From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Genres[edit] — Doom/Stoner Metal/Post-Punk -- 13:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

THATS WRONG BUD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman92 (talkcontribs)

While you might think that this is wrong, you should appreciate the effort, that someone actually tried to find a source to make a point.. Also, please remember to sign your post, thanks ;) --Johnnyw talk 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like how people have taken the effort to find sources yet someone keeps removing "grunge" and "alternative metal". Then, it only says "Sludge metal" and "Hardcore punk". That's misleading, and makes them sound as underground as, say, Eyehategod and Acid Bath. Sludge & hardcore ARE accurate for them, but not the ONLY genres for them. If I didn't know their music yet, I'd think they had nothing to do with the alternative/grunge boom of the early- to mid-1990s, but they did. They are back in the underground now, but there was a time where they were in the alt-metal/grunge bin, and on MTV and in Rolling Stone. Tim010987 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Melvins are not a grunge band, you will actually find that the reference which has been attributed to them as grunge is in fact wrong. The link currently as [1] states that and i quote "Boris take their name from a song on grunge godfathers the Melvins' Bullhead album." Note "Godfathers" aka not grunge themselves - godfathers of grunge - influences on grunge. Just as how Neil Young is a godfather of grunge but not grunge himself. Therefore it is an improper citation which is conveying inaccurate information and i suggest it should be removed until an accurate citation is provided. --Alowishus321 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain[edit]

"Cobain also auditioned to join the band on bass, but he didn't make it, reportedly because he was so nervous that he forgot all the songs." Somewhere on Youtube there is an interview with Buzz and Dale where they say he didn't make the band because he wasn't any good. I'll try and find it after work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Can someone put up a picture of the Melvins? Thanks.

Tora Tora Tora[edit]

isn't this lp boxset better listed under albums than singles? Noctrun 07:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would four singles, limited in release, that never saw a commercial release in lp or cd, be considered an album? The content consists of live songs mixed with radio call in clips, mixed in with radio advertisements. That really isn't an 'album.'


Ok, why does the fact that the Melvins opened up for NIRVANA at their last show not warrant being mentioned on the Melvins website? The melvins are arguably the most influential band on NIRVANA, and the fact that Cobain's first live performance and last live performance both featured Melvins-related projects is both interesting, relevant, and certainly noteworthy in the course of music history. Also, why is there no mention at all of mackie osbourne, buzzo's wife? She's done most of the design work for the Melvins over the past ten years.

So I edited the history section a little. Mainly I took all the nirvana stuff and put it in a nirvana section. I do think that Melvins connection with this band merrits mentioning, but I felt like it was cluttering up the history section. 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Itsafarce

Good call.-- 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not a good call, at all, this article is not about Nirvana and should not be edited to please those who only care about the "Nirvana connection" as you called it. And thanks to you the chronology of the history section is now messed up. Nirvana is not important enough to this band to justify your edit. Noctrun 07:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't alter the chronology or change any information at all. And I certainly didn't add any Nirvana information. I moved all the nirvana stuff into it's own section precisely because this is an article about the melvins and having all that stuff mixed in with the melvins chronology doesn't make any sense. Frankly, the history section is disorganized and poorly written. If you want this to be a good article it will have to be structured.Itsafarce 07:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)itsafarce
What? You clearly removed information from the history section only to add the word NIRVANA to a headline of this article, this page has been vandalized by fans of Nirvana more than enough already to be senitive about it. A history should structured to be a chronologly of events and if you think it is poorly written and that you can do better, then be my guest to reword it, but don't remove information from it only to create a second history section concerning a band that is not important enough to the Melvins to justify such edit. Noctrun 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes a strictly linear chronology is not the best way to write a history. I tried to edit the history section so that it would be about the melvins progress through thier albums,and their string of bassists. This meant that the Nirvanna information had no place. Rather than taking it out, as someone obviously thought it was important enough to put in, i moved it into it's own section. I'm not sure I understand why you think that having the same information in a different place is somehow worse than having it pepperred throughout the article. Also, what information do you think I removed?


It's the Melvins; not 'The Melvins'.

That's disputable as for wikipedia it's The Melvins, btw Moral support is not a musical instrument. 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Brilliant. Check with the Melvins themselves; look at the albums, and then tell me where the 'The' is.
I have, and so had the wikipedia-guy who moved it from Melvins to The Melvins a while back. The truth is: the band is not clear about the name itself (26 Songs, Gluey Porch Treatments (Ipecac rerelease), Hostile Ambiente Takeover, Sieg Howdy!, Never Breath What You Can't See, The Maggot and Colossus of Destiny all carry the "The" after quick look over my collection here in fornt of me), by the way you are the vandal because you have edited the page removing the "the" from within the text where it should have been, the article here is pretty good (actually more accurate than most other biographies for this band even on serious or creditable sites) and it's been vandalized a lot, (partly by Nirvana fanboys who want to put the name Cobain in every paragraph and don't care about truth (just look at the Nirvana article) or fans of The Melvins who want to be funny (last think I remember is the recent "When Buzz was a little boy..."-edit, this is a encyclopedia that takes itself seriously not a humour fanside form the likes of "The Melvins Are Gay" run by Brian of I don't think we should countinue to fight over the actual naming and just add some disclaimer that the name is disputed, even by the band itself.
You're right.

"The Melvins Are Gay" website is NOT run by Brian of - just wanted to clear that up. -- July 31, 2006 07:15 (UTC)

Well he says he did, brain ( "I made the melvins is gay site, I thought that was common knowledge by now."
Are we sure that wasn't just sarcasm on his part??
No, but this is about the Melvins so we can't be sure about sarcasm on any part.
Brian of DEFINITELY created the Melvins is gay site. This is a fact.
What a bunch of fags!!!

year formed[edit]

This is for where is your source for the Melvins being formed in 1983? If you take the official Cobain biography as a reference, there is a story about Cobain meeting Osborne at Montesano High School after attending a rehearsal of the band (during thier The Who/Hendrix phase), since Osborne graduated in 1982, the old early 1980s entry appears more accurate. If you ask the band now when they formed they say 1984 (the year that Crover joined). Oh and please don't link to those bullshit Nirvana fanboy articles that claim Osbourne was living next door to Cobain in Aberdeen and even giving him (Cobain) guitar lessons (note to the average Nirvana fan: none of that is true!) those are not a good source to cite. noctrun 23:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

regarding the supposed "who/hendrix phase": there was no such phase. i have a vhs recording of an interview i conducted with buzz where i ask him about the jimi hendrix cover band rumor and he states quite plainly, "that's not true. i was never in any other band before the melvins." i guess it's hard to cite a videotape that i own as a resource... maybe i should post it to a website and cite the website if that pleases you? this is straight from the horse's mouth (the talking horse, even.)
--Vinney 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That Who/Hendrix phase also originates from the Come As You Are-Cobain biography and speaks of the Melvins playing The Who and Hendrix covers before coming up with their own punk material, it is _not_ about a band Osborne was in before forming the Melvins. From the quote you posted it seems to me that he misunderstood your question, it's like you'd asked him "did you ever play in a Who/Hendrix cover band?" and not "did the Melvins started out playing covers?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Besides, Vinney's tape doesn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Album ordering[edit]

Should the mangled demos be at the end? The actual CD release was in May, even if the demos were from 83. It's not an actual re-release, either, so it doesn't make sense to me to list the date as 1983 considering that's not when it was released. Or is there a policy regarding this? --Lysol July 1, 2005 07:15 (UTC)

Well it's 1983 because:

  • It is not expected that the Melvins start to perform any of those songs ever again.
  • It is the original (first) lineup of the band.
  • It is the first in the Melvins chronology of recordings
  • It wasn't released because, back in 1983 there were no indie labels in the Seattle scene, C/Z was founded in 1985 originally only to release Deep Six, (the second release beeing Six Songs)

--noctrun July 3, 2005

The recording isn't a reissue of any single recording, it's a compilation of assorted demos and recordings edited together. I think the way it's represented now lends itself to giving the impression that somehow Ipecac released the compilation in 1983. --Lysol July 9, 2005 04:30 (UTC)
Well, tracks 3-13 are an entire studio session (see the liner notes, but judging by your username, you properly already have) with some rehearsal/live bonus material. As for any confusion concering Ipecac releasing it in 1983 I think that the Mangled Demos from 1983 wikepedia entry clears that matter up quite well. --noctrun July 9, 2005

A Senile Animal[edit]

The album "A Senile Animal" doesn't exist yet, at least not in its final form. It should be moved out of the discography section and into the history section. --MikeBC 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)MikeBC

According to this article: the album "A Senile Animal" does exist and it is perfectly alright for it to be posted in the discography section.

I disagree. If the Melvins were to perish while on tour (God forbid) and Ipecac were to go out of business, we would never see a CD called "A Senile Animal." It's not worth getting into an editing war over, but technically until it's on shelves, it doesn't exist. (Also, please sign your name to make it clear who's "talk"ing.) --MikeBC 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)MikeBC

No, I disagree with you. The album does exist. If the Melvins did perish in an auto accident, the album would still be released. The recording part of the album is completed. If Ipecac were to go out of business, it still would be released through some other label and distributer I am sure. Anyway, the hypotheticals you listed are likely not to happen. So it should not be considered jumping the gun just because it is not on shelves yet. I am also sure the reputation of Wikipedia would not suffer if it was put back into the discography section.


why should it be in the history section, mikeBC? that makes less sense than where it is now. by YOUR logic, it doesn't even exist in the current moment, so how is it at all possible that it existed in the past, the point in time that HISTORY is concerned with?? --VCavallo

I have the album "A Senile Animal", therefore, it exists. Azrayl 08:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, if you say Azray, it sounds like Ass Ray.


The superfans are a group of dedicated Melvins enthusiasts who frequent the website, a site which has many cult like qualities. HAZEXXL is the owner of Amphetamine Reptile records and has supplied pornography for the band on more than a few occassions. We don't consider that section to be vain nor is it vandalism. --User:Black Santa 22:37, 21 July 2006 is not affiliated with the Melvins, it is a fan site. Adding a Superfans section of the Melvins page on Wikipedia is the real-world equivalent of scrawling "Joe Was Here" on the wall. --MikeBC 21:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)MikeBC
The Melvins have mentioned '' in interviews, and list it alongside the and on their myspace page- I'd call that an affiliation. --User:Boo yah Boy! 3 August 2006 (UTC)
what selfproclaimed superfans are, by Buzz Osborne
Have you noticed that there's a lot of superfans in Norway? That's really weird! I guess since there's only snow in Norway, the only thing to do is to listen to Melvin music.

Six Songs[edit]

Was Six songs actually released by C/Z? I don't have a copy nearby, and I've found some places on the web that mention the melvins had released the 7", which was later released as an lp and cd by C/Z. Did Glitterhouse have anything to do with it? Thanks.

yes it was 1986 - C/Z releases the first Melvins record (CZ002). note that 8/10 songs are from 1990.

Discography moved to Melvins discography[edit]

It was cluttering up the page. Swears and threats of sexual impersonification welcome. --Cyhatch 12:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)



Melvin in Montesano[edit]

Is there a source for this information? Where did it come from (specifically, a clerk named Melvin)?

It came from one of the first Melvins fan club interviews, where the Melvins were questioned about the origin of the name.

crover's drumming being especially praised[edit]

Though the group has received mostly positive critical notice, Crover's drumming has been especially praised; Patrick Kennedy describes his work as "astonishing, powerful, and daring."[1]

this is completely unnecessary and should be deleted. and suggesting that crover's drumming receives greater 'critical notice' above and beyond the 'positive critical notice' the melvins receive as a whole is a dubious claim at best.

'Dubious at best'? You're a tool.

Everyone who knows of and listens to the Melvins know how good they are. I see nothing wrong in pointing out the obvious fact that Crover's drumming has been noted as "powerful..." It's one of the first things you notice when seeing them live.

This person is correct. Interviews and articles over the years seem to regularly mention Crover's exceptional drumming skills. It's a fairly commmon thing to see.

it is clearly the lead instrument, especially in the early days. there is nothing wrong with pointing this out. if a guitar player's solos were commented on or something, would anyone think it was out of the ordinary? this is drum discrimination.

Big Business Guys[edit]

Should they be listed under the members on the right side of the page? They are technically members of the Melvins as they play with them at every show at the present time. Azrayl 08:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. They are band members. If they weren't, this would only be a temporary thing, and A Senile Animal would probably be credited as something like "The Melvins with Big Business". Since they are touring as "The Melvins", Jared and Coady are technically band members, until Buzz (and Dale perhaps) say otherwise.
Shouldn't we put Jared and Coady in the full members list too? They aren't just part of a touring band. Morypcaina 00:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When I went to their concert in New Orleans, Buzzo had to sub for Warren on 2 songs. I don't really get where Big Business is gonna go apart from opening for the melvins considering that 66% of the band IS The Melvins. Linknumbers 06:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)Linknumbers

What are you talking about? What do you mean, you don't know 'where Big Business is going to go'? I assume they'll continue as Big Business and possibly with the Melvins. 66percent? Where did this number come from? Wow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

lollapalooza and ozzfest[edit]

i think this page should mention that the melvins have performed at both lollapalooza and ozzfest, as a testament to their commercial success. i understand that lots of melvins fans are into this image of the melvins as an "underground" band, but the reality is that they have had some real mainstream success among the nu-metal and alt-rock kids. i think it speaks well for them that all sorts of mainstream audiences have been receptive to them.

They are still considered an underground band. Have you heard them on any mainstream radio? Perhaps they have been on satellite radio but that is only available to paying members of that service. True, the Melvins have had a measure of success but it hardly makes them a household name as of yet. But I have no problem with adding Ozzfest and Lollapolozza to the page.

Craig1974 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

They are played on fm radio here in Indiana... just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

2007 Album[edit]

Dale Confirmed Jared and Coady will be working with them on the next album.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman92 (talkcontribs)

Subheadings and trivia section[edit]

I put in some subheadings to make the history more simple, and also added a Trivia section if thats OK.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman92 (talkcontribs)

Well, thanks for adding subheadings, but trivia sections have to be rewritten into prose and incorporated into the article if the information is interesting enough, or merged to the related articles if the trivia only relates to single band members/albums etc. If the information is not interesting enough to be part of the biography or the other sections, it should be deleted. Sorry :) --Johnnyw talk 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)



I am sorry, I had to remove the section. We cannot link to songs that way. See Wikipedia:Music samples for a guide on how to do it. --Johnnyw talk 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

history section[edit]

we should make the history longer, especially the commercial success heading. plus yesterday i added pictures that i scanned/ got off the internet (without a copyright tag).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman92 (talkcontribs)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Copyright still applies, even if there is no copyright tag! You have to realize that. Only because someone took the picture, put it up on the website without bothering about who the picture actually belonged to, doesn't make it a free picture! The fair use rationales you provided lack substantial info as well, and a source. (See: WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for a guide on how to write a viable fair use rationale. I will have to remove them. Please slow down on adding content and get to know some of the procedures better (for example: please start signing your comments here with ~~~~), otherwise it will become quite a hassle for other editors to "clean up" afterwards. If you are unsure about an issue, just go ahead and ask. Best wishes.. --Johnnyw talk 10:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Then why did you remove the picture I scanned off the back of Bullhead? And secondly, if for the picture I scanned I didn't add a proper rationale, could someone please help me in adding one? I also scanned the complete booklet of Houdini, so if somebody could please help me add a fair use rationale.... Dman92 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) <- there you go
three of the pictures have been labled as fair use by other members, but were orphaned so I added the most relevant ones back. and for the bullhead picture, there was no copyright. the only copyright cited anywhere on the cd was that for the music... none of the art was copyright (go to the melvins wiki on, and read the back label for bullhead. the link doesn't seem to be working). so, if you agree, i will re-upload that picture. Dman92 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Dman, I appreciate your work, I just want to save you some energy, so let's get some things straight:
  • the only way, that U.S. copyright doesn't apply automatically to everything released with an album (music, lyrics, artwork), is when the artist explicitly releases the work under a different license, such as Public domain. Otherwise "all rights are reserved" by the copyright holder (artist, or sometimes label).
  • To use an otherwise copyrighted image (album artwork, logo, tv-screenshot) under fair use there are some strict guidelines, some of which are explained in the links above. In summary, if you use an image under fair use, you cannot use it just for "decoration", it has to serve some specific purpose in the article where the image is used (critical commentary by secondary sources, depicting an important moment in the artists biography, etc.), and which has to be explicitly mentioned in the image description page of the image. Wikipedia has a guide on that: WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale. Will be on holiday for a week or so, if you have any further questions, I'm sure other editors will drop in and help. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 09:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Johnnyw is the melvins cop 'round here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, August 25, 2007 (UTC)


I personally would not classify the band under the genre, but they are unfortunately linked to it. Now, concerning the header for "Major Label Years". I assume it had "(The Grunge Years)" because of the band being on a major label during the time when grunge was popular. If that is the case, I still don't agree with it. In terms of their general sound, they were more "grunge" on their first couple of albums. Stoner Witch and Stag are both kind of weird and don't really fit under the "grunge" category as far as I'm concerned, and they were, of course, both released on Atlantic. Roman Dog Bird 04:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they are often mislabeled as grunge, I'll remove it for good. - (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, if they're often regarded as such, you kind of have to accept it even if you don't agree with it, and the classification is sourced. They did appear on the Deep Six collection, which is pretty much the starting point of grunge. Saying they're in the same genre doesn't mean they'll sound like everybody else with the genre, or that they're somehow confined to being only grunge. Don't take the label as some kind of insult just because the genre got popularized by bands you don't like. Torc2 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm a big fan of Pearl Jam and Nirvana, but the Melvins are very very separate from grunge. - (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And you think Pearl Jam and Nirvana are grunge ? Then, someone has to explain to me what grunge is, cos Nirvana and Pearl Jam don't sound the same att all, imo.
Well maybe we should all stop pidgeonholing bands into stupid categories and just enjoy the damn music. I know it's all about opinions and whether they're "Grunge" or not but after all Melvins are Melvins, that's their genre. SNIVLEM. Bathroom creep (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Grunge? How can you classify The Melvins "grunge?" First off, give me one example of a song or even an album that has characteristics in this particular genre? Secondly even if they were (hypothetically) grunge it was only for a small quantity of their career, and a small window of time to even say this label. However The Melvins are that type of band that everyone of the "Grunge" movement listened to, primarily, due to Kurt Cobain listening to it - and that's it! The same applies to Soundgarden for if they're grunge or they're not.

If you want to know the formula for Grunge so people would stop complaining about this genre, it's annoying when people always refer to Grunge as the heaviest genre known in existence, it's not. Just remember this or write it down, Grunge is this: noise rock + psychedelic rock + hardcore punk + 70's punk + post-hardcore + indie rock + 80's emo + alternative rock + a [basic] idea of metal = you have Grunge.

  1. 1 - Soundgarden = Do they have 80's emo influences? No. Indie rock influences? No. 70's punk influences? Yes, only to a degree. Post-hardcore influences? No. They have a hardcore punk background, a large quantity of heavy metal, more emphasis on psychedelic rock and a small amount of alternative influences into their music structure. They have more progressive rock songs and ideas to remove them from the list of grunge entirely. No other band for the genre of Grunge has any form of progressive rock or progressive metal influences nor a background in this particular genre/style (besides The Melvins). Or if they were Grunge it was only through "Badmotherfinger," however, the rest of their discography isn't Grunge.
  1. 2 - The Melvins = Do they have emo? No. Indie rock? No. Post-hardcore? No. Alternative? No. They have noise, (somewhat) 70's punk influences (i.e., The Ramones), a large quantity of a hardcore punk background/environment, psychedelic rock, and metal, to add in the mix. It's in the middle for if they were Grunge by this current definition; however, they have more of a metal and hardcore punk structure than that of The Ramones-type and psychedelic rock, to even assert this opinion on them. Furthermore The Melvins add drone, sludge, and experimental rock/metal, to remove them completely from the genre or term of Grunge completely. Again, just like Soundgarden, with their progressive rock/metal influences, and name one band from the "Grunge" movement that has sludge, drone, and experimental rock influences for Grunge? I doub't you can find one band that list this description; this argument would be considered invalid. If you can find a band[s], list me them, or at least one band - and if you can't, you can stop this argument right now.

I will not consider The Melvins Grunge, because it was probably in ONE EP or an album (in their whole discography. They will not be listed as a main genre on the page or even be mentioned as a genre here. Either way, they're not grunge, so stop your fucking bitching on this particular topic, and move on with your day.

Thank you.

panicpack121XxX 21:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Name, pt. 2[edit]

Even though the band uses Melvins and The Melvins somewhat interchangably, it's still OK to use the word the in running text either way. I plan on rewriting the article at some point to mention the inconsistency and adding in a few thes to make the whole thing a lot more readable. Anybody have any objections or articles they want to point out where they talk about this? Torc2 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with this point of view. In speech, anyone would say "the Melvins". (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


It should be mentioned that one of the music genres explored was ambient, on their collaboration with Lustmord (Pigs of the Roman Empire). Ours18 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

there are already enough genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talkcontribs) 23:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is the article called "The Melvins" now ?[edit]

Their MySpace and offical website show them as "Melvins" Gothbag (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was moved without consensus by User:Johan Rachmaninov, check the article history. ---Superfopp (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You can always ask an admin to move it back.  Channel ®   23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Or do it yourself ;-) I've moved the article back. The band's name is Melvins, not THE Melvins. Left a redirect to Melvins from The Melvins, just in case.  Channel ®   21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Certain albums (Seig Howdy; Never Breathe What You Can't See; A Senile Animal) do have the band listed as either 'The Melvins', or '(The) Melvins', and so my suggestion would be to title this article as "(The) Melvins". This would eliminate the issue of nomenclature entirely. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock...maybe?[edit]

Anybody else think hard rock merits inclusion on the genre list? It's pretty arguable that their last two albums (since Big Biz joined forces with 'em) have a definite 70's influence, which, while not qualifying as "classic rock" or "heavy metal" in the typical, hair-farming sense, is not really encapsulated in either "alt(ernative) rock" or "sludge metal". Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts? (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All genres that EVER been in the article are genres that the Melvins, or better yet; certain songs of the Melvins, fall in or supposedly influenced. There is not a single appropriate genre for all the music of this band and I think the article should reflect that.
I'm the same guy who posted this topic, only now I have a fancy username/account. If the article should, in your view, reflect that no single genre can be attached to all their music, then why is their no evident attempts on your part to add more genres? I'm not saying include something, as you say, for every genre/style they ever dabbled in, but the genres section now makes it seem like they were a punk band waaay back in the day (which is fact), who now play only sludge metal (which is untrue). NeutronTaste (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


"Mid-importance" on Wikiproject Alternative? Come on, Melvins have a very big influence on alternative rock music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


Why is the main page locked? Things keep disappearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over some material that does not meet WP:BLP. I will be reducing it to semi-protection per discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Then again, maybe I won't, after seeing the edit warring continue on this page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Request addition of [[Category:Alternative Tentacles artists]]. benzband (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: Do we have a source that says they are signed to Alternative Tentacles? I didn't see one in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Per the articles on Alternative Tentacles, Never Breathe What You Can't See, Sieg Howdy!, and Mangled Demos from 1983. benzband (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now: Sorry, we need to have an actual source to add a category to an article. (See WP:CAT#Articles.) Feel free to reactivate the {{edit protected}} template if you find one. Also, the page might be unprotected soon - see here. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are sources from the articles i just linked to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. benzband (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, this one looks like good enough proof that they were on the label. But do you have a citation that backs up this paragraph?

On June 16 and 17, 2008, a line up of Osborne, original drummer Mike Dillard, and Dale Crover (playing bass) played two shows at the Great American Music Hall in San Francisco in honor of Jello Biafra's 50th birthday. Both sets were composed of songs from The Mangled Demos, a collection of early material released on the Alternative Tentacles record label in 2005.

Or if you don't have a citation for that, could you suggest how to rewrite the paragraph to skirt around this fact? I'm afraid you need to make it easy for me to make the change. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
How about the AT article about Jello Biafra's 50th birthday? Also Alternative Tentacles is mentioned in the infobox. benzband (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that works for me. I've added it to the article. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like changed. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It was just that category. Sert - happy smile.svg benzband (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts[edit]

I propose adding Tomahawk to the Associated Acts, since Kevin Rutmanis was bassist for both bands during the same time period. Thanks. Rsmithing (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


Can you PLEASE get a BETTER PHOTO Of The Band... PLEASE!!! ( (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

50 states in 50 days[edit]

Anyone have any more info on this, esp. if it is indeed a world record? I've added a couple of sources to say they started and completed it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Timeline code error - Diagonal black lines[edit]

When viewing this page the timeline has diagonal black lines appearing across it, obscuring some of the names on the left. Can anyone else view or fix the issue? Lachlanalbert (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Melvins. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melvins. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Genre (again)[edit]

The infobox template recommends four genres but doesn't state that there has to be four genres; sludge metal is so heavily sourced that it should be mentioned, they're even considered one of the pioneers. Sludge also isn't even a sub-genre of doom as the infobox states, it's just a derivative. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)