!

I thought it might be nice to add the Nirvana positions from the "100 Greatest Rock Tracks Ever!" from Kerrang! magazine Issue 746, April 17, 1999:

Smells Like Teen Spirit #1

Heart-Shaped Box #10

Lithium #20

Come As You Are #49

Rape Me #90

NEW NIRVANA ALBUM

NEWS: A rareities album entitled 'Sliver - The Best of The Box' is to be released on 1st Novemebr 2005. Sliver (song) being a fan favorite and single before the band became superstars. It will consist of 19 of the best tracks from the 2004 Box Set 'With The Lights Out'. It will also include 3 previously unreleased tracks. A poll on the Internet Nirvana Fan Club on peoples favorite songs from the Box set helped determine what tracks will be used for the album.

This seems to be verifiable information, see here: [2] —thames 19:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, but should it really be added to the discography pre-release? M A Mason 17:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Discography update

I have added the new release 'Sliver - the Best Of The Box' to the main page in the discography. The page itself is complete with tracklisting and picture. I even managed to add the picture to the albums cronology! By the way whoever added all the previous album pictures to the cronology did a really good job! That should be done for the singles cronology too!

Images Deleted ??

Where have all the Images of all the promo CD's gone ? like 'On a Plain' and 'Drain You' ? Why were they deleted, they were important to keep, please put them back.!

Is it because of the image copyright policy? Surely they're fair use? M A Mason 20:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but Wiki has been undertaking a campaign recently to remove images that were posted without proper copyright clearance justifications. If the pics were deleted, it's probably because they weren't properly justified. As far as I know, they can't be restored once they're deleted: they'll have to be re-uploaded. -- ChrisB 21:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually originally uploaded the 'On A Plain' and 'Drain You' pics myself I got them from unofficial Nirvana fan sites, they are still being used on those sites without any legal problems, so why not this one ? Is Wikipedia getting too full or something ?

It has NOTHING to do with any of that. Any uploaded picture has to be justified ON THE UPLOAD PAGE. Wiki editors can't read minds, so when they find a picture that has no justifications listed, they assume it's not legal and delete it. Period. They weren't so strict about it until recently, but that's always been Wiki policy. You can upload them again, but you HAVE to explain why the picture can be legally used on Wiki. (In this case, there's a selection for "album cover" in the justification box.)

If you're completely confused what I mean, hit the Bleach entry and click on the album cover. You'll see a big box that says: "This image is of a music album or single cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the music in question..." It's been justified, so it won't get deleted. -- ChrisB 01:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The name Nirvana

The article should elaborate on why the name was chosen, and whether it was meant to convey similar meanings to the Buddhist word. Shawnc 17:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The Main Page

On the main Nirvana page their seems to be way to much info. Sections for Nevermind and In Utero and so on, then another page for both again. I think maybe it should be narrowed down to a core: an Introductio section, The discography, with a short history afterwards. The discography section contains links to all the important information which people want and need to know... Just a thought anyway.

Um, this article is a Featured Article on Wiki. It means that the bulk of the Wiki community looked it over and deemed that it was of the highest standards as far as Wiki articles go. There is absolutely no reason on this planet to make it shorter.

And, for the millionth friggin' time, would you please A) sign your posts and B) explain your changes in the Edit Summary box on any article that you edit? Removing Sub Pop 200 was the right thing to do (as it's a various artists compilation that includes a Nirvana track, not a Nirvana compilation), but just doing the edit without explaining it makes people think you're vandalizing the page. -- ChrisB 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Nirvana Album 2002

Being a member of the NFC (Internet Nirvana Fan Club) for many years now, I now what the main problems were that fans had with the greatest hits/best of album 2002 were: The song "All Apologies" was a hit from the In Utero album yet the Unplugged version was used, Also "About A girl" was a hit from "Unplugged" yet the Bleach version was used. These two things really were the main concern which anoyed Nirvana fans at the time, I remember well, and I was one of them. As for the alternate version of "Been A Son" some people did argue that such a minor Nirvana song should not have been included on the album. However it was later found that it was an early version from the rare "Blew" ep which hardly anyone had heard and not the well known Incesticide version, so people did not mind as much because they were hearing a new version of Been A Son. If anything people were very anoyed that the a-side itself "Blew" had not been included but the b-side "Been A Son" had. As for Sappy, I don't think many people thought that it was going to be included on a hits album anyway, it may have had some airplay on some alternative American radio stations but it was only ever going to appear on a rareities album anyway, after all "You Know You're Right" was the unreleased song promoting the album. I also know for a fact that the one song most fans were angry that had not been included was "Aneurysm". It is a clear fan favorite and has been voted so on the NFC. That was the one song pretty much everyone wanted to hear on the 2002 album. I have only adjusted the article meet the truth of the matter.

From a UK/European viewpoint. Nirvana is an American band, and the American viewpoint is why the album is as it was. If they had included "About a Girl" from Unplugged, there would have been no songs from Bleach on the album. In America, "All Apologies" was known for the Unplugged version, largely thanks to significant MTV airplay. "Blew" was not a single in America (and was arguably not a "single" abroad, as it was simply the lead of the EP). All of those selections made sense, though perhaps not to a non-American fan. Having those be the explanations as to why the disc didn't make sense doesn't tell the right story.

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. -- ChrisB 17:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, good adjustment. I'm sure the total number of Nirvana fans outside the US is more than in the US. They could have used 'Love Buzz', it is the bands definitive first single, I know many people were expecting it on there. And Aneurysm too was expected, that was even a radio hit in the US!. At the End of the day if they had included Love buzz, About A Girl (Unplugged hit), All Apologies (In Utero hit), and the 'voted' fan favorite 'Aneurysm' then not only would it have satisfied Nirvana fans but it would have made an amazing album. I'm not sure about 'Drain You' though, I know it was supposed to be one of Kurt Cobains favorite songs to play live but it wasn't a hit or 'best of' material really. As it is the album is very average, when it could have been amazing with the few adjustments above. As for Sappy, well I know greatest hits albums sometimes have more than one unreleased or new song and if any it should have been Sappy, but there are so many recorded versions of it that it would be difficult to choose which one, so it seems to be getting put on rareities releases where it should be really. The best version of Sappy I have heard is the 'SMART studio sessions one, Its probly the most commercial version I have heard, its been bootleged but has yet to see an official release. The one on the up and coming Sliver: The Best of the Box is completely new and has never been heard by anyone not even on bootlegs. Of course theres the WTLO Box set one which was supposed to appear on In Utero but was cut and put on some compilation album. Oh and there is another really slow early version which has been bootleged. I think there maybe one or two more unreleased versions of Sappy. I think an EP CD should be released with just all the Versions of Sappy.

Some people find it average, but "Drain You"'s got a lot of fans. It's been cited in several reviews (including AllMusic) as a highlight on Nevermind. I figured it was worth using as an example only because it was released as the second single from Wishkah. (And there was certainly enough room on the disc to add four or more songs.)

But the version of "Sappy" that should have been included is obvious: the one from No Alternative. I mean, I wasn't joking - it got a ton of airplay in the summer of 1994. I hear it every now and again on my local alternative station.

To be honest, there were a couple of stations in the US that had "Oh, the Guilt" in heavy rotation (claiming it to be a "new" Nirvana song) in early 1995. I think it'd have been more widespread had that single not been so hard to find by that point. -- ChrisB 04:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How do I saign by the way ?

Basically, add four tilde ~ marks to the end of your post. Wiki will convert it to your username (or IP) and the date of the post. More info: Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages -- ChrisB 04:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well 'Oh, The Guilt was a hit in the UK, #12 in early 1993 but I think that was the only country it charted in. Strange its very uncommercial sounding, the verses are catchy but thats about it, no video, no promos it must just have been down to Nirvana's popularity at the time. It was released in the US too, I'm surprised it didn't get radio play there in 93. Thats the one hit I don't think should have been on the 2002 album.

Anyway my Nirvana Greatest Hits/ Best of would be:

1. . Love Buzz (Bleach album first single US)
2. . Blew (Bleach single/ep in europe)
3. . Negative Creep (Bleach cult classic Nirvana song)
4. . Sliver (single 1990)
5. . Smells Like Teen Spirit (single from Nevermind)
6. . Come As You Are (single from Nevermind)
7. . Lithium (single from Nevermind)
8. . In Bloom (single from Nevermind)
9. . Dive (Incesticde)
10. . Aneurysm (Incesticide) (the 2 best songs from Incesticide)
11. . Heart-Shaped Box (single from In Utero)
12. . All Apologies (single from In Utero)
13. . Rape Me (single from In Utero)
14. . Pennyroyal Tea (single from In Utero)
15. . About A Girl (single from Unplugged)
16. . The Man Who Sold The World (Unplugged) (radio hit)
17. . Lake of Fire (Unplugged) (radio hit)
18. . You Know You're Right

Now that would have kicked major ass! it would have sold well too! Maybe they could release it as a second edition of the album or something. Mjgm84 16:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind DVD

Does anyone think there should be a page here for the "Nevermind, Classic Albums, DVD" ? It is actually supposed to be an official release, apparantly. It was even included on the German album charts. It was released between the Greatest Hits album and the With The Lights Out Box Set in 2003.

Discography/Promos

I added a section for songs which were released only as promo singles, If it sucks or is not needed then feel free to delete it. I was just messing around.

Need more bands like these gods

Alright it's fact that all the bands in the year 2001+ are just pure S***, MTV NEWS even stated that we need more bands like Audioslave. Which is a supergroup of Soundgarden and Rage Against The Machine. But yeah, we really need more talent in today's music. Like we need a new Nirvana or something, you know? Like remember in the late 80's when everybody was tired of metal? And then out of nowhere Nirvana came out..Yeah, we need something like that..maybe not happen for another 5 years or so...(It's 2005 now)

I'll drink to that. M A Mason 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hell yeah man, I totally agree -dragong4

I completely agree. Somebody needs to breath new life into rock 'n roll. -soccerfrll

Do Re Mi

"Another notable track on the box set was a solo acoustic demo of a song called "Do Re Mi", recorded by Cobain in his bedroom just a few short weeks before his death." No one knows for sure when exactly the Do Re Mi version that is on the boxset was recorded. I seriously doubt that the version on the boxset was from March 1994. I think for the most part people believe it was probably early 1994. HOWEVER, if it was early 1994 why wouldn't this have been recorded at the You Know You're Right Session? Either way, the boxset version wasn't the version that was recorded in March 1994. Flyerhell 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"In a 2002 interview with Jim DeRogatis,[15] Courtney Love described the countless rehearsal tapes, demos, and bedroom recordings that were left behind after Cobain's death. For example, a four-track version of "Do Re Mi" was apparently recorded with Kurt on drums, Pat Smear on guitar, and Eric Erlandson on bass." This is not true either, no one 100% sure whether this session actually took place and if it did, if it was even recorded. Flyerhell 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You've made several assertions here that you can't prove. The LTSO recording could have been made in March. Can you completely rule out the possibility that Kurt recorded the demo in his bedroom, then turned around a few days later and recorded the four-track recording with Pat and Eric? I'm not making this point because I think it was recorded in March - I'm making this point because your logic is entirely flawed. It could have been recorded in March - we just don't know for sure.

Secondly, no, none of us can guarantee that the four-track recording of the song actually exists. But Courtney told DeRogatis that it did, and she's one of only three people that could actually confirm that it does. Since she's the only one on record, there's no good reason to doubt her claim (even if it is Courtney making the claim).

But, frankly, your edit was inaccurate as well. It wasn't recorded "a few months" before his death. That would pretty much preclude it being recorded in 1994 altogether. ("A few" is more than "a couple", and three months would be the first week of January.)

My personal preference for the wording (if you feel that the implication of March was inappropriate) would be: "recorded in the weeks before his death". January -> April 5th is a span of time that could readily be described as "weeks". Otherwise, I'd prefer to just leave it out. (Even if it was a setup for the somewhat poetic intentions of the paragraph's conclusion.) -- ChrisB 06:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I was kind of confused on this subject. Thanks for clearing it up. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Do Re Mi....continued

Yeah it is known that there were two versions of Do Re Min recorded but only one has been released on With the Lights Out box and Sliver the Best of the Box. Its the same with the song "Old Age" there is another recorded version different to the one on With the Lights Out box and Sliver the Best of the Box which hasn't been released yet, maybe they will be on a Kurt cobain solo album or something.

The unreleased version of "Old Age" has been partialy leaked over the Internet but cuts out shortly into the first chourus, it sounds like Kurt just on his own unlike the released full band version. The released version of Do Re Mi also has Pat Smear on Guitar as well, maybe the unreleased version is just Kurt on his own. There is also thought to be other unreleased recordings of Kurt on his own, with Pat Smear, with his wife Courtney Love and with other members from the band Hole. I know alot of people at the NFC would like to see a Kurt Cobain solo album if there is the material for one.

The only KNOWN for a fact recording of Do Re Mi was the one released on WTLO. It is assumed that there may be at least two more recordings of it....both of these taking place in March 1994. One recording was with Eric Erlandson of Hole, Pat and Kurt (http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march-1994.php). No one else from Hole was in this session. AFAIK Eric has refused to say whether this session was actually recorded or not. The only Do Re Mi recording that Courtney was in was in the version that was released on WTLO and she is not singing, she is just saying something in the background at the end of the song. The other possible session (if even recorded) was at the very end of March following the drug intervention at the Cobain's house (http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march25-1994.php). This version is just Kurt and Pat. Kurt just got a new guitar and was using this on this demo.

The Old Age version you are talking about that was leaked is probably this: http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/fall-1992.php. It was leaked and if I remember correctly Old Age was fully leaked in Dec of 2004. Flyerhell 23:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC).

I remeber it being partialy leaked around 2001/02. There has actually been a sort of third version which sounds just like Kurt practicing a few songs and he strums a bit of Old Age.

It looks like there may be some more live stuff released on DVD. Live! Tonight! Sold Out!! has only been released on VHS and a possable DVD release has been mentioned. Also the CD album Unplugged In New York, although the performance gets lots of TV play it has never been released on video, and a possable DVD release has been mentioned. Also the Reading 92 performance was mentioned but there is an argument over who owns the right to the footage. If you can find the leaked 'pro shot' footage it really kicks ass.

What I would like to see is a 'Live! Tonight! Sold Out!! part 2 or volume II. The existing L!T!SO!! video has footage from 1991,1992 and January 1993 up to the end of the Nevermind tour only. It actually says at the beginning of the video, that due to the circumstances the video was never completed. There is no footage from the 1993/94 In Utero tour so a volume IIof Live Tonight Sold Out from that era would be great. I have seen many bootlgs from this arena tour and although Kurt may not have been so happy they never sounded so fluent and proffesional. The crowds were great to, singing along to every Nirvana song especailly Rape Me !

So thats what I would like to see 'Live Tonight! Sold Out!! volume II'.

195.137.109.177 22:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Incesticide/Sliver

I don't think 'Sliver' should be listed as a single here on the Incesticide page:

• It was released as a non-album single in 1990.
• The Nevermind album and its four singles were then released in 1991-1992.
• The Incesticide was then released late 1992. So Sliver wasn't actually a single from that *album, although they did make a video for Sliver to promote the Incesticide album.
• The fact that it made the charts in Ireland is just by chance, it made the charts after 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' but before 'Come As You Are'. Strange a single making the charts over 2 years after release they must have had a surplus of them in Ireland but that info was provided by the official Irish Charts company. -- 195.137.109.177

I think your argument works better in support of removing just the Irish listing. The 1993 Modern Rock Tracks chart position is entirely because of Incesticide. -- ChrisB 04:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Band names

Here's the problem.

This article is a Featured Article, which means that it endures a much more strict editing oversight in order to make sure that it remains worthy of the designation. Wiki guidelines line out that the introduction should describe the most important elements of a band's career: that it took a few months for the band to come up with Nirvana is hardly important in their history. It does not belong in the introduction.

The reason it's not important (and the reason I removed it from the article) is because spending months shifting band names is not unique to Nirvana. Every band does this in some way shape or form. If they'd spent months under any one specific monicker (as Pearl Jam did with Mookie Blaylock), there would be a solid argument for mentioning it. But none of Nirvana's early names were important in their history - they're just footnotes of their development.

At the same time, wiki articles aren't designed to be detailed biographies of a band - note that the first paragraph goes all the way to Channing. We're not here to add every detail regarding the bands career; the article is supposed to be a semi-comprehensive overview. There is certainly more that could be said in just about in every section of the article, but that's not the purpose of this article. -- ChrisB 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All good points and duly noted. Where I differ with you is that while the article is not supposed to be a comprehensive biog - I think that there is a strong case for an en passant factual note about when they actually became the name that they are known as and the article is about. We date the band as from 1987 because that is the ROOT of what became Nirvana. But they were NOT Nirvana per se until Feb 1988 - anymore than the Quarrymen/Silver Beetles were the Beatles - or The Detours were the Who - UNTIL their respective name switches. "Johnny & The Moondogs" was only briefly used by the Beatles - yet it is mentioned in their wiki essay. And see the Who wiki article for how their early band names has been handled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who

May I suggest this:

A) we find a very succinct way to convey in the intro the fact that they became Nirvana in Feb 1988 (not in 1987)

B) in the Early Years section - we briefly allude to a series of names (mentioning perhaps the key ones) as part of their evolution

Fair compromise between our differing views? Davidpatrick 19:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It absolutely does not belong in the introduction. I think the best compromise is to follow the examples of The Beatles and The Who articles and remove the specific reference that the band formed in 1987.

I rewrote first paragraph under Bleach to accommodate the band names, as Channing didn't join until after the band had settled on Nirvana. (It would have been confusing to add the name info either before or after the sentence about looking for drummers.) -- ChrisB 20:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good solution. cheers. Davidpatrick 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Other members

Just read that Big John Duncan (ex Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie and The Exploited) featured as a guitarist - does this need including somewhere?

He was a roadie for the band. He joined them on second guitar for four songs at one show in 1993. He was never an official member of the band. In my opinion, his involvement was not notable enough to warrant including here. -- ChrisB 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cobain "Written Out"

I see no reason to speculate that one of Cobain's suicide catalysts was his "being written out," so I removed the implication, which I've never come across a source for.

It would seem to me his well-documented depression may have, eventually cut into his creativity, instead of his lack of creativity spurning his depression. Either way, the baseless speculation seems... baseless.

"Baseless speculation"? Did you read the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence (which you removed)? The source is in the first sentence.

Regardless, given the circumstances of his death, all of the explanations could be considered speculation. If he killed himself, nobody really knows why, as the suicide note isn't very specific. If he was murdered, then why explain why he killed himself?

Even if you think it was baseless, the "written out" explanation was VERY common in the first few years after his death. And that's what we're addressing in that section: the beliefs and explanations that fans used to explain it for themselves. -- ChrisB 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly I read the entire paragraph- one which detailed the speculated exhaustion of his creative "bone" as it were. The "written out" explanation may have been a common trope passed along from fan to fan, but no one who seriously considers the act of suicide could conclude that it would come about from an inability to write songs any longer, especially from someone as complexly and explicitly depressed as Cobain.

If described as fan gossip, I can understand it, but the idea that it was at any point a viable explanation for his suicide isn't accurate in my opinion. -- BSmemorial 21:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, did you know Cobain? Because you seem to be an expert on his state of mind before his death. He was "complexly and explicitly depressed"? Says who?

The wording of that sentence is intentional. Not everyone believes he committed suicide. We're trying to be NPOV by not concluding whether or not he committed suicide, but also discussing the possible explanations as to why he might have. There's no need to add things like "discussed by fans and the media" because there are no official explanations on record. It's already implied that any explanation falls outside anything official.

I've tried to reword it to be less harsh. Keep in mind that we've tried VERY hard to make this article balanced as far as his death is concerned. -- ChrisB 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no need to get upset about this. I'm as interested as you in this article being NPOV. No, I didn't know Cobain, but numerous sources, citing people who knew him and with exhaustive access to his personal journals (Charles Cross) suggest that he was, to put it one way, "complexly and explicitly depressed."

Your point about avoiding the assumption as to his suicide is a good one- I'm certainly in the wrong on that front. But the implication of inclusion of this explanation alone seems, to me, excessive. This is why, initially, I removed it. I don't see the need- sourced or otherwise- to speculate as to his potential motives on his alleged suicide, *unless the intent is to discuss the fan/ public reaction.* This was my intent in the "discussed by fans and the media" fragment.

I wasn't, however, aware that you'd had a hand in the writing of the article which is, to put it mildly, fantastic. Any objection I'm having on the article is purely minor and borne only of admiration on such a great piece of work. -- BSMemorial 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Might as well lose the whole paragraph. I actually had issues with the "some songs were written as long ago as 1990" angle, as it's not uncommon for bands to spend several years working on songs, and the near-two-years between "Immodium" and "Breed" on Nevermind is hardly noteworthy. All of the suicide-related content was moved to Kurt Cobain some months ago, and your point about it being the one "explanation" in the article is pretty much right. -- ChrisB 03:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response re: Nirvana dab

My changes regarding both the name and the dab for the earlier Nirvana band resulted from a suggestion from a Wikipedia user (who contacted me since I'm an admin) who seems to be as familiar with the 1967-present band as you appear to be with the Seattle band. In answer to your edit summary question, yes I do believe it important that we specify in the dab that this is a band that was formed in 1967, otherwise someone might just think this was some British band capitalizing upon the name Nirvana. I've also been informed that it is in fact incorrect to refer to the 1967-present band as a UK or British band because the members are in fact Irish and Greek. You can imagine that ruffles a few feathers. ;-) They continue to record and release records, so they shouldn't be delinateted by the decade in which they were formed, so calling them Nirvana (1960s band) as per the original article title is incorrect, and you can't really pigeonhole them into a style, either. You wouldn't want this article to be called Nirvana (Grunge band), I'm sure. That's our rationale for suggesting Nirvana (original band) for the title of the article on the other group. I'm told the original Nirvana even sued Cobain's band over the use of the name and the outcome apparently allowed both bands to continue using the name. Although I'm acting on the request of a user, I happen to agree with the user that in order to provide as much useful info as possible to Wikiusers, article names should be as accurate as possible. So that's why I feel the earlier band article should be called Nirvana (original band). 23skidoo 01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming the user is Davidpatrick, but that's not important. Here's where I take issue:

1) The move of the article title and the disambigs affected four articles. Yet, between the Talk sections of all of those articles, there is exactly zero discussion about this. I saw in one of the edit summaries that you mentioned "per discussion with users". Discussion of this variety should have been held in a publicly available location so that others could have had input. Maybe this topic isn't of crucial importance, but, given that it affects four articles and the users thereof, it at least should have been offered the courtesy.

2) By Wiki guidelines, the whole point about titling articles is to reflect how a user looking for particular information would most easily find it. It's not about historical relevance or accuracy. "Original band" has serious potential to confuse anyone unfamiliar with the UK band. On this page, maybe "original band" is okay. But on Nirvana (disambiguation), the choice of "band" and "original band" is far less clear than a choice of "band" and "60s band" or "band" and "British band". Anyone with cursory knowledge of the Seattle band can disqualify the latter two; "original" is far more difficult to explain.

Furthermore, "original" is dubious, as the UK band was not the "original" Nirvana anywhere but in the UK, and only had rights to the name there. I'll cover this in more detail in a second.

3) If it's so important to put "formed in 1967" in the disambig, then what was the problem with "60s band"? I don't think anyone would bat an eyelash if someone referred to the Seattle band as a "90s band" even though they formed in 1988. And saying that "60s band" is unfair to the band because they continue to perform doesn't make sense. Flock of Seagulls is an 80s band who still performs (albeit with a different lineup), and it wouldn't be disingenuous or inaccurate to refer to them as an 80s band for the point of disambiguation. Again, it's all about what a user is expecting to find.

4) I can certainly understand that a person might be knowledgeable about a particular topic. But that doesn't mean that the topic deserves greater importance than another. Davidpatrick's edits of the Nirvana disambigs placed FAR too much relevance on the British band. That he moved the British band OVER the Seattle band on the main disambiguation, then added them FIRST to the disambigs of the other Nirvana pages was COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.

When the average Wiki user looks for "Nirvana", the two most popular searches are for the Bhuddist concept and the Seattle band. And that's not my opinion because I'm knowledgable about the band. Google and Yahoo searches demonstrate the same thing. Even the British band's article concedes that the band never really achieved popular success. Claiming that band that never really achieved success should be considered on the same level as a band that has sold 50 million albums worldwide does not make sense.

Most frustratingly, Davidpatrick's efforts (as well as the British band's article itself) seem to place the greatest importance of the British band's career on that they had the name first. The truth of the entire story: the British band only had rights to the name in the UK, and they failed to make any claim until 1992, by which time Nevermind had already reached multiplatinum status. THEY DROPPED THE SUIT, there was no settlement.

The real lawsuit came from a Los-Angeles-based Christian band named Nirvana that began using the name in 1983. They agreed to sell their trademark to the Seattle band in exchange for $50,000 in the fall of 1991.

In the US, the Christian band was the "original" Nirvana. Had the British band been active in the US as Nirvana, then there would be an acceptable argument for their being called the "original band called Nirvana". Instead, claming "original" status simply doesn't make sense. (And I seriously doubt that the 60s band was the first band to EVER use the name Nirvana.)

The efforts here unwittingly imply that the Seattle band somehow lifted the name from the British band, which has no foundation in fact. That it took the British band themselves almost a year to make a claim against the Seattle band (and with no notable furor in the UK) is a clear indicator that the public WORLDWIDE was unaware of the British band. And that the British band would be worried about being accused of stealing the name is just bizarre, especially given what happened.

I understand that there are some who feel strongly about the 60s band, but importance in Wiki is not about conviction. Under the category of Nirvana, the British band is a relative footnote compared to either of the other main definitions. Davidpatrick (and other users) should expend their energy improving the article and far less time trying to rewrite history to give them greater importance via Wiki.

Frankly, I think the disambigs are fine as they are at this exact moment. In my own opinion, I think "60s band" was a far more concise title for that article, as it said everything that a user seeking that information would need. -- ChrisB 03:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the person who contacted 23skidoo by email to seek guidance on a technical issue relating to how what I believed to be an erroneously titled article could be renamed. I had struck up a rapport with 23skidoo after he brokered a resolution of another wiki matter. So I mentioned some of the background to him in my email. There was no intent to bypass the public process and I apologize if it left that impression.

You have raised multiple points – all with courtesy and argued well. I do beg to respectfully differ with you. On some of the facts. And on the interpretation thereof. I do so point by point on the outstanding matters. With appropriate detail. Quoting your original points first and offering the response afterwards for ease of following my responses. (This will take more space on this page - but it will be clearer to follow.)

2) By Wiki guidelines, the whole point about titling articles is to reflect how a user looking for particular information would most easily find it. It's not about historical relevance or accuracy.

Is that really the SOLE criterion? I would have thought that historical accuracy plays its part. Of course ease of use is important. But surely not at the expense of accuracy. Since the Cobain Nirvana is well-established and far better known – I don’t understand how a user seeking information about the Cobain Nirvana would be confused

Chart Table

What do you think of this ChrisB ???

Year	Song	Billboard Hot 100	US Mainstream Rock	US Modern Rock	UK Singles	Irish Singles	New Zealand Singles	AUS Singles	Album
1991	"Smells Like Teen Spirit"	6	1	1	7	1	1	5	Nevermind
1992	"Come as You Are"	32	3	3	9	7	3	25	Nevermind
1992	"Lithium"	64	15	4	11	5	28	53	Nevermind
1992	"On a Plain"	-	-	25	-	-	-	-	Nevermind
1992	"In Bloom"	-	5	-	28	7	20	75	Nevermind
1993	"Sliver"	-	-	19	-	23	-	-	Incesticide
1993	"Heart Shaped Box"	-	4	1	5	6	9	17	In Utero
1994	"All Apologies"	-	4	1	32	20	20	58	In Utero
1994	"About a Girl"	-	3	1	-	-	-	4	MTV Unplugged in New York
1995	"The Man Who Sold the World"	-	12	6	-	-	-	-	MTV Unplugged in New York
1995	"Lake of Fire"	-	22	-	-	-	-	-	MTV Unplugged in New York
1996	"Aneurysm"	-	11	13	-	-	-	-	From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah
2002	"You Know You're Right"	45	1	1	-	-	-	-	Nirvana

Look, including Australia was already a compromise. Picking two small countries to buffer the results doesn't make sense. Including as much information as possible doesn't make sense if the end result is garish and horrible.

But logging in on another computer so that you can find someone to "agree" with you is as grossly unacceptable as anything you can do on Wiki. It's called Sockpuppeting. What, it's not obvious the IP who "agrees" with you not only edits the same articles as you but also edits your posts?

I now think about 500% less of you as an editor. Nice effort. -- ChrisB 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else has done the chart table as well, wasn't me, maybe they just share the same opinion.

A live track

Okay, I found this Nirvana (I think, it sounds like one of Cobain's voices) live track. It sounds like it was played at a small sports bar (the words "base hit" can be heard in the beginning). Also, the intro is, "This one is for all the Italians out there, especially my family." I can't decipher most of the lyrics, but I can hear "Yeah yeah yeah," "gotta step into my life," and something like "I can't leave it tonight." If any of you have information, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Worldmaster0 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

At face value, I would gamble that it's not Nirvana. None of the band members are of Italian descent. If I could hear it I might be able to help you, but this description isn't quite enough. -- ChrisB 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, too bad. It's a great song, I just can't find it again (it was incorrectly labeled "Endless Nameless" so I assumed it was Nirvana). Thanks anyway. Kinda like "Legend of Zelda" sounding like System of a Down but really being The Rabbit Joint (who by the way needs an article at some point), I guess. Worldmaster0 21:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Music Video Table

I thought I'd do a music video table seen as the Guns N' Roses page has one. Note the 'All Apologies' video although from 'Unplugged' was in fact released as promotional video for the In Utero single. Likewise the Aneurysm video is taken from 'Live Tonight Sold Out' but was in fact released as a promo video for 'From The Muddy Banks of The Wishkha'. The other two unplugged songs were also released as VHS promos for Unplugged.

Article too long

Seen as the article is too long much of the info could be reduced. The information on the Nevermind and In Utero albums could go on the individual Nevermind and In Utero pages. That would create alot more space.

"Bleach"

Shouldn't there be a section on "Bleach", seeing as how it was there first album? Aaron L.

I totally agree. Have no idea why it's just part of "Early Years". Maybe the guy that did the edit is young and thinks Nirvana became known only from "Nevermind", but before it, Nirvana was already generating A LOT of buzz in the underground and college radio scene BECAUSE of "Bleach". The interest behind "Bleach" is one of the main reasons why Nirvana got to tour with Sonic Youth which led to them being introduced to SY's major record label DGC, that signed them afterwards and launched "Nevermind". "Bleach" is still considered by many Nirvana fans as their best album. Am giving it its own section.

The entire point of the section headers is to mark TIME, not all of the specific albums. Dates would be the most appropriate section headers if the album titles didn't cover the ground more accurately. We're not judging relevance - we're marking notability via Wiki guidelines. I'd vote to swap out the album titles for dates if it means we can avoid fragmenting the article needlessly. -- ChrisB 18:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an 'Early Years'(1986-1988) section followed by a short 'Bleach'(1989=1990) section. Then the Nevermind (1991-1992) , In Utero(1993-1994) sections. The post Nirvana section could be a bit more specific and focus mainly on the releases. Unplugged, LTSO, Singles, Wishkah, etc...

Nirvana band member a monk?

I heard a rumor that after Cobain's suicide one of the other band members found Christ, and eventually entered an Orthodox monastery. I've tried researching this, but have not found anything. Does this statement have any truth, or where did this rumor come from?? -- 216.125.119.49

That sounds highly unlikely, as we already know what happened to the surviving members (none of which did what you are suggesting). -- LGagnon 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The cover art of The Priest They Called Him (which was a collaboration between Cobain and William S. Burroughs) features Novoselic in monk garb. That's as close as you're going to get - the story just isn't true. -- ChrisB 04:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I may have found the missing monk. On a whim, I checked out recent info on Jason Everman, and for some reason he has an extensive bio on imdb.com. It includes "Studied Mahayana Buddhism at Tupten Choling monastery in the Khumbu Himalaya in Nepal for several months." Presumably the monks kicked him out at that time. (I know I shouldn't still find Jason Everman jokes funny 15 years later, but there you have it.) -Bert 171.159.64.10 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Two measures from SLTS (from User:Manboobies)

Reasons for not including:

1) It's non-notable. It proves nothing and demonstrates nothing about Nirvana and/or Cobain's songwriting. It's two random measures from a random song.

2) It's original research, or arguably so. This wasn't something that was including in a Nirvana release. Even if you could argue that the tablature books are Nirvana releases, the band members had NO INPUT WHATSOEVER in the tab books. 99% of the tab books sold today were tabbed by independent folks affiliated with the publisher.

3) Cobain couldn't read sheet music, so using to sheet music to say something about his music is just flat out ridiculous. (This ignores the part where the inclusion doesn't really say anything.)

4) It has no context in the article. Okay, so here's two measures from "Smells Like Teen Spirit". So what? It's like someone trying to jam a bad picture into the article just because they found some picture somewhere. Cobain wasn't adhering to sheet music when he sang those lines, so I'm baffled what exactly they're trying to say.

I got more, but I figure that's plenty. -- ChrisB 02:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You've got nothing except ownership issues.

1) It demonstrates everything about Cobain's method of song writing, hitting his top notes to create a maximum effect, using his money notes to cause an emotional response in the listener. It shows Cobain using his loud high chorus, low muffled verse technique.

Oh, so that's the key to Cobain's songwriting? Wow, I'm sure that's news to many people who identified with something completely different in his music. Again, original research. Find me a primary source that makes those claims.

You just quoted me as saying "key". I never said key. You are lying about what I have said. --Manboobies 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2) It doesn't matter whether the band members had input in the tab book. A music note is a music note. It's a couple of notes that you can easily verify by getting out a keyboard and playing to the words that it says the notes belong too, they ring out quite clearly together. And also the idea of needing to go to Cobain and the band themselves for this information is flawed, not only is that song easy to work out by ear, wikipedia does accept more than primary sources.

3) Whether Cobain couldn't read sheet music or not is completely and utterly irrelevant. Exactly why would that matter? Should anything Cobain wouldn't read or couldn't care less about not be included in the article? Should we delete this article because Cobain wouldn't and can't read it, being dust and all?

That's not my point in the slightest. You're trying to use sheet music to demonstrate the "keys" to Cobain's songwriting. But Cobain didn't use sheet music in his songwriting. He wrote how he felt, and that was the key. Using sheet music to explain it is analysis, and, again, is original research.

Again, you don't seem to understand, I'm using sheet music to show notes Cobain sang and the structure of SLTS's chorus. That's not original research. Listen to that Nirvana song, it has loud choruses and quiet verses. that is not a piece of original research and it is verified here "[SLTS is the gold standard of the soft verse/loud chorus dynamic."] However you shouldn't even need that proof. It's a given. EVERYBODY knows about the loud chorus/quiet verse technique of that song.--Manboobies 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me how this:

Image:Slts.png

demonstrates the loud/soft dynamic. You continue to argue points that aren't at issue here. -- ChrisB 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

4) Again, you're missing the point, whether Cobain read sheet music or not is irrelevant. It doesn't say, this is the sheet Cobain wrote the notes to the song he sang down, it says 'these are the notes to part of the song where he sings blah blah blah'. And I completely agree about the part about it not fitting there, there's nothing but generalised vague information on SLTS, which is arguably the song that made his career, which frankly makes this article completely unworthy of FA status as it glosses over Nirvana's history more than any article I have ever read on them. It's completely lacking in depth and is full of unsourced factual tidbits. How on earth was this sneaked through?--Manboobies 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, so your content doesn't fit, therefore the rest of the article is bullshit? It cleared FA because all of the content in this article is verifiable and sourced, hence all of the sources at the bottom. You claim that it "glosses over their history", yet we've managed to max out the article length according to Wikipedia guidelines. I think I can readily find a hundred articles that gloss over their history more than this one, including tour reviews and album review capsules. If you want to offer constructive criticism, feel free. But shove the pretentious crap. -- ChrisB 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Insulting me is against Wiki guidelines, and completely unhelpful, whereas I have offered to improve this article and you rv'd the changes. Let me simplify it for you - I am allowed to edit this article myself, you only have 1 more RV you can do before you can be blocked and I have 2. You are not the sole author of this article and you definitely have ownership issues with it. I mean, you're telling me to give you helpful suggestions. That's not how Wikipedia works. I'm allowed to make changes myself.--Manboobies 22:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What point are you arguing here? The last edit you made was to add the sheet music. I took it out, explained why, and your response above of "I completely agree about the part about it not fitting there" implies that you understand that it doesn't belong. So what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

I don't have any "ownership issues" with this article. I just happen to feel strongly that people shouldn't just jam in some random comment into an article simply because it's the only contribution they can make. Articles should be readable as a unified document from top to bottom, and not have random tangents in the middle of the article for no apparent reason, or solely to comfort someone else's personal ego about contributing to an article.

I don't have issue when the topics are valid and noteworthy. Take the Courtney Love licensing issue. I didn't write that stuff, and have no intention of changing it. It's noteworthy and belongs in this article. But the recently added sentence "'Smells Like Teen Spirit' believe it or not was thought of as a 'pop' song when it was written." is completely inappropriate for the introduction paragraph describing who Nirvana was as a band. It's a random statement that has no business being added where it was. And, since it's unsourced, it doesn't belong in the article. Just as he has the right to add it, I have the right to remove it.

You can add whatever you want to add. But the extensive edit you made about his vocal range and his music theory was almost 100% unsourced and inaccurate. There is no primary source discussing the loss of his vocal range. How can you be sure that the lack of a C4 in In Utero wasn't because of the switch to Eb standard tuning from the E standard used on "Teen Spirit"? And who's to say the switch to Eb standard wasn't because Nevermind consisted of songs written in D standard tuning and E standard tuning, and Eb standard was a fair compromise between the two?

Your claims about the loss of his range in the SNL performance are unfounded and unsourced as well. He was clearly on heroin during the performance - you think that might have affected his performance? Is your knowledge about Nirvana so extensive that you can verify that he never hit the Bb4 in "Teen Spirit" ever again? Have you heard all four tv performances of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" to verify your point? Have you checked performances from before the studio recording to see if maybe he just hit the high note on the studio recording and never again? (Not that it matters, as it would still be original research.)

You showed up and added an extensive edit that was entirely original research. I removed it, because it was original research. You came back and added just the sheet music portion of your edit, which makes blindingly little sense on its own. You showed up here and made wild points that had nothing to do with my main argument - which was that your edit was original research and that the sheet music didn't make any sense in context.

Take a step back and chill out. I'm not here to remove content just because I personally feel it doesn't belong. I'm here to remove content when it makes no sense in the article or if it violates Wikipedia guidelines, which I think I've pretty clearly explained here.

I don't have any problem with content discussing the loud/soft dynamic as long as it fits the article. Other people have discussed the ubiquity of Nirvana's loud/soft dynamic - their words should be used, not yours. Analysis does not belong on Wikipedia, as it's entirely original research. -- ChrisB 23:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)