This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geke (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 7 October 2020 (→Meaning of song). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:15, 7 October 2020 by Geke (talk | contribs) (→Meaning of song)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Lithium (Nirvana song) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Alternative music: Nirvana GA‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Songs GA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Meaning of song
Where did you read the meaning of the song? Elsewhere I couldn't find any two people agreeing on it, however most of them don't think it's about religion.
- I simply gave the surface meaning of the song; that at least deserves some mention. Further interpretation may or may not be needed; I'll leave that open to other editors to decide on. -- LGagnon 19:57, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Alright i kinda know alot about Nirvana and Kurt Cobains life so ill try to help. The song is about the anti depressants he was on, about jis time living with the Reeds who were christians and about relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.111.25 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The only clue for which this song should be considered about religion is the line "Light my candles in a daze 'cause I've found God". It's not quite obvious. I think this song has no "surface meaning", but it's intentionally hard to interpretate.--Army1987 11:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well, what I wrote is the meaning most often attributed to the song. I don't think it should be removed, since many have interpretted it that way, but if you want to add other interpretations then you can. -- LGagnon 15:23, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I am a bi-polar victim, and have taken Lithium in the past, and I just think the unusual line about god may be in fact just the opposite of what is stated in the article in general. In that, it is an allegory to Lithium and other pharmicuetical drugs being a substition for religion in Kurt's usual "mocking" songwriting style. When you take mood stabilizers, you still feel the euphoria of a manic upswings and depressive downswings, so in essence the pills do not really have the effect they are made out to have, and most of the time you feel like a zombie (hence the "candle"), and you feel let down. But, of course, Kurt's lyrics are always over analyzed, but in contrast, hard to decipher. Don't know if Cobain experienced these medicines, but In my experience, the song is basically a description of life with bi-polar disorder, although thickly veiled in some lines. The chorus to me seems to be about a love relationship that the disease may have ended.
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in. Keep up the good work Misplaced Pages. I would register and help out a little more, but I'm afraid my personal problems keep me from doing something that I would enjoy, like sharing my personal knowledge and views with people, since my view of the world is so cracked at times.
Thanks, Eric
O.K., I've decided to register. I have extensive knowledge of some rock music, so maybe I can help out in this area. Sincerely, Eric
- Why does everyone think Nirvana songs have these deep, hidden meanings behind them? They don't. They don't mean jack-shit, which is a fact. Kurt Cobain stated numerous times that he always just threw lyrics in at the last minute, just took bits and pieces from his old poems and stuff, or random words that came into his mind. It's not neccesary to add these far-out theories about what this song MIGHT have meant.
- *Actually they use a jumbled set of metaphors in their songs, so yea, those are open to interpretation (whether the band meant them or not...). But I don't think u can put any uncited material into the analysis, in this regard.
- Anyway, while the song is literally about "finding god" - this does not explicitedly mention the death of anyone, let alone a girlfriend. And finally, the lithium salts/mood stabiliser analysis seems to be a popular one - but I don't think that qualifies it for inclusion, unless in the vein of "Some fans have commented....", "others have suggested...." and then cite some source. Peace. --NihalKoshy (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The line "Nirvana biographer Michael Azerrad described the song's title as a reference to Karl Marx's statement that religion is the "opiate of the masses" is unsatisfactory. Lithium is a metal, and it is unclear how a metal should be a reference to a Karl Marx statement without reading Azerrad. I have not read Azerrad and I do not understand this line. Also, the article should mention that the title might refer to the use of Lithium salts as antidepressant. Lithium is an unusual word that is of interest only to astronomers, people in the mining industry, and depressed people. I think Kurt belonged to the last category. Ozric14 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I just added something to try and resolve the above issues:
- Cobain said the song is about a man who, after the death of his girlfriend, turns to religion "as a last resort to keep himself alive. To keep him from suicide" which suggests a connection with lithium (medication)'s use to control bipolar disorder.
- Let me know how you like it – or change it :) Geke (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
"Interpretation" section is completely subjective and unsourced.
One of two things need to happen to this section; either the assertions within need to be cited, or it needs to be removed. Unsourced, subjective interpretations do not belong in this entry. ---Jackel 03:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Requested move to Lithium (Nirvana song)
Now that Evanescence have a song called Lithium, should this article be moved to Lithium (Nirvana song)? U-Mos 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the Evanescence song should have an article at this point. As it is, it's unsourced crystal ball stuff, and there's no reason to suppose it will be significant enough to support an article of its own apart from the main album article. Rather than renaming this one, I'm inclined to put the Evanescence one up for AfD. It fails WP:MUSIC/SONG which, although it is a proposed guideline, seems to be backed by consensus and by WP:MUSIC. Kafziel 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
But if the Evanescence article remains...? U-Mos 20:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- No one really seems to care about this, so I will say that I will move this article on the 10th if there are no further protests. U-Mos 11:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean when you say no one seems to care about it. I care. So far, you have one oppose (me) and no support. There's no consensus for a move yet. Kafziel 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like y'all have this under control and it's not an obstructed move anyway - so I've removed the move tag. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Redirecting the Evanescence article is fair enough, but if the article reappears when there is more info on it (which it almost certainly will), should this page be moved? U-Mos 16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there are a lot of "ifs" involved. If WP:MUSIC is expanded to include the requirements for individual songs, then it remains to be seen whether that song will qualify. If it does qualify, it will need sources to be recreated. But, yes, if that song becomes notable and the article becomes viable then at that point we could revisit the move request and I would probably support it. Kafziel 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the Evanescence song is a future single you know, not just an individual song. U-Mos 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but singles are not necessarily notable just for being singles. If it reaches the top 20 on the charts, or if it's on a movie soundtrack, or if it becomes Evanescence's signature song, then it might be notable. Or it might not. Kafziel 16:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
why no lyrics?
The other Nirvana, the other Lithium
Is the song by the earlier band actually a cover of this song? I'd heard otherwise, that it was just a strange coincidence. Even if that's the case, it's still worth a mention.
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lithium (Nirvana song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough, noting any issues here that I can't immediately fix, and then follow with the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Initial readthrough
This looks very strong on first pass: well-written, well-sourced, and covering the main aspects of the topic. Only one comment so far:
- "Cobain blew his voice out" -- seems just a touch informal; might fall under an idiom to be rewritten per WP:WTA.
- I skipped to the relevant portion on the documentary to review it and rephrased accordingly. Also added the modifier "According to Vig", because in the documentary he says "I think it was on 'Lithium' . . ." so wanted to indicated that it wasn't hard fact, just to the best of his recollection. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is clear. Sources are not accessible through Google Books search, but happy to accept per AGF. (Later note: Spotchecks against Azerrad in Amazon showed no evidence of copyright issues.) |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass--nice work on this. |
US Billboard Singles Sales peak
I know that we are not supposed to be including component charts of the Hot 100, but the Lithium peak of number 31 on the Hot Singles Sales chart, and which was actually the equivalent chart of pretty much every other country's national charts which were based on sales, can be sourced from page 85 of the August 15, 1992 issue of Billboard magazine as linked here: QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now also coming to the main Billboard website, as per URL: .QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)