Talk:Nirvana (band)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Nirvana (band). 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hardcore punk?

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

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

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

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

Yes, I did hear you. There is an influences section on the Kurt Cobain article if you wish to check that out. I think we should wait for User:ChrisB's input into this discussion before trying anything majorly new. "...we could put both hrdcore [sic] and early Black Sabbath as influeneces[sic]." - Well, you'd need strong reliable sources for those suggestions, friend. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Influences aren't what counts when it comes to genre - it's the genre of the music they play. Saying that Nirvana was influenced by hardcore punk doesn't mean that Bleach was a hardcore punk record. Nirvana was also influenced by pop music - that doesn't make Nirvana a pop band. (There isn't an influences section here, but the one in Cobain's article mentions Sabbath, among others.)

The overriding issue is how Nirvana's music was portrayed in journalism. If notable sources say that Nirvana was a hardcore punk band, then it wouldn't be a problem. But Nirvana was not referred to as a hardcore punk band in any consistent manner. (We've got the same problem with those who want to call them a "punk" - they were only called such by a few inconsistent sources.) -- ChrisB (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Hardcore punk is much different than punk and grunge. Jmlk 1 7 03:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree with the suggestion of Hardcore Punk, Kurt Cobain would often consider Nirvana to be Punk, there are several references of this in interviews and it's even mentioned in his suicide note

MTV unplugged

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

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

If you've seen the performance, Cobain and Grohl cause damage to the drum kit and the amplifiers, ergo "their equipment". Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 15:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. Skolan124 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Posthumous releases section

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

When the album came out, yes. But after "Teen Spirit" broke, Cobain demanded a significantly higher stake (75% of royalties, I believe - and sole credit for the songwriting, save "Teen Spirit"), retroactive to the release of the album. Pre-Nevermind tracks (including "Aneurysm", for example) were still split evenly - which is why Channing has a larger stake in Nirvana's publishing than Grohl does.

Cobain's demands almost broke up the band, particularly the part where it was retroactive to the release of Nevermind. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Cobain had a sole songwriting credit for most Nirvana songs before the change in royalties. The reason the whole band is credited on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Aneurysm" is because it they wrote and arranged those songs together, unlike say "In Bloom" or "Lithium", where Kurt wrote the whole thing by himself. Cobain simply doled out his songwriting royalties to the band, which wrren't much when the band started; the whole debacle was about how he wanted to change that after the band became hugely successful. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The original songwriting credit for everything on Nevermind (and all of its b-sides) was "Lyrics by Cobain / Music by Nirvana". It's printed that way in the liner notes of Nevermind and all of its singles - including, in particular, the "Lithium" single. After the deal, all of the Nevermind tracks were assigned solely to Cobain, save "Teen Spirit", which still bears the original credit. (I generally agree with your take on "Aneurysm", though it's hard to say for sure - it may have simply been left out of the deal and had already been released with the original credit on the "Teen Spirit" single.) -- ChrisB (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we get some of this stuff into the article? I wasn't asking for my personal benefit :), although thanks anyway! --kingboyk (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also please note my original comment about flow. Need to make clear we're talking about publishing, and not rights to the recordings. --kingboyk (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs expansion

I'd like to see a section on Nirvana's tours and live shows. It would be interesting to include some mention of their habit of smashing instruments.

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

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

Nirvana Sales Update

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

I do agree that it is impossible to get an exact figure for worldwide sales, however, over 30 million is closer to reality over an artcle five years old, especially considering the fact Nirvana has had s catalog sales since then, once again proven by soundscan numbers. I DO have several sources I could provide you....I'm not sure how to add sources to an article so any help would be appreciated. allaplgies (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is specific: WP:OR. We have to cite a source that specifically says they've sold more than sixty to claim such in the article. People have tried to change this figure in the past, but the guidelines are clear and unequivocal. If and when a reliable source confirms that the band has sold sixty million records worldwide, we can consider changing it.

But, regardless, it's irrelevant. There is absolutely no concrete difference between saying " 99.99% of the people reading this article don't even notice the figure - the specifics are trivia. All we're trying to say is "they've sold a lot of records", which is the precise reason the statement is there. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The point is to note popularity (ie, that they've sold more than fifty million albums), so the detail is irrelevant. Fifty million is an obvious demarcation line in terms of sales, and all we're saying is that they've crossed it. It's not there to be an updated sales figure. Updated sales figures go elsewhere.

BTW - changing it from fifty to sixty says nothing about the band's "continuing popularity".

It's so unimportant a statistic that we could strike the entire sentence and it wouldn't hinder the article in the slightest.

The rest of your argument is flawed. No, we cannot use RIAA, CRIA, or ARIA sources because those organizations don't track sales. They track shipments. Shipments aren't sales, and the stat we have is sales. And your Soundscan statment doesn't buy you ten million - it only buys you 4.5 million.

And, either way, it doesn't matter, as WP:OR specifically bans us from cobbling sources together to come up with a figure, particularly when those figures cannot be independently verified - and especially when our existing figure serves our purposes perfectly.

But, again, this whole argument is MEANINGLESS. Sixty million is no more factually accurate than fifty million for the reason already stated: sixty is "over fifty". Even Wikipedia doesn't track sixty: look at their Best selling music artists page and see how they're oriented.

If you can find said published article, fine - post it here and we'll talk about it.

But, again, IT'S IRRELEVANT. We're not trying to put an updated sales figure in the intro: all we're trying to say is that they've sold a ton of records. And padding that by ten buys us NOTHING. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) For the most part, it's self-appointed "experts". There are probably three or four "regulars" on this particular page who vet additions to make sure that published sources support them. The goal as far as WP:OR is concerned is that it allows us not to be concerned with our own accuracy - so long as outside sources can be confirmed as reliable and verifiable, then our content should be at least as accurate. There's also administrative vetting by the Wikipedia community: this article was reviewed a couple of years ago and deemed a "Featured Article". However, that's less about content and more about confirming that sources were used to write the article and the writing meets a journalistic level.

To some degree, I agree with many educators deciding to prevent use of Wikipedia as a primary source. To be honest, by its own design, it's a secondary source. But, as a secondary source, I think it's incredibly useful - at least as a stepping stone to further research on a topic. If the article has been written up to appropriate standards, it should have a list of references at the bottom that would be a perfect second step for anyone writing an article on a subject.

It really comes down to certain topics. This one is relatively safe, as most of Nirvana's history is uncontroversial - it follows a specific path of highlights. (Cobain's article is the opposite, particularly given the forceful opinions about his death.) In the case of less notable topics, Wiki articles can be a mess. I mostly work on music articles, and many of the album pages on Wikipedia are appallingly bad (if they contain any content at all) - more often than not, the article is the equivalent of someone writing a review for their college newspaper.

3) The only problem with using the RIAA numbers for sales is that they don't split out shipments that are sitting in warehouses or on store shelves. It's a little bit less of an issue now, as the big chain stores hold fewer copies in storage than they used to, but it's been a problem. One example was Britney Spears' third album. Her label shipped four million copies for day-of-release, and the RIAA certified it four-times-platinum shortly thereafter. But it didn't come close to selling that many copies in the weeks after its release. On the RIAA numbers alone, it'd be impossible to even guess how many copies it's actually sold.

And part of me doesn't mind the exclusion of music club sales from the totals, given that the labels themselves generally don't consider them to be sales, either. Most major label artists' contracts during that era had clauses that counted music club sales as "promotions", meaning that the label didn't have to pay the artist for the "sale". It was one of the more divisive issues among major label bands during the peak era of music clubs. (I've wondered why Columbia House, et al, couldn't keep track of their own sales. But I think the majors didn't want their artists to know how many copies weren't counting.) -- ChrisB (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Music Style

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

Current Members

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

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

When Kurt died the band stopped and became inactive, as you see by the table it says 'Years Active 1987-1994'.EchetusXe (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Former/Current members

So far we've had a paced out edit war on whether to move Kurt, Krist, and Dave to the past members section in the infobox or not. The template example says we should move all members of a no longer active band to the past members section, whilst general consensus says we should keep it as is. I am in favour of keep the guys staying in the current members box as they were Nirvana. Consensus overrides templates, so what does the community think? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty much standard to have an inactive band's "classic" line-up under the Current members section. indopug (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The band that was Nirvana no longer exists; by definition, Cobain, Novoselic, and Grohl are former members. It'd be unencyclopedic to differ from the Template's documentation. Thom (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All bands eventually cease to exist. Besides the display doesn't call them current members, just members. See also: The Beatles, Soundgarden etc. indopug (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case where 6 lesser known and less important former members are already listed it would be foolhardy to also list the 'classic' line-up of 3 band members under 'former members'. Forget the template.EchetusXe (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain how ANYONE can be a member of a defunct band. The infobox is designed for at-a-glance information, particularly to the casual reader. All members should be former members to avoid confusing people. Tom Green (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That argument is a non-starter. "Years active" is in the same infobox, so there is no confusion even for the casual reader that this is an active band. However, listing Cobain, Novoselic and Grohl on equal footing with Dan Peters, Jason Everman, et al. certainly would be confusing for someone with little or no familiarity with Nirvana trying to find out quickly who the classic line-up was. CAVincent (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

and what about Pat Smear? he's still alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.198.85 (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

All of them should be in the former members, because the band isn't around anymore Kurt can't be a current member: He's Dead Last time i checked you can't front a band from the grave. See how it's done over at Pink Floyd. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Pat Smear was considered by Cobain, Ghrol and Noveselic as implied in the liner notes for from the muddy banks of the wishkah. He had done recordings with the band that were planned for there next record. He was originaly hired so that he could do more of the gutar and Cobain could focus more on singing (similar to Everman). This is all talked about in the book Heavier Than Heaven a biography on Cobain. I'm setting up smear as a member if you have a problem comment about it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.217.46 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you add Pat to the list yet? Feb 2009 thru Sept. 2009 is a long time to wait. Unless someone removed him - but I agree he should be in there. He was definitely a member. And he was awesome. 66.186.91.82 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana currently has 0 members. Since it no longer has members then nobody should be in the "current members" section. It's like in bands like Metallica and Hawthorne Heights. Kurt Kobain died and is therefor NO LONGER in the band. If a casual reader looks at the page and gets confused as to what the classic lineup is all they have to do is READ THE PAGE, or click on the first album and look at the members in that page.

Uh, would be great if you could read the above discussion and actually give your input rather than brute forcing your decision. And remember to sign your posts with the four tildes like this: ~~~~ Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain definitely needs to be added to the "current line up" because he was the most important member of the band and Pat Smear need to be taken off completely because he was never a member of the band he was just a touring guitaristFeedmyeyes (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat Smear

Now Pat Smear isn't mentioned at all. The Pat Smear page certainly implies he played with the band. It seems the the current vs. former member distinction is being used to separate perceived major vs. minor contributors. Nirvana was basically a 3-man band, but they did have other help. Thundermaker (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative rock

I seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user over whether or not "Alternative rock" should be included in the infobox under genres, as it previously had been for as long as I can remember. His argument seems to be that alternative rock is not needed as grunge is a sub-genre of it. He also believes that All Music Guide is not a reliable source.

Grunge is certainly a sub-genre of alternative rock and Nirvana certainly played grunge. This has never been my argument, as I've never denied this and have never removed grunge. I simply find "grunge" alone being in the infobox to be too simplistic. Alternative rock, I think, covers all of the various styles and influences Nirvana showed in their music (grunge, alternative metal, punk rock, etc.). While generally a grunge band, Nirvana have had many alternative rock songs that wouldn't necessarily also be classified as grunge. A grunge song has to also be alternative rock, but an alternative rock band doesn't necessarily play grunge all the time. Nirvana were clearly an alternative rock band, which I provided two sources for. One being All Music Guide, which admittedly doesn't ALWAYS get everything right, but as it is a dedicated music website with detailed reviews by music journalists, band profiles, etc. and isn't available to be edited by the public, I can't see why it wouldn't be acceptable. However, even if it weren't, I also provided a second source which specifically names Nirvana as being THEE alternative rock band of the 90s, as written by a music journalist. Both of these sources were removed, along with the genre, from the infobox, with an explanation of All Music Guide not being a valid source. I disagree, but even if it were true, what was wrong with the other source? With all due respect, you can't just remove cited information with perfectly fine sources, even if you disagree with the sources and then label the sources invalid.

As far as I can remember alternative rock has been listed in the infobox. It seems there was never a discussion over whether or not it should be removed, which there surely should be when deciding something like that, particularly when the article has FA status. I've also not noticed any other editors remove the genre as of late. Shouldn't it be added back? James25402 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel to restate my opinion on this matter, but I will answer your points. You Right that Nirvana has had some songs that would not be desribed as grunge and could be called alt.rock. But when it comes to the genre box we have to take a look at all a bands catalog when desribing genres. How many songs of Nirvanas could be called Alt.rock but not Grunge? Not many I'll bet you.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the delete. First because it doesn't make any sense in my opinion, and second because you can't just remove referenced descriptions because YOU think AllMusic is unreliable, Johan. Or, as you say on the Crass talk page "allmusic guide is (...) one of the most inacurrate websites i've ever seen, to the point of stupidity". If they are so stupid I suggest you prove why. Until then it's just your POV. Channel ® 01:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starter's they merged Death and black metal, Refer to grindcore as a metal subgenre, and call crossover punk metal. That being said, many editors disregard Allmusic. Just check the page for allmusic. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Coming in as an outside editor here, I don't see what the harm is in having the two genre tags in there. Yes, Nirvana were a grunge band, but they were also an alt-rock band. Bands do not necessarily have to sit in just one genre. The fact that there are two references from what as far as I can see are reliable sources backing up that they are an "alt-rock" band seals the deal really. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

The debate is not about if Nirvana is an Alt.rock band. As Grunge if a subgenre of alt.rock all grunge bands are also alt.rock. However, calling Nirvana an alt.rock band is like calling Cannibal Corpse a heavy metal band. Technically, you would be correct, but it is unnecessary, unhelpfull, and clogs the genre box.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I do see your point, but personally I feel you're simplifying their sound too much if you were to consider them JUST grunge. They have other influences from the genre of alternative rock, like punk rock (which although it is its own genre, would come under the umbrella of a genre which is "alternative"), alternative metal, a catchy, commercial sound (which I'm sure they weren't going for, but they did ultimately end up with on many of their songs). Grunge, while it is a recognised sub-genre, is just as dependent on the time the band emerged and where it formed as the actual sound of the music. If Nirvana had formed in the year 2000, I'd hazard a guess they wouldn't even be labelled as grunge. That's POV I know, but you can't deny that the time Nirvana emerged and where they started their careers is a main factor in their label of grunge. They are, equally, an alternative rock band. James25402 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana is probably the best-known alt-rock band, and its breakthrough success was an important milestone to the genre, if not the single most important event related to it. Not to mention Nirvana was really a somewhat atypical grunge band; the other grunge bands didn't draw from R.E.M. and the Pixies like Nirvana did. So it needs to stay. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

and what about pat smear? he was a member through kurt cobains death why is not listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.193.213 (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep Alternative rock in the genre box as many musicians involved in the scene actualy consider the term "Grunge" to be a media buzzword and not a propper genre (however you must understand that I am NOT suggesting we take the word Grunge out of the genre box, as this would be silly) whereas very few people would contest the term "Alternative rock".--P-we Joplin (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also (with regards to Allmusic.com not being a proper reference), if you wanted to get overly technical about it, you could say that all genre descriptions, from any website, are based on opinion and not reliable, but if we took that view Wikipedia would end up being an incredibly boring and uninformative site with pages that read like; "Nirvana were a group of people who made sound". --P-we Joplin (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, bands can be catalogued by genres using proper research and classification. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you kind of missed my point--P-we Joplin (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I understood your point. My point it that it contains common fallacies held about musical genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of pointless as I was NOT by any means saying that we should'nt list genres, and we both agree that alternative rock should stay in the genre box, therefore this argument will not benefit the article in any way. You're arguing more with the way I made my point rather than the point itself, which was that Allmusic.com are a fairly reliable source when it comes to genres. Anyway I was only saying "if you want to get overly technical" I wasn't saying that we should ACTUALY BE that technical and if this offends you then I am sorry.--P-we Joplin (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Former members

I don't think that either Jason Everman or Pat Smear can be considered former members of the band. Everman did not appear on any studio album (although he was credited as a second guitarist on Bleach). He performed on tour with them for a brief period but was not considered a member of the band. The same is true of Pat Smear. Although he played for Nirvana in many of their concerts he was another touring guitarist and made no contribution to any of the band's studio albums. Just thought I'd point this out, although I'm sure they're are a few people out there who disagree with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.37.63 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically everything you said are reasons why they both SHOULD be considered members, at least in the case of Jason Everman. As for Pat Smear, you need look no further than interviews Kurt did at the time, in which he made it clear that Pat was a full member of Nirvana, and would appear on their next studio recordings. He also recorded some as yet unsurfaced demos with Kurt that were intended to be Nirvana songs.

Pat Smear is fair enough but I don't think Everman was ever properly considered a member of Nirvana. He was only credited on Bleach as a guitarist because he put the money up for the recording sessions but as has already been mentioned he didn't actually play on the album. Also his tour with them was very brief and ended acrimoniously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diveinme (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

To the above comment, true, even though I do kind of agree with you in this sense, I still think Everman deserves the mention in the former members section. I mean, they did include the guy in some promo photos with the band during the Bleach era. Even if they only put him on the credits because he paid for the studio time for Bleach, I think that gives him an important enough place in the "Nirvana Mythos", as it were, to still be included in the former members sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.160.97 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Old topic refreshed. We do not have a single source that confirms Pat's status as a full-fledged member of the band. For each instance of Cobain referring to him as "our new guitar player", there's another instance where Cobain says, "Nirvana is Krist, Dave, and I." (RS, 1/94), and the liner notes of With the Lights Out say the same thing. He can't be a "former member" if we can't confirm that was officially a member. Look through the archive for the full discussion.

Everman is a different story - there are several sources (band bios and interviews) from his era with the band where they refer to him as a full member of the band. We didn't add him as a full member until we could confirm it - we confirmed it, it went in. Three years (and nine thousand people insisting it) later, we still can't do the same for Smear. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely the fact that Pat Smear is on Unplugged in New York and plays in every song (he isn't just a guest like the Kirkwood brothers), which was a live concert with the sole intention of being recorded, aired and released as a Nirvana record shows that he was a full member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Pravda (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Discography Section

I see that WesleyDodds removed everything but the studio albums without comment back in May. Seems like a poor decision to me, but since it has stood for so long and I've never contributed to the article, I'm not going to revert. Still, wouldn't it be a good idea to put in a line noting that this is a truncated discography of studio albums only, and directing readers to the main article for the full version? I know the link is there, and yes most readers will recognize that it is not a complete version, but still. CAVincent (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Band articles only need to list the studio albums if there is a separate discography page. The link to the full discography is standard practice on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a number to band articles (Sonic Youth, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam) do this, but do have a header indicating that only studio albums are listed in the band's main article, so I added that back. Hope it's okay. CAVincent (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's usually for bands with a large amount of albums. We don't need it for Nirvana. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

where is Incesticide on the list? wasn't that a studio album(an album of studio tracks)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.154.33 (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a compilation of previously record tracks, which is a different thing from a studio album. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

I was wondering about the "Associated acts" listing criteria. If temporarily sharing a drummer qualifies the Melvins, why not Mudhoney? If members' previous bands are included, why the Germs but not Scream? (Especially given Pat Smear's questionable status as a full Nirvana member.) If a tiny Cobain contribution counts, why include Earth because he sang one song on a demo that was later released, but not The Go Team with which he collaberated on a single (the Go Team being a singles-only project)? Except for removing Earth, I'm not really arguing for or against these edits, just pointing out apparent inconsistency. I would also be interested on thoughts from more experienced editors to guide me in editing other articles, on just how much of a connection is needed to be listed. CAVincent (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Also, why have "Associated acts" at the top of the article and "Related bands" at the bottom? These would be redundant, except the two lists currently differ. CAVincent (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that under Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Associated_acts pretty much all of the currently listed "Associated acts" are discouraged on the basis of having only one common member. Just for fun, I'm going to be bold and remove Flipper (on the basis that Novoselic's participation in that band is minor and decades after their important work), Earth (on the basis that Cobain singing on one song is not a meaningful association) and the Germs (on the basis that Smear is not even listed as a former member in the infobox). Some or all of the others could probably go as well. Or, if the logic is to keep them, Sweet 75 should probably be added (it's as legit an associated act as Eyes Adrift) and possibly Scream. (On second thought, I'm gonig to going ahead and add these last two.) CAVincent (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Atleast add Scream (band) since you have added Foo Fighters, they have as much right to be added as Foo Fighters 81.96.254.143 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain (deceased)

According to the editing instuctions, people are advised to discuss things here before changing things in the article, especially band members. So here I am. I wanted to know if it would be okay to add the (deceased) bit after Kurt Cobains name in the member list so it is more consistant with other articles and basically looks better and more informative at a glance. --Cexycy (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is no. I'm not sure what you want to be consistent with, but I'm not aware of any articles on bands that list members with a (deceased) tag. Certainly it is not that way for the Who, the Beatles, the Clash, the Rolling Stones, Joy Division or any other bands with notably deceased members that I can think of. I think there is pretty strong consensus to display members as they are now. CAVincent (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with CAVincent. The article has been around for years and it's never had the "(deceased)" parenthesis next to Kurt. Utan Vax (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC).

Personally i think its crazy that you have Cobain , Grohl and Novelisch as current members. Cobain can not be a current member as he is deceased and Nirvana have broken up. So why are they still down as current members?

We generally keep the main band line up even if they break up (for whatever reason). Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtney Love and 97%

I added three fact tags to this sentence:

As Love controlled((fact)) ninety-seven percent((fact)) of Nirvana's catalog, the deal meant that Mestel had a significantly larger stake((fact)) than Novoselic and Grohl combined.

The cited source, an MTV News online article, does not mention this 97% number. Assuming this line was cribbed from some other source that's just missing a citation, the term "controlled" is a problem; it is very unclear and probably misleading: Because the word "owned" is not being used, I think it is trying to say that she gets a vote (and therefore technically "controls" along with others) on what happens with 97% of the songs - but this does not at all mean she owns 97% of the songs, or gets 97% of the royalties, or anything like that. I could be wrong; this is a guess - but in any case the ownership needs to be clarified if this sentence remains. Tempshill (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some valid points. But I really don't think you needed to add three {{fact}} tags. Two or even one would have sufficed. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to point out each claim that needs a citation, and the sentence had 3 such claims. Furthermore, there was already a citation at the end of the sentence, muddling things up further. Tempshill (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I cut it out since the article does not specify how much of Nirvana's catalogue she had a stake in. Nowhere in the article did I see 97 percent of anything mentioned. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone can find a reliable source, then this would be interesting and relevant material. Tempshill (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in external link

The second link in the "External links" section seems to be an incorrect mix of two different sites: Nirvana Live Guide and Live Nirvana. It looks like someone combined the two separate links at one point (both were formerly listed), creating a site name that doesn't exist ("Live Nirvana Guide") using the link to Live Nirvana and a description for Nirvana Live Guide. Ideally, I believe both links should be listed. (Full disclosure: I run Nirvana Live Guide and am also a regular user of and contributor to Live Nirvana.) To clarify:

Nirvana Live Guide is a "comprehensive guide to Nirvana's live performances and recordings" (similar to the description listed now, but this is the official site description). It's available here: Nirvana Live Guide

Live Nirvana is a more broad site that discusses Nirvana's live performances, recording sessions, and other subjects. Officially, Live Nirvana "features exhaustive guides to Nirvana studio sessions output and Nirvana live concerts." It's available here: Live Nirvana

I'm not able to make these edits myself, but I thought I'd put this out there so someone else might make this correction. Thanks.

Ksproul (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Move article

Article should be moved to Nirvana (US band). This band should not be given primacy over an influential band that existed from 1967 to present, when it lasted only from 1987-1994. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. Is there a separate page where we can have such discussion, with a closure from legitimate admin, a-la deletion discussion? Netrat (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this really won't happen. This page name has been the standard for many years and Nirvana do hold primacy as they are far more prominent than any others by the same name. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do We Really Need

Nirvana in every other article? Not that it is anybody here, but sheesh. I've found a link earlier in the week, "Jay-Z: Unplugged" Talking about them. Several others, too, though. Such as Nirvana's influence on other artists, although it has never been cited. Boredom Swells (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

also known as

Nirvana isn't Skid Row. Someone fix that. Skid Row was a glam metal band fronted by Sebastian Bach, it has nothing to do with Nirvana. 97.102.154.152 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the article's saying. Nirvana went through a number of names early on, including Skid Row. They have no relation to the Sebastian Bach band. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The persian version of this page in the persian wikipedia

نیروانا (گروه موسیقی) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.197.35 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; an interwiki bot will soon add the relevant links. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Current members" vs. "Former members"

Disregarding the debate about who "counts" as an "official" member of the band, I have a nitpicky problem with the way the "Current members" and "Former members" fields in the infobox are being used. Template:Infobox Musical artist#Past_members states that "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the 'Current_members' field." While this is obviously not policy, it is common sense and common practice and reflects the intended use of the fields in the infobox. Put simply, there are no "current members" of Nirvana, as the band has been broken up for nearly 15 years. Everyone who was ever a member of the band is a "former member". There are very few musical artist acts I have come across that don't follow this convention (see for example Pink Floyd, Audioslave, and Joy Division – all FAs about inactive bands), and I don't see a particular reason why this article shouldn't. There doesn't seem to be any consensus here that we should list Kurt, Krist, and Dave as "Current members", as I can't find any such discussion in any of the talk page archives. Even if that were the case, consensus can change, and just because they've "always been" listed in that field doesn't mean it was correct or that it should stay that way. Insisting that this article follow a different format just doesn't seem very NPOV to me. Obviously the Kurt/Krist/Dave lineup was the most notable, but separating them from the other former members in this way, even though the band is long broken up, seems both incorrect and disengenuous. It suggests that the group is still active, when obviously they aren't. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's too late for me to patch together a solid argument right now but I must state my objections. First of all, there are plenty of inactive bands with current lineups (e.g. the Beatles, Soundgarden etc.) and the ones you stated. Secondly, if you look at the article with the "Current_members" field added in, you'll see that it shows up as "Members" not "Current members", okay? People talk about infoboxes being for quick info: How will they tell who was in the main lineup of Nirvana? I'll repeat again: Just because the coding says "current_members", doesn't mean that it says on the infobox "Current members" - It reads "Members" (it doesn't mention that the band is active whatsoever and it does no harm, ironically it would aid the reader). It's clear that the band is inactive because of the years active field, which makes that point moot. Also, there's been plenty of discussion about this before, friend, there are a couple of sections up there (one was actually started by me), and there's also a few in the archives. It's late, I'm cranky, and I really have to hit the hay! Night! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 01:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the field displays as simply "Members" and not "Current members", but the fact that there is a "Former members" field right beneath it makes the issue very confusing. The format implies that the persons in the upper section are still active in the band in some way, or certainly more "current" or "active" than those that have "Former members" written above them. I could make a number of analogies here, but really it's just common sense. The infobox is really just a list, and it's divided very simply. If a band is inactive, then all the members are former members. The lead paragraph can explain which lineup was the most notable or most crucial to the band's history. As to the examples, I intentionally searched through FAs and found that they all follow the standard infobox convention. I'm engaged in a similar discussion on the Beatles, and didn't even notice Soundgarden as it is not yet even GA. Not marking the primary members as "former", when other members are marked as such, implies that the primary members are somehow "not former", which of course is not the case. They are all former members, regardless of which ones are more notable than the others. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to strenuously object to the idea that listing all members of a defunct band as former members constitutes "common sense". Seems to me more like excessive pedantry which obscures rather than clarifies. I would like to see the infobox guideline changed on this, and given infinite wiki-time would campaign for it. The result is absurdities like presenting one Bob Klose as a member of Pink Floyd in equal standing with Roger Waters et al, at least as far as the infobox is concerned. As for there being some possible confusion that a "Members" section indicates that the band is active, given that "Years Active" is also displayed the only people who are likely to be confused for even a second are editors who know and expect the music infobox guidelines. I can't imagine any non-editor who just wants info on Nirvana and checks wikipedia would be confused. At any rate, there has indeed been significant discussion, even in recent months, evidencing a strong consensus to keep Kurt, Krist and Dave as "Members". CAVincent (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read here and in the archives, those discussions pertain to the body of the article rather than the infobox, and have much more to do with which persons "count" as members of the band and which don't (ie. whether or not to include Pat Smear). Again, the infobox is a list. It doesn't provide context on which members are more important to the history of the band than others. The prose of the article needs to do that. The fields are rather simple: "Members" for persons who are currently active members of the band, and "Former members" for people who are no longer in the band. It doesn't say "Key members"/"Other members", "Most notable members"/"Less notable members", "Primary members"/"Ancilliary members". These are contexts which can only be explained in the prose. That's why the infobox guideline is intentionally very simple and straightforward. I've had similar issues in articles like Black Flag, The Clash, and Ramones, and by and large the consensus has been to follow the standards described on the template page in order to maintain neutrality and not try to force some kind of context on the infobox that it isn't set up to provide.

Again, I'm in no way arguing that the the other former members were as important to the band's history as the primary lineup (Cobain/Novoselic/Grohl), as we all know that isn't the case, but a list is a list, and this particular list is set up to show "people currently in the band" and "people no longer in the band", nothing else. There are plenty of acts who are currently active, but for whom a previous lineup was much more significant to their history (ie. Misfits, Germs, Dead Kennedys, Devo, Guns N' Roses, et al.) But we don't go listing members in the wrong fields for those, do we? Why should it be different for a defunct act? Having some members listed as former, and other members who are also no longer in the band not listed as former, doesn't make much sense. If the band is inactive, then they are all former by definition. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is with the terminology of the headings in the infobox - which would require arguing the issue elsewhere. First of all - I think that there should be two different infoboxes. One for bands still active. One for bands that are no longer active. There should probably be THREE types of "member" listed for the active bands. And TWO for the defunct bands . For those bands that are still active - I think that the heading "Members" might be better listed as "Current Members" with "Former Members" for those who have quit, died or been sacked. And "Other Members" for less prominent musicians who were members at some earlier point - either very briefly or from prior to the band's notability. For those bands that are now defunct - I think that the headings should be: "Primary Members". eg with Nirvana - the key 3. With the Beatles - the key 4. Then "Other Members" - for others who served in the band but less notably. I'd be interested in what others have to say. Perhaps take this proposal to the infobox page? Davidpatrick (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I'd see with that is a lot of POV-pushing about "Primary members" (the examples I gave above – Black Flag, Ramones, Clash, etc. – all suffered from those problems). But yeah, the right place to suggest such a thing would be Template talk:Infobox Musical artist, although personally I'd be in favor of a separate box or a defunct = yes parameter that would simply omit the "current members" field from a defunct act and only provide former members. NPOV and all that... --IllaZilla (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

1) Former/Current Member explicitly discussed the infobox, not the Pat Smear issue. 2) I understand how what you refer to as POV-pushing can exist with bands like the Ramones or Black Flag where a definitive line up is not clear. In those cases, using the guideline and moving everyone to "Former Members" instead of endlessly arguing over Tommy or Marky may be the path to consensus. But as you acknowledge that just isn't the case with Nirvana. As for active bands who now lack key members, e.g. Germs, the Misfits, I'm not aware of any significant disputes over the listing of active and former members in these cases but I don't think this is entirely comparable with inactive bands. In the unlikely event that Novoselic and Grohl decide to hold try outs for a new singer, I suppose we would have to revisit this. CAVincent (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't see much consensus in the discussion linked above, and I see several arguments there with compelling reasons to list them all as former members. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But then I see several compelling arguments with compelling reasons to list them as Members. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

the debate's long dead I'm sure but wouldn't 'earlier members' be an acceptable heading. 129.67.178.90 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardcore Punk

Ok.What about "Smells like..." and many songs in "In Utero" ? They do have Alt Metal songs.And Their music does have hardcore punk elements.I have sources for Punk.So I added the genre.But what about Alt metal.I don't have any reliable source for that but as sources say they are alt rock and alt metal is a subgenre of alt rock,and as they really have alt metal songs,can we add that too? (Caus we want to give a better describtion of their sound to the readers and as the article doesnt have "Style and Influences" part) Solino the Wolf (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No sources call them "alternative metal". Also, having influence from hardcore doesn't make them a hardcore band. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are to talk about sources,I had 2 reliable sources calling them a hardcore punk band wether you think they are a hardcore band or not.(the sources doesn't jus say that they're having influence from hardcore,it actually recalls their songs as punk)Solino the Wolf (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't a hardcore punk band, though. They're an alternative rock band influenced by hardcore bands liek Black Flag and Flipper, as well as metal bands like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath, and alternative rock bands R.E.M. and the Pixies. Most importantly, the sources you provided don't call them hardcore at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Who's to decide wich source is reliable and wich is not?ok.So you want me to put PUNK instead of hardcore?The truth is 2 sources which have already been used in the article have put their songs in punk genre.(you can check the "notes" part of the article)Even HistoryLink which you think is not a reliable source has been used in the article before I use it for the genre.am sick of Undoing each others edits.It's very childish.so I decided not to change it until we talk it clear here.Solino the Wolf (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We have guidelines to determine the verifiability of sources; see WP:V for the main example. Not all sources are correct, and you need to take this into account along with what the consensus of reliable sources say. After all, MTV and the American Music Awards have called Nirvana a heavy metal band, which they very much aren't. The general consensus of sources about Nirvana is that they are an alternative rock band, in particular belonging to the grunge subgenre. Just because one source calls them "punk" doesn't mean that they are. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm firmly with Wesley on this one, Solino. Nirvana, by consensus, and reliable music sites, are grunge and alternative rock; not hardcore punk or metal or anything else. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok.I give up.maybe your right.I know they are Grunge and Alt rock.But as the term grunge and alt rock recalls me the sound of REM and some soft alt rock bands, I thought this could help the readers get a better describtion of the band's sound.(as the article doesnt have the Style and Influences part) Cause many of the band's songs like "smells like..." and many songs in In Utero are really heavier than normal alt rock bands.And even a few songs like "Milk it" and mostly "Scentless Apprentice" have Nu Metal elements(If you listen to Scentless Apprentice you'll get what I say) But I admit you're right.Even if they are Alt metal or influenced by hardcore punk as not many reliable sources have called them alt metal,we cant put it here. (by the way if the sources were not reliable how did anyone use it on the article before?)Solino the Wolf (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've ben working on a "sounds and influences" section for a long time. I really need to finish it at some point. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No kidding. I've been looking forward to it for forever now! FWIW, I would consider Nirvana as a punk band, along with much of SubPop's grunge roster such as Tad and Mudhoney and associated acts. But that would be more in terms of ideology/cultural identification and using "punk" in the broadest sense. (Of course, I also took Beat Happening seriously when they claimed to be a punk band, which no one would based only on their recordings.) I would not strongly object to listing punk (though certainly not hardcore) as an infobox genre, though it's probably better not to and simply note the influence in the article. I'm not sure of any good way to source that they were generally associated with punk rock at least in pre-fame days. CAVincent (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I love both Nirvana and hardcore punk, but Nirvana is just not hardcore punk. I'd consider a few of their songs punk, but they aren't really fast-tempoed enough to be hardcore punk.

Main Picture

The main picture for the Nirvana article on Wikipedia is too focused on Kurt Cobain, thus leaving out the remaining band members. For example, the picture doesn't even show Dave Grohl, and Krist Novoselic is blurred in the background. There are many more pictures that feature the whole band of Nirvana, not just Kurt Cobain. Centurion106 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's very difficult to find free pictures of Nirvana, which is why that image is in the infobox. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

I think they warrant a legacy section, it's common knowledge they influenced many bands. Furthermore, Alice in Chains has a legacy section so shy not Nirvana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.247.205 (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here here to suggest the same thing. Nirvana may very well be the most influential band of the last twenty, maybe even thirty years. They were responsible for bringing alternative rock into the mainstream, which has remained the dominant form ever since. Zazaban (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Nirvana changed the face of music entirely. Really need a legacy section dealing with their huge influence on a generation of bands since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.166.75 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Who doesn't agree? They started the grunge phase of music and completely revolutionized all rock/alternative rock!Wikidude 57 ^S _B C 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU NEED PICTURES!!!!!!

COME ON! THIS IS NIRVANA!!!! YOU NEED PICS THERE IS 1 PIC AND YOU CAN BARELY SEE ANY FACES! I MEAN THIS COULD EVEN BE ME! IM BLOND SO... YEA ITS ME!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.41.105 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I enhanced the image on Photoshop but I couldn't see your face anywhere. 203.184.2.130 (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously you need way more pictures! Nirvana has amazing pictures NOT JUST ONE! And the one here isn't even a good shot! Fuccck its nirvana!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.138.5 (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Grunge?

I hate to argue genres on Wikipedia, such a dumb thing to do, but it's a real bummer to see Nirvana labeled as "grunge" all over the place. I appreciate that this article currently states Nirvana as "an American rock band." The band certainly didn't consider their music to be "grunge." They labeled themselves as "rock" or "pop rock" in many interviews. I can post citations if necessary. The term "grunge" is bordering on derogatory and painfully dated. It was a lame label thought up by lame media types looking for an angle. I totally agree that "grunge" should be mentioned in the article, no doubt, it's a part of the discussion and their story. But for such a dumb and limited label to be applied definitively and matter-of-factly to such a popular and influential band really makes no sense. Even "Alternative rock" (a dumb term in itself) makes way more sense than "grunge." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.35.200 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Great paragraph. You raise a good point, but just because a band sees themselves as one genre , doesn't make themselves that genre. Korn for example, does not consider them to be Nu Metal, but they're first four albums, are still considered to be Nu Metal. And although I feel Nirvana is miscellaneous when it comes to their genre, we still need a label for them. And I feel either Grunge or Alternative Rock fits best. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 01:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above IP adress. "Grunge" is utterly undermining and subjective. How is MTV Unplugged a "grunge" album for example? Or a song like Marigold or Do Re Mi? A typical example of Wikipedia's zealous dumbing down of its subjects. Sir Richardson (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana was not just a grunge band, they were the band who brought grunge to mainstream radio. If any band ever earned a grunge label, it's them. BTW I don't consider the term negative. That said, the term doesn't have to appear everywhere in the article. But IMHO it should be in the lead. (Nirvana is mentioned in the lead at grunge.) Thundermaker (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How could anyone say Nirvana isn't grunge. Its like the very definition of grunge. Look at the page about grunge. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are known as the big four Seattle grunge bands. The four of them are what made grunge so popular. --Jimv1983 (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jmlk 1 7 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More pictures!

We need more pictures, like a gallery! Of Kurt, Krist & Dave!

PaperMate123 (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly necessary. Jmlk 1 7 22:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Just a suggestion but it might be an idea to have a seperate article for all of the awards as has been done for the Foo Fighters. 193.195.197.254 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero

all right, what the fuck? it isn't listed kurt is a playable character in Guitar Hero 5, I'll add the paragraph, but first I need opinions

It's relevant to the Kurt Cobain article, but not the Nirvana one. 06:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it not relevant to the Nirvana article? Smells Like Teen Spirit (and Lithium. Both included in the game.) are Nirvana songs, not just Kurt Cobain songs. Doesn't this pertain to the band's legacy? ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts

Ok, who keeps changing this? it is not just Fecal Matter and Foo Fighters who are added. It should also be Them Crooked Vultures and Flipper since Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl are/were appart of these groups. I will be changing this. 81.96.254.143 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Associated acts need to be acts will a direct conenction to the group, and not just bands that other band members have appeared in. See past discussions above. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well atleast add Scream that should be there as much as Foo Fighters should! 81.96.254.143 (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Melvins side project

So I heard Nirvana was seen as a Melvins side project by the time Dale Crover played drums. The reason for this was appearently that both Kris and Kurt had been roadies or other personell for Melvins at some point. (Maybe the truth was rather one of them and the other a fan of the band) Anything on this?

212.107.143.107 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana was by no means a Melvins side project. It was always Kurt and Krist with whatever drummer that could get, including Crover. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mtv Awards

Grohl ran to the mic and began yelling "Hi, Axl!" repeatedly i belive this was Krist Novoselic who did this not Dave Grohl, would sombody please change this. 81.96.254.143 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was Grohl. Krist walked offstage just before due to his bass bashing him on the head. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Punk Rock

I don't see why Punk Rock can't be included in their genre. ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's against them being classified as punk, but you'll need a reliable source citing Nirvana as such. It shouldn't be too hard to find. Also, you might want to read this before adding "punk rock" back to the genre infobox. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I definitely don't want to get blocked. Okay, so If I find a reliable source, what should I do? I don't know many wiki tactics and such, so yeah, how do I cite/include the source? ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Would Kurt's quote of "Punk is musical freedom. It's saying, doing and playing what you want. In Webster's terms, 'nirvana' means freedom from pain, suffering and the external world, and that's pretty close to my definition of Punk Rock. " I know, it's not defining the band, but it just makes it sound like he was punk. So would that count if I found it from a more reliable source? (I'm not sure the site I used is a reliable source or counts as one on wikipedia, so yeah.) ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations from the artists themselves don't count, and that doesn't really look like a citation to me. For identifying reliable sources, read this. To sum up what you need to do to cite Nirvana as punk, you'll need a third-party source describing them as "punk rock" ("punk", by itself, would also count). Try searching Allmusic and look up the biography they have of Nirvana, as well as reviews of Nirvana's albums; you're bound to come up with something. I personally find Allmusic rather unreliable, but Wikipedia considers it a reliable source. --LordNecronus (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so once I've found a reliable third party source describing them as punk (which I now have), what do I do? I'm still a novice (rather than saying noob, although both fit) at wikipedia. ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, copy and paste the URL here, I'll see if it can be used. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2006/nov/30/post9 and here's a quote I thought might help: "It's very fitting that Cobain's favourite performer was Leadbelly because through punk rock, his music dipped..." yeah.. ISeriouslyNeedALife (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)