Talk:Pretty on the Inside

"Grunge" genre

Even on Hole's main page, the term "grunge" is constantly being listed as a genre and as one of the band's stand-out styles. The same goes for Pretty on the Inside and Live Through This, as well as some singles and EPs and the term — which is an incorrect term to use anyway — is being thrown around and used loosely.

As much as some critics consider Hole to be a "grunge" band or at the very least, part of the grunge movement itself, the fact is the band were not either. Considering "grunge" as a genre, there's a number of arguements to evidently show that this record, and the band itself, were not a "grunge" band:

• Not once did the band as a whole — or an individual member — refer to the band as being "grunge."
• The band were not inspired by grunge aesthetics/dynamics, even though they shared mutual influence on a number of bands.
• This record — as described by members of the band in interviews — was not intended to produce a "grunge" sound or become part of the grunge scene.
• Hole's sound is based on simple alternative rock, which is the solid structure of all four studio albums, however, "grunge" music — though it was an influence on Live Through This — did not play a significant role in this album or any of their studio albums. No wave/contemporary punk rock influenced Pretty on the Inside, not "grunge" music and "grunge" certainly wasn't the final product.

Hence, "grunge" is an incorrect term for either Hole's style or genre and more specifically, Pretty on the Inside's style/genre, and a lazy way of generalizing any album related to someone related to someone else related to someone else who was considered part of the grunge movement or as having a "grunge" band. I would then suggest that "grunge" stop being listed as a genre and a more accurate description of its main genre (alternative rock) and subgenre (punk rock) be listed, in order to give the reader a more broad and correct description of the album's sound. Idiotchalk (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because a band didn't say they were grunge doesn't mean they aren't. My Chemical Romance, as awful as the band is, are labeled emo, even though they deny it.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 21:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That responds to one of my points, not all of them and certainly isn't enough to list an album's genre as something it's not. Not to mention that the Allmusic page you used as a reference for "grunge" also classifies the album as "pop rock" and that the Sputnikmusic page is a fan-written review. The fact of the matter is that it's not my POV that the album is not grunge, it's fact. And not to be the Devil's Advocate or play you at your own, but isn't classifying the album as "grunge" very POV of you? I don't mean to sound snotty, but I'd appreciate it if you could disprove my other listed points. Idiotchalk (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grunge is desribed, according to Wikipedia, which I feel the description is accurate enough "Inspired by hardcore punk, heavy metal and indie rock, grunge is generally characterized by heavily distorted electric guitars, contrasting song dynamics, and apathetic or angst-filled lyrics." Hole are punk-influenced, yes, but their sound are not a full punk aesthetic. Go on their last.fm page, grunge is their dominant genre, and this is tens of thousands of people labeling these bands, you're practically the first person NOT calling them grunge, and don't tell me it's a fact, all genre arguments turn out to be subjective and a matter of opinion. My sources along with my agreement on their grunge status dominate your unsourced POVish theory on the band.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus obvious grunge band Alice in Chains openly said they disliked being called grunge. Are they still grunge? Yes. Since when do bands get to decide themselves what genre they're called? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, really well written article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.135.52.251 (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Song name

The name is originally misspelled "Garbadge Man". That's the way it's featured in the back cover and registered in BMI. Check it out and see.

I will probably be removing the "Garbadge Man" information from the Trivia section in order to clean it up and follow Wikipedia guidelines about Trivia sections, since there is a full article on "Garbadge Man" now. --74.34.68.224 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I edited out the "Garbadge Man" info because it's in the article for the song. --74.34.68.224 (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've added the unreliable source template. A lot of these sources seem to be taken from blogs and fan pages that would fail WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed two sources from blogs/fansites, but I can't spot any others. Is that all? Scottdoesntknow (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes there are still a few:

• [1] appears to be a fansite,
• I'm not sure about that rockonthenet site as I can't find any information about how that websites information is sourced or who it was written by.
• The last part of the second paragraph in composition (about the sonic youth influence) isn't cited.

Otherwise I think it's okay. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I removed the RockOnTheNet source, since it already had another to back it up, and I cited the Sonic Youth influence. I left the Monochrom site as a citation, because it is a webzine publication; however, I backed it up with two other sources from books, so that it is supported by more "official" sources. Thank you for the help! Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Any chance anyone is willing to review this for GA status? I've worked a ton on it, and I think it's just about near perfection. I'm looking to get it to FA status. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pretty on the Inside/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, i made some minor copy-edits for style and grammar.[2] Complies sufficiently with the MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References appear to be Rs, support the statements, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough without unnecessary trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable fair use rationales, captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   In conclusion, I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nominating for FA status

I have contributed a lot to this article and believe that it is comprehensive and well-written enough to make featured article status. I nominated it as a candidate and hope that editors will consider and look it over. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wanna nominate this for Featured Article status?

I tried in the past but it didn't get promoted, but I think the quality of this article is on-par with FA status. I'd like to see someone else give it a shot. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference review

Idiotchalk said he was looking to submit this as a Featured Article Candidate, so to start of I took a look at the references. Firstly, they need to be standardized and cleaned up--I see very different date formats, titles lacking italics, and uncapitalized words in titles.

The following references are questionable. Idiotchalk, please establish why these citations are reliable sources, per WP:RS:

• "Pretty on the Inside by Hole". iTunes. Retrieved August 9, 2011
• Pelliccia, Nicole (8 October 2008). "Hole". Teen Scene Magazine. Retrieved 29 December 2011. (The link is dead as well)
• "Artists: Hole". Rock On The Net. Retrieved 13 September 2011.
• Mejia, Victoria. "Inger Lorre". The Plague. Retrieved 19 April 2011.
• "VICKI BERNDT «". Rocket Surgey Webzine. April 16, 2012. Retrieved April 19, 2012.
• "Smashing Pumpkins / Hole - 1991". Flickr. 19 December 1991. Retrieved 13 September 2011.
• "Upcoming Releases". Insound. Retrieved 5 June 2011.
• "HOLE - PRETTY ON THE INSIDE (180g LP)". Music Direct. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
• Granger, Kevin (24 May 2011). "Courtney Love Photo Gallery Text: Biography". The Fix. Retrieved 11 August 2011.
• "Hole at Terminal 5 NYC April 27, 2010". Media Decay. 27 April 2010. Retrieved 27 March 2011.

Also, remove any YouTube links that aren't the property of the uploader and anything that sources IMDB, Discogs, or any similar user-based site. Also, reconsider Who Killed Kurt Cobain? The Mysterious Death of an Icon, which is a ... questionable source, to say the least. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)