Talk:Badmotorfinger

Name

Does anyone know where the name comes from? I've always assumed it's a combination of "Badfinger" and "Bad Motor Scooter" (a track from the first Montrose album). Both Badfinger and Montrose are bands of the right era to have influenced the members of Soundgarden and/or their associates - but I can't find any evidence to support this theory. It's one of the more intriguing album titles out there, so if anyone does know where it comes from it would be helpful to add it to the article. Magnate 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was just a play on the phrase "Bad Mother fucker" - Ross... (I help edit articles)

Album Title

In 1994 a Soundgarden interview CD was released entitled "Superuninterview." In one of the interview tracks, where Cornell is asked about album titles, he mentions in passing that both "Ultramega OK" and "Badmotorfinger" were titles Kim Thayil jokingly created. Does anyone own this CD who can help me with citation? Regards, --199.29.6.2 21:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Slaves And Bulldozers

Although it wasn't a single this song is famous for being Soundgarden's big closer at many concerts. Also it is a fan favorite. Because Soundgarden themselves seem to play this song in concert more than any other in their discography I feel it is important enough to have it's own article. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Personnel section

As the personnel section is so cluttered, I feel that columns are necessary for clarity purposes. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather go by Wikipedia policy for this. I'm awaiting clarification for what that is.-5- (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Release date

The lead says October 8, the infobox August 10. Which is it? --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday, September 29, 1991 (page K1) Seattle Times says that '"Badmotorfinger," Soundgarden's new album, [was] released last Tuesday on A&M Records'. That would be September 23. According to the article this was the same week as Nirvana's Nevermind and Rock the House Live! by Heart. Roket (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this page? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 11:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, I found one. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Badmotorfinger/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Article requirements: Y All the start class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y Categorisation at least by artist and year Y A casual reader should learn something about the album. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) ==Re-assessment== Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Y No Trivia sections. There may be some issues with citing in some areas but overall this is still a solid B-article by new criteria. Great job all around! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Badmotorfinger/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'll review this soon. At first glance, there seems to be some formatting error with the deluxe edition lists. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• The last paragraphs of tour and outtakes need citations. On the other hand, citations are not needed in the intro, which just summarises the article.
• There is a good deal of duplinking throughout.

Fixed every issue that I could see, if you can elaborate on the duplinking that I can't see, that'd be great. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This script[1] should highlight them. Good tool in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• "as it had on its previous release Louder Than Love." Could give the year, and link.
• "Cornell also added that the album is more representative of how the band is live." Why present tense?
• ""New Damage" subtly criticizes the right-wing government of the United States." How does the source phrase this? Perhaps add "at the time".

I don't see any dire need to change this, this is almost exactly how it's phrased (it uses the word "attacked" rather than "criticized"). If you still think so, be bold.

• Most other alobum articles use "Cover art" where you have "Packaging", any reason for this?
• "I simply like it because it was colorful." Liked?

 Not done You cannot alter what's in the quote. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 11:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, I was thinking it may have been a typo here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• "The 25th-anniversary reissue of Badmotorfinger was made available in two deluxe versions." Give year of release.
• Personnel lists in other album GAs usually give a source for the info.
• "featuring Motorvision" Explain what this is. I see it is explained in the later tour section, but it should be at first mention.
• You start sentences with "afterward" a lot of times in the tour section, becomes a bit repetitive. Also, shouldn't it be afterwards?
• "After touring in support of its previous album Louder Than Love (1989), Soundgarden began the recording sessions for their next album" Not stated specifically in the article body, only in the intro, which should not have unique info.
• "Badmotorfinger was certified double platinum by the RIAA in April 1996, signifying two million shipped copies;[36] however, only 1.5 million copies had been sold by October 2010.[37]" This seems a bit strange. Any explanation?

Shipments are different than sales, and the United States' program only goes for shipped quantities apparently, not for actual record sales (though usually they're close to the same when certified; this is an outlier). I have no idea why it's been given the double. Sometimes they'll count a double album as two like Mellon Collie (it's diamond and has only shipped/sold around 5 million), but that doesn't appear to be what happened here.

• "AllMusic considered the album's music to be "surprisingly cerebral and arty";" Only stated in intro.

It is worded differently in the article, the "cerebral and arty" part is all there.

• "one of the last albums to do so." Only stated in intro.

Will remove.

• No word on influence on later musicians or such?

I am not aware of any. It would seem some definitely are, but I don't know of any sources who name any specific bands or this particular record. My previous album GAs never mentioned that (that I can remember), thought they did state the particular record's influences. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I think I have addressed everything up to this point. If you've got more, shoot. If not, are we good? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine now, and will pass. Nice to see this get improved, considering recent events... As you saw, there were some additions today about charts, if something is added again, it should of course just be formatted correctly, whoever did it before did not add the source to the paragraph added to the article body. Apart from this, it seems the fair use image[2] has a redundant summary which could be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)