Talk:Nevermind/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

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

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

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

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

It is mentioned in the article - the sticker part. Also, the Classic Album-Nevermind DVD said music stores were asked to completely remove the big windows adverts or cover the babys genitals. Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe cross reference with the Rape Me/Waif Me cencorship of Wallmart? Befuddled Steve 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree, I actually think their more "punk" than "grunge," coincidentally I was just reading this a few hours ago: --Surachit 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Grunge, as we came to know it through MTV and commercial alternative radio, consisted of craggy and/or heavily reverbed, jangly guitars ... Where do Nirvana fit into this legacy?

Well, maybe they don't. With all the facts laid out, Nirvana begins to look much more like a plain old punk band that happened to exist at the heart of a cultural movement they wanted nothing to do with."

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

Nirvana is in many ways the definitive alternative rock band. The thing is alt-rock evolved out of punk rock, so there will still be some stylistic similiarites. But it's a misnomer to list their genre as punk rock. WesleyDodds 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is first and foremost an alternative rock record, but I think there is enough punk on it for it to qualify as punk rock as well. - Razorhead 12:52 AM PST 18 August 2006

But that's not our job. We don't classify things ourselves. It's ultimately classified as alternative rock, or more specifically, grunge. WesleyDodds 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm going to wait for input besides your's, if there is any, before I completely rule out the possibility of Nevermind being labelled a punk rock album Razorhead 3:55 AM PST 18 August 2006

I think you're somewhat missing the point. It's ok for you personally to think it's a punk rock album; that's your opinion, after all. But when it comes to reliable sources that we can cite (such as Allmusic.com and so forth) they don't classify it as one. And that means we can't label it as one, or else it would be original research. I mean, a lot of underground bands in the 80s considered themselves "punk"; that doesn't mean they didn't create a new sound. And anyways, why do we need to list three genres on an album page infobox? I say we just list grunge (like all the other Nirvana albums do) and be done with it. WesleyDodds 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you convinced me actually. You're right, I was basing it on my and a fair amoun t of other people's beliefs, but honestly you're right, not enough reliable sources say it is a punk album for it to qualify officially as one. But in my mind, it is definetely a punk album, but I'll keep my opinion out of genre classifications on wikipedia. - Razorhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dunno. It's also on all of their other albums too.: --User:Lgndkllr777 17:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It appears that no one is against using that as a source, so I am citing the booklet and removing the tag. Connör ^(talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm just wondering why this isnt at GA status... I dont see anything wrong with the article Connör ^(talk) 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of use were working on the article but have become involved in other projects. Not quite GA status yet, but could be there with some effort. WesleyDodds 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by WesleyDodds, we should collate potential Nevermind sources:

• allmusic.com: Nevermind. Good for release formats.
• Our Band Could Be Your Life. Sub-Pop and release: p. 451, 452 Release and legacy: p. 493-501.
• RollingStone.com: Nevermind. Mostly talks about musical style and recording. CloudNine 09:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• NYTimes.com: Pop/Jazz; A Band That Deals In Apathy Original review by The New York Times the week Nevermind was released. WesleyDodds 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• NYTimes.com: RECORDING VIEW; Boredom + Claustrophobia + Sex = Punk Nirvana Follow-up piece after Nevermind started climbing the charts. Sales increases are tallied here: [1], [2]
• NYTimes.com: The Pop Life; Nirvana's 'Nevermind' Is No. 1 Nevermind tops the charts. Follow-up article here: [3]
• NYTimes.com: POP VIEW; Nirvana-bes Awaiting Fame's Call The immediate impact of Nevermind on alternative rock bands. WesleyDodds 09:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• EW.com: Nevermind Review. WesleyDodds 20:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through and repaired all the references. I couldn't figure out what the 15th ref, "Di Perna, Alan. Fall 1996", is referring to. it needs to be clarified or removed. It doesn't state what it's referencing, and uses a seasonal term to describe its date. Could somebody who knows what this is referring to please clarify it? Grim 17:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I know what it is. I believe it's a reprint of a 1996 Guitar World article. I have a reprint of it, but not on me at the moment. WesleyDodds 03:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it short, someone deleted all the songs on the track. No explanation given, they just did. TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Per dicussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, we redirected several of the song pages since they are not notable enough to deserve separate articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article says they were all written by Kurt Cobain alone (apart from Smells...) but on the record sleeve it says "All song lyrics by Kurt Cobain/Music by Nirvana". Who's right? MFlet1 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Smells Like Teen Spirit reached #9 on the RS 500 Greatest Songs of All Time? Cheers, Kodster ^{(heLLo) (Me did that)} 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more appropriate for the song page, where it is currently mentioned. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Elden is the toddler that is pictured on the front cover of this album. He's a teenager now, still in high school. Other than his father showing up and getting paid $200 for them to take a few pics of his son underwater, the kid hasn't done anything notable. He doesn't warrant having a separate article about him at this point, and it does not meet the guidelines of WP:BLP. I therefore recommend that whatever content of his article that's not already over here (if any), be merged here, and the article be redirected to this one. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think he should have an article, but he has been interviewed and been the subject of a number of articles in the mainstream press. I don't see what would be worth merging here. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that an article about Kirk Weddle, the photographer who took the picture in the first place and is also a photographer for Rolling Stone Magazine, was just deleted I think this info should be deleted or merged. I tried to help the Weddle article out, but it was deleted before I could make changes. Considering that MTV.com states that the album-cover is iconic I think Weddle is far more deserving of an article than Elden. Weddle's concept is notable. The model is just part of that concept. Another option might be for someone to work on the Kirk Weddle bio again and merge this info to Weddle's bio.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree with WesleyDodds here. Common sense I guess would state that he shouldn't have an article, but there is a lot of info on his article and he had several interviews. I saw an interview with him on Yahoo News. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Elden is non-notable, however many times he is interviewed. Mention of him in the Nevermind article is already sufficient, and his article should be deleted. CAVincent (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SINCE IT SOLD 10 MILLION+ ALBUMS, SHOULD IT BE DIAMOND, NOT 10X PLATINUM??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.114.183 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know total sales, both U.S. and world wide?--TallulahBelle 13:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S. sales are 10 million+, worldwide sales are 26 million+. Both sources are at Nirvana discography. --Brandt Luke Zorn 13:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few grammatical errors, most notably in the first paragraph with words such as "aand" and "oen" which were corrected accordingly. Just a reminder for anybody to catch little mishaps such as those already mentioned! User:Chaide 18:11, 30 September 2007

The writing is horrible. So many simple mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.162.210 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain If there are some exigent circumstances that make this album different from the guidelines at WP:ALBUM (e.g. the use of {{Start date}}), please explain them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the "Start date" template is not mandatory; I don't even see mention of it on that page. Same thing with the Personnel reformatting. Also, the Melody Maker review is cited in the article body; there's just no weblink. There's no need to include the revised Rolling Stone rating from a book. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Clearly, I need to review it myself, as {{Start date}} hasn't been recommended since November. That having been said, the language field, and the length have been amended per WP:ALBUM. It also reads "for older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews," so I have reinserted Rolling Stone's 2004 review - I don't see why you would want to censor it from here. It's irrelevant if there is a link for Melody Maker's review; either cite it or delete it - what makes you think there has to be a link? I have also reinserted {{unreferenced section|date=May 2009}} for the chart positions section, since it is still unreferenced. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications has a list of certifications sites for just this purpose. Regarding the personnel section, I'm honestly not that concerned with how it's formatted, although a single-column list will display better on a variety of devices (e.g. a mobile phone) and it's more usable. I also don't see why you wouldn't want to use alphabetical order. I also don't see why you would want to delink "mastering;" how is this a bad thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit redundant to list Rolling Stone's revised rating, as apparently they've done that several times; we really don't need to give Rolling Stone more weight that way. We have plenty of modern reviews, which is why it's best to include the older, contemporary review (which incidently is the one Rolling Stone goes by on its website). As for the chart position section, that's a long wrok in progess; a friend of mine who's an expert in chart positions had trouble with it since it's hard to ascertain when the album peaked in certain countries. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten I was even looking into this! I'll have to revisit this after I've caught up with my watchlist backlog. --JD554 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop If you review the talk archive for Template:Infobox Album, I was in favor of having multiple times; consensus saw fit to do otherwise. If you want to propose a change on the talk page there or at WP:ALBUM, that's fine with me, but until such time as there is consensus to do otherwise, please don't add multiple lengths into the infobox. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Under "Music," the article states "Cobain, Nirvana's main songwriter, fashioned chord sequences that were harmonically indeterminate (neither major nor minor)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevermind#Music . I'm no music expert, but just about every Nirvana song is in minor. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "In Bloom" are in F-minor, "Come As You Are" is in D-minor, "Breed," "Polly" (chorus is G-minor) and "Lounge Act" are in E-minor, "Territorial Pissings" is in A-minor, and "Drain You" is in F#-minor. "Lithium" and "On A Plain" are more complicated, but the former's bridge ("I'm not gonna crack") and latter's chorus both sound in G-minor. This statement about the album being harmonically indeterminate should be further explained or omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starscreech (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While you're right inso much as songs have a general key from looking at on tab or score, you'll find tonality fairly redundant on most Nirvana records (and indeed the expanded palette of Alt. Rock in general). For instance While Smells Like Teen Spirit is in F, the Bridge section is completely out of the key and other then a striking tritone (The "Hey" bit) it doesn't sit in a key, so to speak, at all.

In Bloom features some bizarrely fastened chord sequences, the turnaround at the end of the riff being C-B flat- B. The song is actualy in B flat, though I'd call it an anchor note more then anything. He had a wonderful habit of playing Minor chord sequences with major chords- Rape Me is an obvious example (A-C-E minor- G). Polly would be the best on record example, the chorus has some of this going on. Lithium has an equaly "androgynous" chord progression, borrowing the flat VI chord from the parallel minor.

So yeah, I feel that section should be restored. If nothing it'd possibly inform those who see Punk or Alternative as musicly illiterate, I don't honestly beleive Kurt had no theory- I think he just knew when to ignore it.

If you wish, I'll do a song by song anylisis for this section. I'm quite familiar with the record :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.97.104 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the "Smells Like Teen Spirit" bridge, but why is "In Bloom" in Bb-minor and not F-minor? Bb-minor doesn't include the G5 chord, the second chord played in the song. "Rape Me" seems like straightforward E-minor to me as well (A-minor would work too), though the middle part is admittedly a different story.

I agree with you about "Lithium." The verse would seem like a straightforward E-major progression, if it wasn't for the D- and C-chords towards the end. The "I'm not gonna crack" part is straightforward A-minor, though.

I think you could make the best case for "Something in the Way" being harmonically indeterminate. It's really just made up of two notes, E and C (and slight variations thereof, depending on Kurt's guitar tuning). They sound like a major progression in the verse, but when he plays the E an octave higher in the chorus, it turns into minor!

Sure, feel free to write a good analysis :) Like I said, I really don't know all that much music theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starscreech (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a timely reminder that Wikipedia does not accept original research and only verifiable information from reliable sources should be added, anything else is likely to be deleted. --JD554 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Stay Away" should be given its own article. Does anyone else agree? --Classicrockfan42 (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it had enough detail in its last revision to at least be stub-worthy. Its Live Nirvana Song Guide entry has a few more bits of info that could be added. --jh51681 (talk) 07:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that Stay Away should be given it's own article. This is especially true, b/c there are books about Nirvana/Nevermind out there and it's very likely that they discussed the origins, makings, and reaction to the song. V Schauf (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize the album was an Alternative Music Collaboration of the Week, but to me, the article seems like it could be improved with a little better organization. In my opinion, the article should describe the album from its conception all the way through its lasting impact on the music world. It should tell the story of the album from start to finish. Right now, the article doesn't do that. It starts out by giving background on Nirvana and describing the album's recording (which is fine). Then it jumps all over the place - it tells of the album's release and its reception, then it describes the music that composes the album, then the album's cover, and then the legacy the album leaves.

It seems like a random order, when a much more structured one could be used. After the article talks about the album's writing and recording, it should discuss the results of those recording sessions by describing the music. The article should then discuss the album art that was chosen to represent the album (a decision made prior to its release) and then the album's subsequent release to the public. Then it should discuss how well it was received and how the album has left a long-lasting legacy. This seems like a much more "intuitive" order of topics.

I also think that the album's sales don't belong in a "Release" section, but rather a "Reception" section, where you put both the reviews and the album's commercial performance. But I think first and foremost, the article needs to be ordered in a much more readable manner. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not evvery album article will have the same layout and currently this layout benefits this article. Also, sales are not part of an album's "reception"; that is meant to cover critical reception. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this layout benefit the article? It's clunky and not ordered well. Why does the album's legacy get separated from how it was received? Why does the section discussing the songs on the album, arguably the most important part of the article, get pitched towards the end? What is the benefit of ordering things like this, vs. the way I am? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, the prose of the article is written specifically with this organization in mind. Thus just moving sections without rewriting the prose as well makes things even more awkward. It's not a simple cut and paste job. Also, the legacy section being separate from critical reception is irrelevant, because one is critical commentary and the other is historical importance. Like I said, not every article will have the same layout; it varies from article to article. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I decided to add in a section showing the different review this album has gotten. They are not all the reviews for this album, but if anyone can find other reviews, you welcome to add onto the list. 222.154.243.247 (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, and not very useful when some reviews don't use rating systems at all. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the user who labeled the album "hardcore punk" and "grunge" but the revert was right, it was consensus. However, I move that "hardcore punk" be included in the genre of this album for "Territorial Pissings" and "Breed." Tezkag72 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

While a lot of sources discuss the influence that some hardcore punk bands had on Nirvana, I don't know of any who have labeled the band itself "hardcore punk", and this particular album is the least influenced by that kind of music of all of Nirvana's albums. Also, two songs probably isn't significant enough in to scope of the whole album to label the entire thing "hardcore punk"; otherwise, it could be considered "acoustic rock" for "Polly" and "Something in the Way", something Nevermind on a whole certainly is not part of. Besides, this album is best known and popularly identified simply as "grunge". There's no need to crowd the infobox with genres when these things can be discussed in the Music section of the article. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Breed" has nothing to do with hardcore punk. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Breed" does have a lot to do with hardcore punk. It is hardcore punk. Of course, it's very similar to grunge because it's a Nirvana song. But it is hardcore punk.--188.26.48.241 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Post-Hardcore would be more accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.192.220 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Spencer Elden should be merged into this article. There's simply not that much to say about him - yes, he has made some appearances and given some interviews in the 20 years since the album was released, but I don't think he's really notable enough to have his own article at this time. The content there could be merged into the 'packaging' section of this article, where Elden is already mentioned. Robofish (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. He seems pretty WP:BLP1E to me. If he makes it as an artist, that's a different story. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sounds good. 75.39.112.19 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. --Muhandes (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Against. There's enough independent information in that article that meets notability guidelines, but doesn't directly bear on the Nevermind album. RandyKaelber (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There is nothing this person has done that is notable apart from his association with the album cover. being on the cover of another album and the fact that he works in an art studio do not support independent notability. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• I support. I'm sorry, but he just isn't a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimloth250 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, his whole article could be trimmed to a couple of paragraphs anyway. BillyBatty (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support, there really isn't a reason for him to have his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.15.209 (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
• Against. I've spent my whole life wondering who that baby was, and the information contained on that article doesn't seem entirely relevant to the album and will most likely be trimmed by delete-happy editors. 24.136.136.65 (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know most Anniversary albums usually get included within the original album page. However in the case of Nevermind the anniversary edition will be a 4 x CD + 1 x DVD boxset. So maybe it will need its own page ? mjgm84 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree unless other similar re-releases have their own pages also. 24.32.85.34 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts regarding this version; Should the track listing of the 2011 Deluxe Edition (CD one) begin at track 13? The album tracks are essentially identical, and it's quite redundant having the same track listing repeated immediately following itself. Also, Chad Channing has finally been given credit on this reissue for playing drums on "Polly". I propose cymbals be changed to drums (as it's listed in the albums liner notes) and the removal of the "(uncredited)". Maybe the article could mention something about Channing not receiving credit for the track until the albums 20th anniversary reissue, which would also be a good time to mention the bit about "Get Together" (at the beginning of "Territorial Pissings") which also hadn't received credit or mention until this latest version. The sentence seems a bit out of place sandwiched into the track listing the way it is now. 76.126.194.117 (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but how about we have collapsible track listings for the DEluxe and Super Deluxe versions. An example where this has already been done is the track listing for The Colour and the Shape by Foo Fighters. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing that the references in the article use citation templates. I had already done this inadvertently when I was improving some references without taking into account WP:CITEVAR, but I feel that citation templates are more useful then text formatted citations.

-- J. Wong (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As the primary editor of this article, conversion to citation templates is a big hassle. Per the guidelines, I am resorting to the previously established citation style for now, but this topic can be discussed further by additonal parties. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the song Something in the Way should get its own page instead of being redirected to the album. Heymister14 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)heymister14

As Wikipedia encourages, Be Bold and make the article. As long as it's at least 2 paragraphs and properly cited, I'll add to it and I'll defend it staying up. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On the lead, I have the included the sentence 'The album also produced three other hit singles, 'Come as you are', 'Lithium' and 'In bloom'.' This has been constantly removed by WesleyDodds; firstly he said because he said it doesn't fit in, then he scrapped that reason and said that they aren't hits, then he said it doesn't say anything about it in the page (which I added). Personally, I think he is a control freak who wants the page exactly to his specification. I believe it is a necessary for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is so much emphasis on 'SLTS' and hardly any mention of the other singles which is a flaw. Secondly, it makes it look like 'SLTS' is the only reason it's popular, so I added the fact that it has other hit singles because it provides a better input onto the success of the album. And thirdly there are many other album pages that have practically the same thing written on the lead, but doesn't get the biased attention 'Nevermind' does, such as 'Odelay', 'Californication', 'Echoes, silence, patience and grace', 'Ten' and 'Pablo Honey'. If these can mention their hit singles, than so can Nevermind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShizlGzngar (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the three follow up singles were hits but the reason SLTS should get a mention in the article lead is because it was the first single and it was down to that single that the album was launched as a mainstream success in the first place in 1991. The other 3 singles did not come out until 1992, after the album was released in 1991. So perhaps they should be mentioned elsewhere in the article but not in the lead. True, most album articles mention all of the singles. So perhaps Come As You Are, Lithium and In Bloom could be mentioned elsewhere in the article body. In fact I have just checked and the release of the Come As You Are, Lithium and In Bloom singles are already mentioned in the "Release" section of the article complete with chart positions. So there you are. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I put them there to make sure what I put in the lead isn't just random. And yes, I know they were released in 1992, and don't get me wrong, I know SLTS garnered most of the attention when it was released, but I think the lead connotes SLTS being the only reason for its success. And also I believe it's necessary to include the sentence for a factual basis aswell; being the album producing hit singles is one of the main elements of a succefull album. And personally, it kind of brushes off the 'one hit wonder' impression some people have, absurd as it is. ShizlGzngar 21:44, 10 september 2012 (UTC)

How is the lead random without them? The lead is supposed to describe the contents of this article, and this article establishes that the success of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was the main motivator behind the album's success. I understand wanting to convey that the album is more than "Teen Spirit", but if you read contemporary and retrospective sources about the album, they establish that the album's success was indeed largely tied to that song. Additionally, as I recall, the release of "Come as You Are" was pushed back a long time because "Teen Spirit" kept selling and garnering radioplay. I mean, I happen to Nevermind as a whole personally, but "Teen Spirit" was really the main factor that spurred sales, and its importance to the album as a whole outshines all the other singles. That can't be denied. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To address your points: yes, the mention of the singles is shoved into the lead every time you add it without integrating it into the prose so it fits logically. That paragraph is following a particular line of though, being that "Teen Spirit" was a large factor in the album's success, which culminated in it ousting Michael Jackson from number one on Billboard. But you consistently place the mention of the album's other singles right in the middle of that, interrupting the paragraph. Yes, not all of the songs on Nevermind were hits, mainly because "hits" is a nebulous term in this context. For instance, "Lithium" and "In Bloom" did poorly sales-wise in the US, and didn't chart as well as "Teen Spirit". Furthermore, just because other album articles are structure a certain way doesn't mean all album articles need to be identical. Wikipedia allows a large amount of leeway in article structure--what works for one page doesn't necessarily work for another. Further, as mentioned above, "Teen Spirit" is, according to reliable sources cited in the article, indeed the main reason the album became so huge. The amount of space sources spend on "Teen Spirit" in comparison to the other singles off the album is noticeably outsized, which is why the article body only mentions the other singles in passing--because the sources covering the album only briefly touch upon those singles in relation to the album. And you're free to think whatever you want of me, but please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as you'd said some rather profane things aimed at me in edit summaries elsewhere, and we need to keep dialogue on Wikipedia as civil as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually changed the word 'hit' to 'charting' for the singles, which is definately plausible in this case. And just because they didnt sell as well in the US as Teen Spirit did, doesn't mean that they have no significance. They all charted high in the UK and on other charts, so, again, I repeat myself, they are hits. Furthermore, I didn't 'interupt' the paragraph because where I placed it is where the mention of topping MJ ends and the mention of sales begin. Basically, what I am saying is, is that this page strongly connotates that Teen Spirit is the only reason it's a well renound and popular album, when infact the album as a whole is criticaly acclaimed, and Come as you are especially is a highly successfull single which further increased the albums appeal. It's simply biased. There should be more sources and info on the other singles. ShizlGzngar 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed "charting" as there's really no reason to list it there, as all the album's singles charted. But even though you say "It's simply biased" that "that this page strongly connotates that Teen Spirit is the only reason it's a well renound and popular album", that's not quite what the article says. What the article does say is that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a huge--if not the primary--factor in its success. Now, I used to think like you, that all the singles were worthy of equal attention--until I started digging into the sources when I began writing Nirvana articles on Wikipedia years ago. The amount of writing dedicated to "Teen Spirit" outstrips all the other singles from Nevermind, and as this article establishes in its prose, the sources do emphasize that "Teen Spirit" had a major role in the album's popularity. The article is not biased, this is a reflection of what the sources actually talk about, and that's the goal of Wikipedia, to reflect what the sources say. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand where your coming from; to reflect the sources and articles otherwise written about the album etc. but you must understand that I don't want them to have equal attention, because I do know that SMLT is the big one, but just for the other singles not to be overlooked. For them to have a mention in then lead is important because bottom line, they were generally hits, are popular songs, supported the success of the album as I mentioned way back, and brushes off the 'just teen spirit connotation', because I have seen that a hell of a lot of people just read the lead of wiki pages based on say, music artists for example. I hope you understand where I am coming from. ShizlGzngar 18:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a note about how the new 20th anniversary edition is victim to the loudness war, and has been criticised for this. (Infact almost every review i've seen of it points this out and there is comparisons using the original 1991 and 2011 versions of a song from the album on Amazon.co.uk). There are various sources out there which cite this but i can't seem to choose which one is the most reiable. Could anyone else help out with this - maybe?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a very valid point if someone wants to add it. They cut the dynamic range in half. I've heard the MOFI CD, MOFI 200g, Simply Vinyl, ORG vinyl, German mastering which was repressed in 2008 for UK back to black vinyl, original Geffen CD, new 20th anniversay CD and 24/96 download - all the previous versions are better than the new 20th anniversary editions. How sad that the 24/96 download was also loudness wars mastering. The ORG is the winner, never heard Grohl's drums sound so perfectly resolved.Dobyblue (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not a member of this project, I love Nirvana's music, especially the Nevermind album. Anyway, I noticed this article is of very good quality, IMO. So I was wondering, other than minor adjustments to the references and maybe some citations for the Track listing and Personnel, what would else would be needed for it to be considered a candidate for FA? Again, I am a fan of Nirvana, so I might come back and get this article to FA.--12george1 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always wanted to beef up the Music and Legacy sections. I think the former will be pretty easy to fill out once I sort out all the available sources. Originally the goal was to have this ready to run as a Featured Article on Wikipedia's main page to coincide with the album's 20th anniversary. Obviously that didn't happen :/ WesleyDodds (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking of having it reference its affect on other musicians, such as the creation of Newermind as a tribute for the album. Tradereddy (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I preferred the revised version of the Tracklist with the table it looked more professional, but longtime Wikipedia users are always right even if I think the style is sloppy but whatever

Oooo. So I shouldn't have made it into a table then? Tradereddy (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to point out that this is probably one of the last man-known articles on Wikipedia to simply have a numbered list for a track list instead of using Template:Tracklist. Just Sayin' RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are the deluxe edition tracklistings not included here? Sure, the reissues themselves are briefly touched upon, but why were the actual tracklistings removed (they can be seen in previous versions of the article)? LazyBastardGuy 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for having the re-issue track listings in drop down lists but there are some here who don't seem to want to include them. Nor sure why.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of other articles include reissue tracklistings. Rumours is an FA that has a drop-down reissue tracklisting, even though there aren't nearly as many bonus tracks on it as there were on Nevermind. Hell, it even has a reception section for the reissue. Why not use that article as an example for this one? LazyBastardGuy 01:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The release date given (Sep 24, 1991) was a Tuesday. Any reason for it not being released on the normal release day of Monday? --Jameboy (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I also think it's significant because Nevermind and Blood Sugar Sex Magik by Red Hot Chili Peppers were both released on the same day. I thought it was worth mentioning that in both this article and BSSM, so I did so a while back, I can't remember when exactly, probably late 2009 or early 2010. However, I put that coincidence/information in the articles without discussing it first in either article (in both articles I put it in the Release section). I guess the other editors thought it was trivial or didn't understand my motives for putting it in both articles. I think it should be mentioned because they're both pretty popular albums in the alternative rock scene. However, if a large number of members feel it isn't significant than feel free to not mention it, I won't have any hard feelings about it. I just feel like this is a huge coincidence worth mentioning. - Wrestlingcrazy93 (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Release dates for albums have almost always been on Tuesdays. Such was the case in 1991. http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2010/09/08/129725205/why-albums-are-released-on-tuesdays — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.14.83 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140817102419/http://bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/Search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Can someone clarify why On a Plain continues to be removed from the album singles box? a) it is a single b) it is from the album c) it is a charting single. Whether it is 'promotional' should make no difference, it IS a single. Just because it didn't chart as high as Come as You Are or Smells Like Teen Spirit does not make it any less of a single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.155.193 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that "On a Plain" was promo only - there was no retail release is enough to say that it is not as important or significant enough as the other four which were all retail singles. Secondly, even though it was a promo only single it only saw limited release to Alternative radio, where as the others were released to mainstream radio. I can see in some cases where you would include promo singles in the album box if significant enough but this is not one of them. It would appear that we have Wikipedia:Consensus on this.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I guess I am having a hard time seeing why you wouldn't at least want to note it, even maybe with the caveat that it is a promotional single as was done on the Foo Fighters' In Your Honor single box. If the point of the singles box is to inform readers and list the album's singles, it would seem logical to list them all and not rely on subjective discussions of what a worthy single is. Would that be a plausible compromise to include it and note it as "promo only"? @QuintusPetillius: Your thoughts?. 75.146.155.193 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)75.146.155.193 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm open to it being mentioned, just that it should not be listed with official singles in the navbox. Also, another reason for my earlier removal was the fact that it was unsourced. A good idea would be to address that too in the future. As a suggestion, register an account and sign your comments with 4 tildes (Robvanvee 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)). Makes for a little easier reading. Robvanvee 05:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626050454/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/pjres91.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101019170700/http://www.cria.ca/gold/0301_g.php to http://www.cria.ca/gold/0301_g.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.capif.org.ar/Default.asp?PerDesde_MM=0&PerDesde_AA=0&PerHasta_MM=0&PerHasta_AA=0&interprete=&album=&LanDesde_MM=1&LanDesde_AA=1980&LanHasta_MM=12&LanHasta_AA=2010&Galardon=O&Tipo=1&ACCION2=%20Buscar%20&ACCION=Buscar&CO=5&CODOP=ESOP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929042808/http://swedishcharts.com/search.asp?search=Nirvana&cat=s to http://swedishcharts.com/search.asp?search=Nirvana&cat=s
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6EEYfYVwc?url=http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nevermind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016192710/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2071&volume=55&issue=11&issue_dt=March%2007%201992&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=0jkj7bhtc295aktmebjgml6dd6 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-119.01-e.php?&file_num=nlc008388.2071&volume=55&issue=11&issue_dt=March%2007%201992&type=1&interval=24&PHPSESSID=0jkj7bhtc295aktmebjgml6dd6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015114403/http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Nirvana&q2=Top+Singles&interval=20 to http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/rpm/028020-110.01-e.php?PHPSESSID=c6btf3r8hs459qqt5ln3o3dcv5&q1=Nirvana&q2=Top+Singles&interval=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've just embellished this section with the fact that the Elden's received just $200, as it's an interesting fact. However, regarding the photography, in the article it says that 5 shots of the baby were taken and hints that Spencer was the only baby filmed. However, in a UK e4/ Channel 4 programme in 2005 titled The 100 Greatest Albums, a caption said 'Spencer was one of 12 babies photographed for the sleeve'. This isn't a big issue frankly, but can we just bear it in mind for a possible change in the future - I appreciate that the caption could easily have been wrong, but Rick Elden DID feature in the programme and we have to assume that the researchers got the info directly from him, someone who claimed to be a 'good, good buddy' of the photographer at the time. Jaydash, 02:15, 28 October 2007

Why was information about outtakes deleted? They had been a part of this article for years and to say "I don't think we need this" doesn't make sense. I've added them back in and I would like someone to explain why they are irrelevant to the article.

There seems to be some information missing from the Title and Artwork section. In addition to Sheep, the Nirvana members also seriously considered Sacagawea as the title for their album. However their distribution company disagreed as they thought the spelling would be too complicated. Here is a link to the interview in which they revealed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTi1_pv5S3E They begin to talk about the original title at 2:05. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.143.180 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Multiple deluxe edition re-releases are available now and their respective track listings can be added by anyone who is willing. Track lists can be found [here] (Without track durations, sadly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.5.188 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there was a previous consensus to list only grunge and alternative rock in the infobox, but judging from the archive its been many years since that discussion. A user recently added punk rock and pop-punk. Another user has since removed pop-punk. My opinion: the claim that this is a pop-punk album is absurd on its face. The citation apparently used to support adding it to the infobox refers to "punk-pop" and gives as examples Iggy Pop and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think it is safe to conclude that the reviewer was not referring to pop-punk as that term is used today, and simply meant a mixture of punk and pop. (One might also conclude that the reviewer didn't know what he was talking about.)

The question of including punk rock seems trickier to me. I'm going to remove it for now from the infobox on the basis of long-standing consensus, but welcome discussion. My own thought is that while the three band members were unequivocally punk rockers individually, it is not clear to me that Nevermind is a punk rock album. Highly influenced by punk, yes, and that's discussed in the article as it should be, but not clearly punk itself. That said, I have no objection to punk rock's inclusion if that is consensus.

I want to add this to any possible discussion: Nevermind has been widely written about for three decades, so there's likely to be some source referring to the album's genre in all manner of improbable ways. (It's the internet; someone has probably called it a beloved polka album.) The infobox genres really need to be what a preponderance, or at least substantial minority, of music-related sources agree upon, not outlier claims. CAVincent (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article cited in the edit states it as a punk rock album. --AppalachianCentrist (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)