Talk:Soundgarden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Random blaber

Soundgarden rules, especially Ben Shepherd, he rules all, and Kim Thayil is okay, but Cornell and Cameron are awesome as well 67.84.153.58 (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

Yes they all kick ass, Cameron is the best rock drummer of our time and is tearing it up with pearl jam. The live stuff is incredible. 69.197.110.109 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2005 (UTC)

Soundgarden

All the separate contributors to Soundgarden were/are brilliant, full stop. Otherwise the amazing and original music they created would not be here today. When put together, however, they formed the even more amazing Soundgarden. It was their combined efforts that made this milestone in Grunge (and mainstream) music history - basically, what does it matter how great each was separately. They are all great musicians. But together they formed one of the greatest bands in music history (in my opinion).--Mozz 00:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Instrumental?

The article's intro says: "Soundgarden was [...] instrumental in creating the sound that came to be called grunge." While this is of course very poetic, I think something like "Soundgarden helped to define the sound that came to be called Grunge," or "Soundgarden pioneered the sound that came to be called Grunge." The use of the idiomatic "to be instrumental in sth." is slightly confusing in a music context; readers could misread or misinterpret and end up thinking that Soundgarden's instrumental work was the birth of Grunge, which is simply not fair to Chris Cornell. ;-) If a frequent contributor to this article agrees with me, please go ahead and change the sentence. --Netvor 07:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the minimal of audioslave should be on this page because imho it's quite disgraceful to have Audioslave's "hit album" in a article about Soundgarden.

Agreed...It can be mentioned that Cornell went on to form Audioslave but I don't think that the info about Audioslave should be mentioned in this article. Flyerhell 08:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the audioslave thingy. it shouldnt be on a soundgarden article. its only suppose to be about soundgarden. KeyLime 3:05, 27 October 2005

EPs

Were erased with no reason have put them back KsprayDad 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Loud Love was a 4 track single, so should it be under the EP section? It is at the moment, but I disagree

The band's roots

This article did not mention a very important fact: A cousin of one of the band members is Gidget G. Does anyone know which band member?

--How about we take a step back? Who the hell is Gidget G?

--- Perhaps he means Marilyn Manson's original junkie bassist Gidget Gein? Presumably, also, "very important fact" was intended as a joke... Artsfiend 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Current members?

Uh, the band are split up (*sniff*) as far as I know. How can it have "current members"? - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 17:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A limitation of the current "musical artist 2" infobox. Hopefully there's movement underway to merge that and the "band" infobox, which would be ideal. Tarc 03:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The guy in charge of the infobox template says that "current members" isn't supposed to be used by defunct bands - that the lineup should be listed under "former members". I personally think that's ridiculous, and that an easy solution would be to simply switch "Current members" to just "Members" so that "Former members" is usable. But he doesn't feel that way. -- ChrisB 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Song page clean up

Serious Clean up is needed on many of the song pages, I've edited a few, but much more needs to be done...--Msl747 00:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stolen Prayers

Speaking of bootlegs, what exactly was Stolen Prayers? When was it "released"? When were each of the individual songs recorded? Is it worthy of mention in the SG article? For some reason, stolen prayers is the only bootleg I've repeatedly heard mentioned by name. I've heard some of the songs on it, and it's definitely a decent CD. I'm still trying to find the demo version of Flutter Girl which is on it. Many fans consider it better than the version on Euphoria Morning. I'm rambling, sorry. --199.29.6.2 22:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

grammy awards for black hole sun and spoonman

apart from the pages for the songs, black hole sun and spoonman, is it mentioned anywhere on the soundgarden page that they received these grammys? ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is quite a short article for such a seminal band.

For example, the Nirvana and Pearl Jam articles are a lot longer...--HisSpaceResearch 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You think THIS article is short? You should check out Rob Zombie's page.

Yeah, but Nirvana and Pearl Jam were much more successful and had more of a lasting effect in the music industry (although I think Soundgarden was way better than both of those bands). Sherlock32 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

members

it doesnt look good with the four main members combined with the other former members. for example see nirvana's page. it separates the three main members from the other members ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 01:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'm going to separate the members that used to be in the band, with the members that were still there in the end. I have yet to see a defunct band that has a former/now member style like this article does. The Beatles is an example. Xihix 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a period where the infobox template guidelines "required" listing all members of a defunct band as former members. However, I think we recently found consensus that if a band had a particular notable lineup (e.g., The Beatles, Nirvana), it was acceptable to list them as "members". With Soundgarden, I definitely think that's the right call. -- ChrisB 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it looks much better this way. Beve 12:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it's confusing to list members of a defunct band in the "current members" field. I also think featuring a notable lineup is subjective; there could be many opinions about which lineup was most notable. The infobox guidelines indicate that only the "former members" field should be used. (see Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Past_members). Strobilus 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Digging the Garden of Sound

Anyone ever heard of the album "Digging the Garden of Sound"? Can't seem to find any info on this album, and I don't have a physical copy to look at. I'm thinking it's a bootleg of some sort but I'm not sure.

I was on another website and it listed a "Garden of Sound" as a bootleg of theirs. Maybe that's what you're thinking about. Sherlock32 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, it was called "Digging the Garden" not "Garden of Sound". Sorry. Sherlock32 17:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlock32 (talk • contribs)

discography - studio albums

should screaming life/fopp be listed as a studio album or not? because it is a compilation album... their a-sides album is also a compilation, and it isnt listed under studio albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Devil (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Soundgarden+Audioslave=?

Why the fuck is the Audioslave page bigger then Soundgarden, it doesen't make sense. The Page is even shorter then that on Norsk (bokmål) wikipedia. [[--83.108.143.116 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the name itself?

Is it true that Soundgarden got their name from an art exhibit in Seattle that was known as "The Soundgarden?"

If this is true, I think it would really nice to see that somewhere in the article. It is a really short article now that I think of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russbee51 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. Beve (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-break-up: 1998–present

It's wrong Wellwater Conspiracy realesed their first studioalbum in 1997.--Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sections

Why are the sections in the page so small. Look at Alice in Chains page. Thats what you call a good writen article. Hilsen --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Album articles

Why are pages like Superunknown and Down on the upside bigger then the Soundgarden page. WHY WHY --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You now what i've found out that i would keep on editing again when i saw this good i love it. --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Soundgarden reunion and new album

First its a rumor that soundgarden is goin to reunite which may be true as Cornell said and they are goin to release a album under the name B-Sides.http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/1999/cornell_int.asp. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sound Garden redirects here... Correct?

I mean, is this a question of notability, the band being more notable than the installation or something? Anyway, I'm putting a disambiguation template that all this time was forgotten for some reason, and I just wanted to say that I don't really think it should redirect here. Litis (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Reunite?

Anyone else here hoping they reunite? I fucking love Soundgarden...! yeah i reckon everyone here wants em to reunite, but i dont chris's vocals could take it... ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that, he still sounded damn good with Audioslave. FinalWish 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

well from the live videos on youtube, hes starting to sound better now, but in some live videos of audioslave it sounded like he was straining his voice a bit ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 12:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

K So I have been hearing Soundgarden is reuniting for a 2008 tour. Can someone confirm that? TtertNoslen 00:23, 29 May 2008


Really? I would love if they can return. Chris voice can't make those great notes now.--190.138.57.161 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HandsAllOver.OGG

The image Image:HandsAllOver.OGG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Time Signature Correction for "Rusty Cage"

The time signature for "Rusty Cage" is stated to be 19/8, but the opening verses and chorus is actually a 4/4, and the Coda is comprised of a pattern of repeated time signatures as follows: 6/4, 6/4, 2/4, 5/4.

19/8 indicate a more Chant Like Form that is absent of Pulse. Circa 9th Century, or 20th century abstract musical style a la John Cage, or George Crumb (i.e., "Black Angels" which is based on the number 13). Composing in complex time signatures for a pure mathematical reason, not necessarily aesthetically pleasing.


Martybobbi (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unofficial website

This should be added to the list of external links...

http://web.stargate.net/soundgarden/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.34.211 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No fansites per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.User:-5--5- (User talk:-5-talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill Nye appearance

Do you think their appearance on the "Sound" episode (where it shows the band sans Cornell playing "Kickstand" in the studio and the sound engineer basically explains what his job is in the studio) of Bill Nye the Science Guy is notable enough to mention? If so where should it be placed? Bill Nye was a very seminal tv show, they still show it in schools today. Sherlock32 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

reunion with tad doyle?

http://www.earcandybeat.com/?q=node/37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cchMa9zMhzk someone look into this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.68.216 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article, I think.BP322 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be a horribly retarded idea. He butchered their songs. Plus, a reunion with Cornell is already floating around online... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.219.202 (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are Soundgarden a stoner rock band?

Well, I personally have never seen anything Kyuss like with Soundgarden an album review from Rolling Stone specifically mentions them as, "its standard-bearers during the Nineties". Should it be in the infobox. Rockgenre (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They definitely played stoner rock at times, but I would rather just have that mentioned in the "Style" section rather than the infobox, since the infobox should be pretty general, and the article gets into specific details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.162.94 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Reunion has NOT been confirmed

So why is there a section on it? See the forum on Chris' website - there is lots of debate as to what the twitter/facebook message meant. For now, we cannot state on Wikipedia that SG has reunited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.70.39 (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We can because we have reliable sources that are reporting the announcement of the reunion.--Cannibaloki 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


"Superunknown" music video

I was wondering if a music video for "Superunknown" is not on the list of music videos (in Discography). According to some web pages and even the count of SoundgardenVEVO on youtube, there is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwdjreJKggg But there's no mention to it in wikipedia, i think. So what about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.130.59 (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

File:Sg91promo.jpg <-- as far as I know this is clearly a PROMO picture. Certain Wikipedia administrators (or some of them at least) do not agree the use if already exists and are being actively used in the internet source. I cannot understand why some are being deleted so left an article 'empty' of images and others (like this one) are not and spread lots of pictures and/or logos (see Led Zeppelin for instance. The excuse that pictures from the internet are not allowed to be used around is not an excuse because I can use the one shown here and work it so will be in the media in a near future as well. This is a good example of my previous claims against picture deletions on Wikimedia, I was told they are promotional so wondering myself... which one IS NOT promotional? IMO a public image is 100% valid! Gilwellian (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)gilwellian

Updating Band member page

In reading about the band, I found the List of Soundgarden band members page, and noticed that it has zero information on the reunion and upcoming compilation release. Could someone with more knowledge on the band's current state, and is familiar with this main band page, update that page to reflect recent events? I think some kind of update is needed, especially if there are more upcoming events for the band. Good luck, and thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never even noticed that page before, and wonder if it is really necessary. The main Soundgarden article isn't overly long currently, I don't see why whatever info in the band member one couldn't be merged there. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 4 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Years active / reunion

At the top under years active, it says 2007-Present. Did they really reunite or what? If so, then something should be said about it in the article. Sherlock32 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One idiot friend of mine said he saw a re-united Soundgarden perform without Cornell, but I think he was mistaken. The band has not, and will never, reunite. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Another person is now claiming that they reunited. If they haven't actually reunited than why say they have? Sherlock32 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Will never reunite, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.5.178 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns with Reunion, new album and subsequent events (2010–present)

There are some paragraphs that are less than three sentences, so the section should probably be reorganized into less paragraphs. (Wikipedia:Layout#Paragraphs) The second one should probably be edited into the first, when describing Lollapalooza. I don't know if the following is a problem: the years 2010 and 2011 are included sixteen times. If the section is reorganized, couldn't those years be used once per paragraph or something? I was thinking to add a tag or two to the top of the section, but I'm not quite sure which ones. (I'm probably an inexperienced contributor.) What do you think? Is there anything I missed?--EclecticEnnui (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New album

Is there any reason why Soundgarden's upcoming album shouldn't be added to the discography section? My main reason for adding it is so that if someone wants to know whether or not Soundgarden is releasing a new album, they can quickly and easily come to the Wikipedia page, click on the discography link, and see that they are planning on releasing a new album. Woknam66 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week now. If nobody has responded by this time tomorrow, I'm going to change it. Woknam66 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Silence does not mean assent. You will find a great many editors will delete any silly "TBA" listing from a discography section, for Soundgarden or anyone else. So, proceed at your own risk. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've seen many pages with a useful "TBA" listing in the discography section, so....yeah. Woknam66 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If there are, then they should be removed. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, we're back to page one. Why should I remove them? Is it actually Wikipedia policy to remove them, or is it just your opinion? Woknam66 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If it's just your opinion, that's fine. I just wish you would admit it. Woknam66 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of verifiability; if you can't vetify what the name of an album is, then there is simply nothing of value to list in the discography. Mention somewhere in the body of the article that a new album is forthcoming. That is all. Tarc (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
All you really just said is that that in your opinion the fact their forthcoming album doesn't have a name isn't of any value. You said nothing about facts, just your own opinion.
And please stop bringing up the whole "verifiability" thing. It has been officially confirmed by multiple sources that there is an upcoming album, and the page you linked to says absolutely nothing about bands, albums, or listing something as "TBA". When I say that I want to hear something about policy instead of opinion, I mean citing something from here. Woknam66 (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It is not opinion, and what I linked to covers the situation quite adequately; if you can't name an album then there's nothing to put in a discography, simple as that. That's really the last I have to offer, as this is getting repetitive. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Really, it covers it adequately? And where exactly on the page does it cover that? I see absolutely nothing on the page about it. Woknam66 (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If the band has a forthcoming album, but the title isn't known, then there really shouldn't be anything more than "The band announced in 20xx that it is working on its nth album. No title has been announced yet" or something to that effect. Putting "TBD" in the discography is stating the obvious, and indeed a borderline breach of WP:HAMMER — there's nothing there yet, so why put it there? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. You should also consider adding something about this to WP:HAMMER, so that this doesn't happen again in the future to someone else. Woknam66 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cold Bitch and Rhinosaur

Don't you think Cold Bitch should have an article since it's the only official single without one? I know it didn't chart, but it makes the singles list on the discography page look unfinished. Rhinosaur also charted despite being a b-side so this should have an article as well, right? I'll make Rhinosaur ASAP, but I won't make Cold Bitch until I get positive feedback that I should make it. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Genre

I personally think we should add Progressive Rock to the genre 81.96.244.166 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The genre should be updated on the band page and all album pages to completely remove all references to any form of metal as the genre. Soundgarden in no way resembles metal. Anyone how puts that there has obviously not listened to Soundgarden before. --Jimv1983 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, Soundgarden is a psychedelic metal band. The genre that needs to be removed is grunge. Soundgarden in no way resembles grunge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.121.206 (talk)

I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you're talking about if you claim Soundgarden wasn't grunge. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to that statement, neither does Chris Cornell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.121.206 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Here's a test for you. Name one Soundgarden song that is grunge. One. 78.144.121.206 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

All of them thru Badmotorfinger. Anything else I can help you with? Tarc (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest dropping the snarky attitude, that would be helpful. You have demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the subject, I will try to help you, but you appear to have already decided that you are correct. You do realise that the term "grunge" and the term "the Seattle scene" are two very different things, don't you? They were confused in the media in the early '90s. Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden were all part of the Seattle scene, not grunge. Any music historian worth his salt will tell you the same, it is the definition of grunge which is wrong. Pearl Jam and Soundgarden were never grunge, not even slightly. See, this is the problem with Wikipedia, common misconceptions such as this can easily find their way into articles if they are widely believed. Please tell me how Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden sound similar, other than being 'alternative' rock bands. Paper Cuts by Nirvana is a grunge song, listen to it, Rusty Cage by Soundgarden is not, it has a clean guitar sound for a start, and is basically a straight up heavy metal song which bears no resemblance to grunge whatsoever. You should be able to hear the difference. Grunge never really broke through into the mainstream, unless you count Nirvana who had all but ditched the grunge sound by the time they did Nevermind. Have you never noticed how nonsensical the commonly believed definition of grunge is? These bands were simply lumped together because they were all from Washington State, then mistakenly labelled as grunge. Originally, it was by accident, as grunge was a sound that was going around Seattle at the time, but it was far from the only sound. Does any of this sound familiar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.53.45 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As I was a DJ at a moderately influential alt radio station from about 1992-2001, as well as an contributor to CMJ (the New Music Report and as a discussion panelist several times at the annual gathering), I think I am pretty comfortable with my knowledge of the music scene, bro. What you and the other anon IP (or are you the same person?) are doing isn't anything I haven't seen a million times before; this guy at the party who thinks he's really cool because he can tell you how it really is, cause he's so indie. If you try to remove bands from the grunge article or try to remove the term from this or other band's articles, you will be reverted and likely eventually blocked for vandalism. That's about it. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The misconception had already taken root by '92, so that doesn't really mean anything. When did I try to remove anything? I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect. I do not think I am "really cool" or "indie". I am merely pointing out a few things that many people have forgotten. My aim is not to change the article completely, and I admit that this is impossible as I realise that 'reliable' sources make the same mistake. I would just like to remind people that grunge was an actual genre and not a catch-all term for every alternative rock band from Washington in that period. Is that really such a bad thing? You have dodged my argument completely by simply ignoring it. Compare the songs, they are clearly different genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.53.45 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, perhaps a better way of putting it would be that what grunge is taken to mean now (alternative rock from Washington State during the late '80s and early to mid '90s, and music derivative of that) is different to what it was taken to mean many years ago (a seperate subgenre in its own right, also developed in Washington State). Perhaps neither definition is wrong, but these two definitions have been seriously confused, for reasons that are fairly understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.53.45 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Early Soundgarden definitely resembles a sound that is somewhere between psychedelic rock & heavy metal & heavy metal should be added into the infobox as a subgenre.All of the first three albums are influenced by classic metal sound of Zeppelin,Deep Purple etc.Moreover in an interview during Temple of the Dog era,Cornell said heavy metal influenced him massively & it will be a part of Soundgarden as long as the band is out there.Moreover,I'm amazed by the fact that heavy metal has been added in the infobox of Nickelback & nobody is bothering about it,what a joke! Metalvayne (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the genres included on the Nickelback article is absolutely irrelevant to this one. If you have a problem with that, you should really go over and discuss it on the relevant talk page. Your first sentence falls into the category of original research which is a big no-no here on wikipedia. Being influenced by other bands and genres is no reason to include heavy metal either. Per WP:V you must provide a reliable source for heavy metal, even then, there is no reason to bloat the infobox with needless genres. The more detailed musical style and influences covers the bands sound adequately, including the influence of heavy metal in their music. HrZ (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm providing appropriate reference but it is getting removed by somebody every now & then. Metalvayne (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of the reliable sources I'v added [1] [2] & I hope someone talks before reverting or deleting them or else I'm reporting him/her/them. Metalvayne (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they pass WP:RS at all. That's why they are being reverted. And also, the note states that genre changes should be discussed first, meaning other editors have to agree here before it is changed. From what I can see, no one has agreed to your changes, not on here or in the article. You have went ahead and added the genre, though, ignoring the note (simply because you think posting here is enough?) and are now saying you will report someone if they don't discuss it first when you are failing to do so yourself. Again, changes should not be made unless a consensus has been reached. HrZ (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. The talk page needs to be consulted before genre changes occur, as opposed to just signalling controversial changes. Metalvayne, you're doing it incorrectly. If you reported people for reverting these edits of yours, what kind of case would you prepare, and how would you expect to win the administrators over? Metalvayne, you do not need to clutter infoboxes with your own genre assertions and questionable sources. The fact that you persistently do it, along with the percentage of your edits that are put into this practice, makes you no different from a common genre warrior, and that is annoying. Also, telling people who revert your edits that you will report them and that they will be in "major trouble" is unprofessional and borderline juvenile. Genre tags are exceedingly less important than the music itself, and there is no justification for genre bickering and constant genre changing. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 07:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Alt-rock should be removed because it doesn't describes any album of Soundgarden.. the genre should be "Grunge, alternative metal, heavy metal". These styles are present in all their albums. - andres - april 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.232.43 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above me. alt rock should be removed and replaced with hard rock, a genre which describes soundgardens catalog pretty well. I call the big one bitey (talk) 8:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Stoner rock? I don' think so. As you can clearly see, there is some remarkable, album by album examination of the styles and genres influencing Soundgarden's musical production. Stoner rock, however, isn't one of them.

So far, there has been given only one weak-reference (dealing with entirely different subject) where there have been juxtaposed stoner rock and Soundgarden. If you look at the Rolling Stones article (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/r-20000622) that has been used as a reference, you will pretty quickly notice that it isn't about Soundgarden at all, but Queens of the Stone Age' instead. Second, such juxtaposition has been made as a mere side comment in a subordinate clause. This is certainly something you cannot take as a strong, official classification of their musical genre.

Let's also put it this way: if you want to classify Soundgarden as "stoner rock", like your highly out-of-context reference suggest, how come this classification doesn't fit any of those well meritorious album by album analyses of the article? There is no room for such classification under any album, yet you just throw it all and push some fragment to run over all the previous, well grounded classifications?

It'd be highly advisable that any further changes are first discussed here before applying them. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Any elsewhere such classification hasn't fitted, though. Therefore I removed the above-mentioned sentence, at least for a time until proper reference has been found. In the light of current knowledge, such statement can be misleading.

They are definitely one of those Seattle bands who fall under stoner/doom/sludge category alongwith Melvins and Alice in Chains. They were labelmates with Saint Vitus during 1986-89 and SST have marketed both bands as stoner/doom and they've been on a tour together as well. Besides Soundgarden's first three releases are filled with mean heavy Sabbathy riffs ala Master of Reality album which is the prototype of stoner metal.--Shallowmead077 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
After someone makes a change or addition to a page, others who read it can choose either to leave the page as it is or to change. (...). Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections (...) Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.
(...)
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.
(...)
In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. [1]
So far, you have only presented your personal opinions here at Talk Page (see your post above). Please present appropriate support for your cause and seek consensus first before any further editing. As you can see, my edit has enjoyed consensus of Wikipedia's editor community ever since January 4th. You are now reverting to this edit, so it is up to you to gain consensus for your edit proposal.
Also please notice that I have explained in an appropriate manner the very reasons why such edit has been made. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what pissing match you two seemed to be involved in, but the "stoner rock" opinion is well sourced and relevant. Removing it with claims of "no consensus" is balderdash. Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This only aspect I'm concerned with here is that "stoner rock" isn't a thing, much less a genre; it's a PR/Marketing buzzword. If there are notable journalists who like using the term to describe the band, fine, it can go in the body of the article to talk about styles and influences and whatnot. Just not in the infobox as a genre. Tarc (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If the critics called it monkey masturbation melange, that's what we should call it, info box included. I don't see why the infobox is sacrosanct. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tarc. Two kinds of pork, how come well sourced? In my humble opinion, I have argumented pretty well the reasons why the provided source is not very relevant nor valid (Please see the comment: Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)). In short:
  • The Rolling Stones' article is not about Soundgarden, but about Queens of the Stone Age instead.
  • Such juxtaposition has been made as a mere side comment in a subordinate clause. This is certainly something you cannot take as a strong, official classification of their musical genre.
  • The absence of such classification under any album of Soundgarden makes it perfectly clear that under the laws of logics, neither the band in general can be classified as stoner rock. E.g. Band "A" has three albums: Album 1, Album 2, and Album 3. If none of those albums is classified as classical music, then Band "A" is not classical music.
Simple? I agree with Tarc, if there are notable journalists who classify the band of any of their albums as stoner rock, then I am perfectly okey with it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The statement in which you are edit-warring to keep out reads:
Ben Ratliff of Rolling Stone defined Soundgarden as the "standard-bearers of stoner rock" during the 1990s.
In green, we have the subject, Ben Ratliff of Rolling Stone. In red, we have the verb defined, which according to Wiktionary means "to determine with precision". In blue we have the object of our sentence which unsurprisingly is Soundgarden, the topic of this article. And finally in orange, we have the comparative adjective "stoner rock" which is a bone of contention. I'm more curious as to who was the standard-bearer of stoner-rock during the 1970's when one had to smoke considerably more marijuana to achieve a similar level of stoned-y-ness, but let's table that question for the moment.
What we have here is a superlative reliable source espousing an opinion that is directly related to the raison d'etre of this article. Soundgarden is a musical act. Music critics write and publish their opinions about musical acts. Not only are these opinions helpful to an article, they are often necessary to articles that include "reception" sections. Since there is no challenge to this sentence being a)reliably sourced opinion b)attributed directly to the source, c)the content being relevant to the article I am restoring it, as I find the insistence that this addition meet the level of "absence of objections" to be a non-starter, because rationale must be included. "I object!" only works for Elle Woods. If removes this content and provides a plausible rationale, I'll discuss it with them. No or paper think rationale will get a trip to the edit war board.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Can this be solved by simply changing "defined" to "described" ? This is similar to the years-ago discussion I took part in at Talk:Pearl Jam#"Most" Popular Band thing; if you just phrase it as the opinion of the journalist rather than deliver it in Wikipedia's it-is-true voice, it makes everyone happy. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Tarc. Shallowmead077 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
If the source says that is a definition, then we would still use that emphasis, properly attributed. But since it doesn't, then "described" is fineTwo kinds of pork (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, "described" might do the thing.. I think I could agree with that one. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Threat of genre war breaking out?

Hi there! It seems that there is a threat of genre war breaking out at Soundgarden. Ladies and gentlemen, I try to keep it in a nutshell:

  • First, IP 181.135.246.82 added two genres without any discussion or providing sources.
  • Second, @Tarc: righteously reverted that edit.
  • Third, user ZebraIntheDark restored the edit. Still no discussion or sources provided.
  • Fourth, I also reverted the edit.
  • Fifth, IP 97.83.67.162 restored the two genres. Still, no sources or discussion.
  • Sixth, I added {{pp-sock|small=yes}} and reverted the edit.
  • Seventh, IP 97.83.67.162 restored the edit again.

I won't be touching the content under question personally anymore, but I just wanted to bring it out for discussion here instead. In my personal experience, changing the genres without discussion seems to always arouse a lot of controversy, and therefore I think it'd be nice to discuss it first and support the changes by some sources too. If it's propably sourced, then there won't naturally be any problem either. =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been continued and persistent genre and/or category diarrhea across almost every band article for as long as this project has been active, from Alice in Chains and "sludge metal" to the Beatles and "boy bands". It's like trying to bail out the ocean with a bucket; just revert the IP users and the socks and carry on. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Thayil

tom Morello is better then him! Thayil is a better guitarist than any that chris, ben & matt have worked with or ever will work with. You play the solo to Like Suicide and get back to me.

Thayil is way better than chris will ever be Jobe6 02:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I can play the solo to Like Suicide, and every other solo he did on their albums. And I don't think it's fair to compare Chris to Kim, Chris was only a rythm guitarist on Superunknown, before that he didn't play any guitar. And of course Kim was the lead guitarist so... Ladysway1985 9/17/05

uhh actually Chris has played guitar since the wee beginning. JobE6 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Cornell used to play drums as well as vocals right at the beginning but then they got someone else to play drums so that Cornell could concentrate on vocals. I think it must have been soon after that he became the rhythm guitarist. I seem to remember seeing a live video of him playing rhythm in Loud Love. In the Badmotorfinger albums notes, it says Chris plays Gibson Guitars.

Almost all the cool solo's are Kim's work. I suggest you watch the SNL version of Pretty Noose.

Cornell did not play guitar at the beginning, in the Soundgarden "biography", New Metal Crown, it states Cornell didn't start playing guitar until after the songs on Deep Six, or right before Screaming Life; I can't remember which. --199.29.6.2 22:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cornnel plays a gitar in the Pinkpop Fest - Holland 08-06-1992. That's a example.--190.138.57.161 (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I think comparing Tom Morello to any other guitar player is pretty silly. What he does is so different, it's like comparing apples to zebras. I would say he's one of the most innovative players ever, but I think he belongs in his own category. It'd be like comparing Les Claypool and Geddy Lee. Both are very good at what they do, but it's like Les and Tom are almost from their own planets. BTW, I've seen Morello and Thayill play live, and they are both excellent live as well as on their respective albums.

I actually met Thayill once, about 1991 or 1992. You know how some artist can be total d!cks when they hit it big? Not Kim. I had just been listening to Badmotorfinger on cassette, bitching to myself about having to work on a Saturday. I didn't know it, but he was dating someone my boss had just hired. I heard the doorway to the hall open, right outside my office (had a Dire Straits tape going), and I look up, and it's Kim friggin' Thayill walking in. I felt like a teenager, but mustered the guts to go down the hall and talk to him. Toootally cool about it, got an autograph on the cassette insert, etc. I've met a couple other rock stars and they just blew people off. I always like Thayill's playing, but I've never met anyone in the biz who seemed so down-to-Earth. All I could think while shaking his hand was "Jesus, please don't let me hurt Kim Thayill's hand".66.165.23.103 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)pacman357

Early stuff: stoner metal?

Before Superunknown and Down on the Upside, Soundgarden had a pretty distinctly different style, and used a fair amount of psychedelic imagery. They sounded a lot like some of the bands that often get credited as 'stoner metal' like Kyuss. I doubt there's anything significant enough to back up this statement for credit on the main page, but I thought it was worth mentioning; maybe the only reason they're not is because they were from Seattle instead of California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually say that their earlier stuff was grunge, but they moved away from that and I'd call their later stuff metal. Not that I'm hugely hung-up on genres. Beve (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL Find a hard rock/alternative metal band (which is what I consider Soundgarden...they never would have been hit with the "grunge" label if they had come from anywhere but Seattle) that isn't stoner rock.  Geddy Lee famously says often that Rush has one of the most "aromatic" audiences around. Would you consider Rush stoner metal?  I sure as hell wouldn't, but I've been to several of their shows, and it doesn't take long for that particular aroma to fill the air. "Stoner Metal" has to have come from the Redundancy Department of Redundancy. Maybe now that marijuana is becoming legal in more places, we can finally get some decent music again. I've long said that the two worst things to happen to rock seems to be haircuts and rehab. I realize the some artists need rehab, and I certainly would never begrudge them that, but go listen to "Sweet Emotion" and "Love in an Elevator" and tell me Aerosmith still has "it". Or compare "Master of Puppets" to anything Metallica has done in the last 15 or so years.

Stoner metal? Seems like we could use a little more of that.66.165.23.103 (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)pacman357

So what are you proposing exactly? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cornell, drums & guitars

In that timeline graphic with the band members, it has Chris Cornell playing rhythm guitar AND drums for 1984-1985, surely he wasn't doing both at the same time? (no idea how to edit that timeline) 111.69.230.19 (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They were all still at U Washington at the time, not really a touring band, so it's quite likely that Chris was doing double-duty when they recorded their earliest demos. I'm sure they played a few shows here and there, so it'd be interesting to find out how they handled that. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Cornell only handled vocals and drums in their early days; he only picked up the guitar once the band enlisted Matt Cameron. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Soundgarden‎

I was surprised to see there was not a List of songs recorded by Soundgarden‎. I redirected the page to here for now, but feel free to get a list going before me if you have time and interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soundgarden. 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:

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) 11:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

"Cornell remained in Soundgarden until he committed suicide in May 2017, leaving Thayil as the only constant member of the band." According to Chris's wife Vicky, he did not commit suicide. The statement should read allegedly. Keeper1029 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[3] Keeper1029 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Soundgarden/5649
  2. ^ http://www.metalkingdom.net/band/2491_soundgarden
  3. ^ Alicia Adejobi International Business Times19 May 2017 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chris-cornell-death-wife-vicky-121304558.html
I have changed "until he committed suicide" to "until his death". This article is about the band, so cause of death isn't especially germane in this context, and clearly the story is still developing. RivertorchFIREWATER 15:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

i want to edit this article because there is one thing that is inacurate Yaboibonk (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK Discuss 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2017

Please put Chris Cornell back with the other members of Soundgarden, either they're all "former" members, or the 4 of them are "current" members. The way it is currently makes no sense. I would personally suggest they're currently now all "former" members. 2A02:C7D:BB70:7100:80F0:3BC1:A3A9:7DBC (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding to this, I don't think it is fair that Ben Shephard has now been put as the lead vocalist. There's no evidence that the band are going to continue without Chris - also how can Shephard be a lead vocalist when he's never performed lead vocals? This seems like speculation as well as a little bit disrespectful. Also, it seems wrong to say the Thayill has been the only constant member of the band when there is no evidence they are going to continue. We should just have something along the lines of 'Since Chris Cornell's death in 2017, the status of the band is unknown.'

146.199.115.92 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Robbie

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Political Positions

It should be made known that Soundgarden played at Rock for Choice concerts whether you are against or for abortion, it should be made known since Soundgarden indicated they support abortion by playing at Rock for Choice. In other words they have not kept their views to themselves they have made it known and it should be mentioned on wikipedia. --Smokeyfire (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Smokeyfire

No, it shouldn't, you're drawing your own conclusions and opinions of events and entering that into a Wikipedia article. That runs afoul of original research policy. The case for tagging Cornell himself is one thing, but the case for tagging the band is nearly non-existent. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It was Soundgarden the band who performed at Rock for Choice. Like joining a political party once you get involved your on record as having participated in something. If Soundgarden participated at a Pro Life concert I would mention it as well same with Chris Cornell's page.

--Smokeyfire (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Smokeyfire

The sourcing still sucks, but it isn't even about that; it just isn't a relevant or notable thing. Non-politicians point-of-view on political issues is only really important to people who oppose that point-of-view. We're not going around and tagging band and singer pages with pro/anti-choice just because some right-wingnut wants to tell the world about it. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

People have the right to know that about Mr Cornell and Soundgarden use to like listening to his song you know my name but I found out that a few months ago. Im anti censorship like Rupert Murdoch so stop trying to cover the truth up.--Smokeyfire (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

They have the right to know pertinent biographical information; a musician's opinion on abortion is not that. It is crystal-clear that you are here to pursue an anti-choice agenda rather than contribute to the sum of human knowledge regarding alternative music. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about this song? (http://archive.is/WmOir) --Smokeyfire (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Um, what about it? Tarc (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
"RI-TU-AL! RI-TU-AL! RI-TU-AL!" Good song, but I prefer the ones with Led Zeppelin style, such as "Burden in my hand". Anyway, we were discussing about things to add or not to the article. Cambalachero (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I know talk has tried to explain this, but it's time [User talk:Smokeyfire|talk] is introduced to reality. Now I personally couldn't care less about the abortion issue, I do understand that those in favor and against (pro-choice, pro-life, bratus-interruptus or whatever term you prefer) care deeply about this. Wikipedia is not the place for pushing a social agenda of any sorts, however there are lots of jokers who seem to do nothing but that. Tsk tsk tsk. If Smokeyfire must continue this agenda of associating Cornell and Soundgarden as supporters of (X), he must find reliable sources that state this. Not youtube links or blogs. Almost any newspaper would suffice. Good luck finding any, I sure couldn't.

If Smokey really want's to find a reliable source, for this statement, a "primary source" might also work. Such as Cornell or Soundgarden mentioning such support for (X) on their websites. I wouldn't object to such a source if it were used neutrally. I can't speak for Tarc, but he seems like a reasonable chap and I think he would be ok with that. One might even considering writing Soundgarden/Cornell and asking them to publish a statement. It's just a guess of mine, but I rather suspect that Cornell is quite proud of his stance on (X)and if he had a choice he'd gladly have "pro-choice" on his Wikipedia biography.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I would just like Mr Cornell's position on abortion to be made known on Wikipedia he has endorsed Barack Obama who supports Partial birth abortion. A statement from Mr Cornell would is a good idea how to get it is another thing though? Good idea overall for a statement like Denis Napthine releasing a statement on Victoria's abortion laws despite flip flopping. --Smokeyfire (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

What would have to be demonstrated is something akin to Paul McCartney#Vegetarianism and activism. It isn't enough to say "Cornell supports XYZ", we'd have to see reliable sources covering Cornell's activism in XYZ, showing that this a notable aspect of this person's life. Tarc (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well like this Cross 2001, p. 253 is from Kurt Cobain's Wikipedia page, that information may be in some books. --Smokeyfire (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Cornell has supported Obama as indicated here. http://loudwire.com/watch-chris-cornell-perform-president-obama-commander-in-chief-ball/ --Smokeyfire (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Somkeyfire

Oh, great. Cornell supports Obama, and Obama supports partial birth abortion, so Cornell supports partial birth adoption as well. Right? No. That's a Non sequitur. Obama is a politician, not a religious idol, and supporting a politician for a certain office over other alternatives does not imply supporting everything that such politician has ever done, said or proposed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes true like I have voted for a politician and i don't agree with everything they stand for. Wasn't saying Cornell supported Partial birth abrotion but then again if you support abortion you still are supporting the idea of a baby being killed. --Smokeyfire (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

And that kind of rhetoric pretty much seals the deal as far as I'm concerned. You're not here to help build an encyclopedia, but rather are here to further an anti-abortion agenda. This matter is closed. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have said before people have the right to know that about Mr Cornell and Soundgarden, if clear evidence arises that confirms Mr Cornell is Pro choice I shall add it. --Smokeyfire (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

No, they have a "right" to read things about people that the Wikipedia community deems to be notable, significant, and relevant to the subject's biography, and which conforms to our policies on such. If you add this again, it will be removed, as you have failed to gain consensus for its inclusion. If you choose to once again edit-war over it, the matter will be elevated as necessary. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

What about Sheryl Crow abortion is mentioned on her page regarding one of her albums. --Smokeyfire (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

The abortion mention in Crow's bio is about the content of one her albums. As she is an artist, one might be interested in the content of her work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Born to Choose [[2]] I found this. --Smokeyfire (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Also found this [[3]]--Smokeyfire (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

Now I found some information that proves Soundgarden supported NARAL and that got removed violating freedom of speech.--Smokeyfire (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire

There is no freedom of speech in the Wikipedia, first off. Second, as you have been told several times over, the Wikipedia is not a platform for your anti-abortion agenda. Third, a consensus of editors who have weighed in on all of this have deemed the material not pertinent to the band's history, nor pertinent to Cornell's biography. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


What a waste of time this whole argument was. But funny! Bottom line is, if someone say they're pro-choice, they're lying. You'll notice everyone who says that has actually been born. Were you pro-choice in the womb? Suicidal? How stupid can people be. Until we make murder legal, abortion will be lawfully wrong, and there's really no way to make it morally okay. Also, Chris Cornell NEVER said he was pro-choice or pro-life. P.O.D. played OzzFest... Does that make them a secular band? No. Playing Rock for Choice doesn't make you a supporter of any belief, political affiliation, or anything else. UtahCountryBoy (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2017

Please change: [63] On April 9, 1997, the band announced it was disbanding. To: On Dec 4, 1996, the band announced it was disbanding. My wife and I were at the Memorial Auditorium concert in Sacramento on Dec 4th, 1996 when Soundgarden announced they were breaking up. Cornell said they were in good spirits because they were heading home for a few months and then finishing the tour in Hawaii. Ben Shepherd was the only band member who seemed discontent, at one point punching an amp and then occasionally checking his hand for injury the rest of the concert. 98.191.153.218 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Toby Jepson

Please, protect the article. Some asshole has done some vandalization. Edits have been reverted, but I see the name of this guy still appears in the timeline and I don't know how to remove it. Saforencus (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Soundgarden. 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:

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) 22:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Kim Thayil - rhythm guitar (2017–present)???

A little puzzled by this addition to the "band members" section. Was Thayil playing rhythm guitar parts on the band's tour before Cornell's death or was this added in by a hopeful fan assuming the band will definitely continue and that he'll take over rhythm guitar??? Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Band members section

Assistance needed with recent PlotData edit XXCochiseXx (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Badmotorfinger release date

The release date on this page (October 8, 1991) does not match Badmotorfinger Wikipedia (September 24, 1991). Contemporary sources on that page (and in Talk) dispute the commonly used but unsourced October 8 date. Roket (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Prog rock

I think we should add progressive rock or progressive metal to the genres. As odd as the time signatures they used I think we should add that. there was an old talk thread that suggested adding prog rock but I can't find any sources calling them prog rock without it saying there only mixing prog rock with grunge or alternative TomhenC (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never once seen anyone calling Soundgarden progressive rock or progressive metal. Adding them here would probably constitute as WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
but I can't find any sources calling them prog rock without it saying [they're] only mixing prog rock with grunge or alternative That alone should have answered your question before you even suggested it. No. dannymusiceditor oops 05:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

I have withdrawn the FAC because FAC instructions weren't followed and the principle editors weren't consulted. Please leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot runs, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soundgarden/Archive_1&oldid=1092076318"