Talk:Godsmack/Archive 2

GA nomination on hold
Please leave a note on my talk page when the issues listed below have been resolved, so the article be passed as a good article. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

*You can mention the home town (Salem) in the lead. *"three days for 2,500 U.S. dollars." - Formatting --> "three days for $2500."
 * There is only one ref in the lead - generally speaking, everything, or nothing, should be cited there. I suggest the ref be moved elsewhere.
 * "The Scam quickly changed thier name to Godsmack, after recording one demo" - "thier" is a typo, it should be "their" :)
 * "The band’s name as stated in the home video DVD Smack This! by Merrill, “we stole it from Alice in Chains”, referring to the song “God Smack” from Alice in Chains' second studio album Dirt." - Worded poorly. Try something like "The band's name, according to Merrill in the Smack This! DVD, was stolen from Alice in Chains' song "God Smack"."
 * Any idea why Richards and Stewart left the band?
 * Ref 3 needs a publisher
 * Any idea how they attracted Steward back the band when D'Arco left? Or did he just come crawling back...
 * "shows as well as playing “Ozzfest”[8] and “Woodstock '99”" - Need a comma or something before [8].
 * Ref 17 - publisher is Blabbermouth.net
 * "In 2002, Erna was asked to write and perform a song for the soundtrack to the motion picture The Scorpion King, the third installment in the Mummy saga, it is a spin-off prequel of the Mummy series." - Split to 2 sentences. Suggest "In 2002, Erna was asked to write and perform a song for the soundtrack to The Scorpion King.  The motion picture was the third in the Mummy saga, and was a spin-off prequel of the Mummy series."
 * "selling 211,000 copies its first week[20] and later" - Need some punctuation before the ref (eg a comma).
 * "losing to the Evanescence' single “Bring Me to Life”" - "losing" is a bit immature (especially when they lost to the better song :P). How about "but the award went to Evanescence' single "Bring Me to Life"."?
 * "The album’s name came to be, as stated by Larkin" - Say woah...how about "The album got its name after a pool incident, retold by Larkin;"
 * "making it unclear of how the albums title came to be" - apostrophe (album's)
 * "an acoustic EP was released from the band." --> "an acoustic EP was released by Godsmack."
 * "this is a high position for an acoustic EP" --> "a relatively high position for an acoustic EP"
 * "It includes several previously..." - Included! We're using past tense, remember.
 * "In 2004, they were opening for Metallica’s “Madly in Anger with the World Tour”,[28] and headlining the tour along with Dropbox during the summer. Afterwards they did acoustic shows for their newly released EP The Other Side in the fall of 2004, while still opening for Metallica.[29]" - May I reword the entire paragraph? Thanks. Here goes. **"In 2004, Godsmack opened for Metallica's "Madly in Anger with the World tour",[28] and headlined the tour along with Dropbox.  Afterwards, in Autumn 2004, the band played several accoustic shows to promote The Other Side, while at the same time continuing to open for Metallica.[29]."
 * "Godsmack says they will be back in 09 with a new album and huge tour." - 09 --> 2008. Remove "huge tour" as POV.

Reviewed version:

Good luck, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Passed. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  09:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Origin

 * I'd just like to point out that the statement: "The band’s name as stated in the home video DVD Smack This! by Merrill, “we stole it from Alice in Chains”, referring to the song “God Smack” from Alice in Chains' second studio album Dirt." - Worded poorly. Try something like "The band's name, according to Merrill in the Smack This! DVD, was stolen from Alice in Chains' song "God Smack"." is misleading. Upon watching the DVD it makes it pretty obvious that the band is joking, as Robbie says 'I'm trying to think what else they always ask us' so his comments regarding Godsmack's name are basically a joke and an attack on the press.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.157.130 (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of Albums Sold
A user by the name of Skeeker has removed a citation of how many albums Godsmack has sold mutliple times. The citation I insersed was from a Shannon Larkin quote in an interview. Skeeker has provided no reason why he is consistently removing this citation, simply saying "No citations in lead it is either all told their or nothing." Which doesn't make any sense; most artist articles on wikipedia have in the introduction of the article the number of albums/records sold, and provide citation for that number. Why he is removing a valid citation is beyond me.

Perhaps I'm missing something Skeeker, so please explain this to me. If you dont, I plan on reinserting the citation again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman102100 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Skeeker &#91; Talk &#93; 00:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the article is going through a Featured Article candidate review. The lead does not need that source, and the source is placed in the article elsewhere anyway. There is more on this topic in the discussion section before this one from a Good Article reviewer, it might be hard to see because it will have a line through it.

Godsmack's Genre
Godsmack's genre must remain as "Heavy Metal, Post Grunge (early), Hard Rock (later)". This is because their self-titled debut album 'Godsmack', is easily recongnized as Post-Grunge. The next two albums 'Awake' then 'Faceless' are definitely Heavy Metal. Its music, theme, tone, lyrics, and the general fanbase, is Heavy Metal. The band's fourth album 'IV' is NOT heavy metal. The theme, lyrics and tone have changed to the more 'escapist' rather than 'nihilistic' Hard Rock. I am an expert on Metal and only the albums 'Awake' and 'Faceless' can classify as Metal. Anyone who truly knows about the difference between Rock and Metal music would agree. Thank you, Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 19:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really very easy; in cases of disagreement, we present the reliable sources. Whoever can present the best source, that's the genre that's identified.  You forgot to include your source. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, music genres aren't capitalised. See WP:MUSTARD. Funeral 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oo an expert, I didn't know there was such a thing. The genres are going to stay as they are. The are heavy metal and hard rock, the other two genres, especially nu metal I think can do without, but one editor really likes them being there. ;p

Bullshit. This guy is no expert. I have both the albums Awake and Faceless and it's just modern hard rock with some distorted guitars and a bit of screaming every once in a while. That's not what makes metal, kiddies. Oh, nice job there asshole trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by adding that last line. That certainly opens this up for discussion >_>. Godsmack is not a heavy metal band and never was so I'd like to know a little bit more about your claim to expertise.24.19.227.39 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Thank you, Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Watch the WP:CIVIL! If you ask me there is NO SUCH THING as a "heavy metal expert", and belive me almost every metalhead claims to be (keep in mind I said almost). They are heavy metal, and if you want to delete it go ahead but I will revert it, if you delete it again I will source it very, very good, if you delete it again you will be blocked.

My apologies. Anyway, I never said I was going to edit the page as I know I'm not supposed to do that without discussion, so I dunno what your beef is. Anyway, as for this band, they aren't heavy metal. See? I can put things in bold too. Also I'm very curious to see this very, very good source of yours. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 09:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can get some sources, I got the article to featured article status. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sounds amazing, let's just see these brilliant sources you're so proud of that you keep referring to. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There you go buddy, I can get more if you really like, unless you want to man-up and call it quits. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Let a big name website like AMG tell you what's metal and what isn't. Oh my, Godsmack is heavy metal because AMG tells me so. Furthermore, I didn't see anything on their AMG page that explains how they are a heavy metal band. There's just this thing under styles that says "heavy metal". I guess if that's the way we're doing things, go to metal-archives and do a search for Godsmack. Nothing will come up. I suppose you'd argue that bands like Slipknot, Disturbed, and Korn are all heavy metal because some website refers to them as such. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of those bands are metal. Metal Archives isn't a reliable source by the way, it is just another wiki. And you failed to mention the other source I got. No don't cry about it. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a wiki. Only moderators can fully edit pages. As for minor edits, they require users to amass 500 points before they can do anything. It's certainly a more reliable source than AMG on metal since it's a website that specializes specifically in heavy metal. As for the interview with their drummer, once more, it doesn't address how they're supposed to be a metal band which is what I'm asking you to prove. It seems like you're unable. Your entire argument here seems to be, "Oh look, I can link to this website which refers to them as a metal band lololol." 24.19.227.39 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you want a source so bad, you find it. Quit crying over a little article, mature up a bit, by the way it sounds it is like you are a ten year old. Metal Archives is a wiki, there are members that can contribute to the pages. And the are only a few moderators tht chose who is on the site and who is not, making it a wiki. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to convince people Godsmack is heavy metal. You find the source, it was your weak challenge to begin with, don't be upset because I called you out on it. I'm here discussing this because it's a blatant inaccuracy to call Godsmack metal of any sort and countless others would agree with me (people that actually listen to real metal and actually know their stuff instead of just getting everything they know from music sites). There's no immaturity about it. As for metal archives, whether or not it's a wiki isn't really important. The point is, unlike wikipedia, users can't just add pages or edit genres as they see fit, which is why Godsmack isn't in their archives. Anyway, it seems like all of this is unimportant because if this truly is a "little article" as you call it, you wouldn't mind heavy metal being removed from the genres now would you? 24.19.227.39 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sources which say they're a heavy metal band, that's all that matters - Wikipedia uses information from reliable sources to distinguish bands' genres, not its editors' opinions. And Metal Archives is an amateur fansite, thus it fails WP:V; what it says (or doesn't say, in this case) has no bearing on Wikipedia. Funeral 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the final line. I have sources. And you calling me out on metal, look at my userpage and see my music. You oughta know what you are talking about before you say it. I don't want any burning bridges between us, I like to be friends with everybody, and I have never had any such problems, just please drop it. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Then what the hell is the point of a talk page when any discussion is made futile because some website mentions the phrase "heavy metal"? Oh yeah, the hell with actually talking about things, everyone knows that discussing the musical attributes of bands is completely unnecessary when we have the gospel of www.allmusic.com to tell us what we need to know without explanation >_>. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read the truce proposal? Wow, you still can't handel it. Sad, sad, sad. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What truce proposal? And I can't "handel" what? What the hell are you talking about? 24.19.227.39 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Godsmack are clearly hard rock. Enough with this already. Get your facts str8 man...85.73.111.92 (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont really care what genre they are, rock, post-grunge, hard rock, it doesnt matter. What matters is that Godsmack is in NO WAY metal music of any form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.241.92 (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You people just can't stop, can you? See my pseudo-monolouge in the section below.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 20:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That whole bit about a truce was crossed out until recent. Anyway, if you've got any ideas I'm all ears. However, these weak comments like grow up, man up, stop being a baby, let it go, and whatever else just seems like you guys aren't bothered arguing and are desperate to end this. If you guys really want this discussion to be over DISCUSS IT. The general summary of this whole argument so far has been "Godsmack is metal." "No they aren't." "I have proof, here, allmusic.com says they're metal." "They don't say how though." "OMFG GROW UP GEEZ." It seems like the only people actually saying relevant things are these two guys that showed up and supported what I'm saying, which I interpret as my idea to simple remove heavy metal from the genre list has been OK'd, everything else in a good while has been childish "grow up"s and likewise terms. But still, if you're serious about this truce thing, I'm open to any suggestions. If you'd rather argue, ARGUE instead of spitting some weak half-flames. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated four time earlier... The disscussion IS over. It is sourced and that is it. And as a second note "OMFG GROW UP GEEZ." isn't very mature either. Thank you for the irrelivent comment. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL wow you couldn't have misconstrued that any more. I applaud your astounding ineptitude. You are truly worthless, sir. Thank you for wasting your time to post in the discussion section that you don't wish to discuss the matter. How very useful. I think I'll go to the talk page for water and say that I don't wish to discuss whether or not there's oxygen molecules in the stuff. Care to join me? 24.19.227.39 (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy that sounds interesting, I just might join you. Here take a look at this it might help you out a bit: WP:CIVIL. The matter has been discussed, so it is over. And by the way, talk pages are not for useless rants. Here this might help also: WP:NOT. Thank you very much for your very usefull comment. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You truly are the master of whooooshhhhh if you think everything I've been saying is a rant. And you'd be a hypocrite to tell me about being civil as you've been calling me some variation of immature in every one of your posts and provocative comments like that don't really help keep things friendly. This discussion has been anything but civil.24.19.227.39 (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a rant? Why don't you just drop it? The matter has been discussed. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My saying they're not metal and you and some other guy saying allmusic.com says they are is hardly a discussion. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is, the genre has a reliable source, therefore this discussion is over. Burningclean  &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're just taking us around in circles here, kid. I addressed this and asked what the point of the discussion page is when allmusic.com is the supposed to be the be-all end-all of genres. It's a question that still hasn't been answered. How many more times need I repeat myself? 24.19.227.39 (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Labeling genre's of musicians is not an exact science and there is never going to be complete agreement about what a particular music act's genre is. If they have been described as metal, punk, post-grunge, or whatever by secondary sources or how they self label themselves, that can be included. This does not mean it is the be-all end-all discussion. Of course people will disagree with one or more of these labels but so what? If they've been described a certain way by a music-oriented source then the label can be there, if you can not find someone labeling a band a certain way then don't put the label there. There's no source calling Godsmack Polka so we don't label them polka. MrMurph101 (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if I am going in circles. Don't call me kid, I'm not a kid. Alright? AMG isn't the bible of genres, I hate reviewers. Point is the matter is sourced and over. They are heavy metal, that is why they are heavy metal. If you really want to repeat yourself more, go ahead, I really don't care. My answer will be the same every time. Have a happy day. :D &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To burningclean, it's just a word, I don't see why you'd take it so offensively. Also, classification of something as complicated as music isn't as simple as "just because". A shark isn't a fish just because it's a fish. For all your pride as a not-kid, the approach of "I'm just gonna say the same thing every time" isn't a grown-up approach and I certainly wouldn't be so smug about it. Also, why hate on reviewers? What's the relevance of that here anyway? Ugh. And to MrMurph101, let me first thank you for your refreshing sensibility here. While it's not an uncommon point of view to say that genres of things are what people say they are, I strongly disagree with that (that is if that's the point you were trying to convey, I may have been incorrectly summarizing). While people certainly do often disagree on the classifications and genres of things, that doesn't mean that there's no right or wrong answer. Let's take movies for example, as classifying a movie's genre is much easier and both movies and music are undeniable forms of art or entertainment. I'm going to use that horror flick Kane starred in for my example, See No Evil, and hope you've seen it. Actually, if you haven't don't worry, it's terrible. Now if you'll look at the wikipedia article for this movie, you'll notice it's called a horror film. However, there are many obvious clichés throughout the movie that give it great comedic value (certainly not enough to make it worth watching, mind you, but that's beside the point). Some scenes are just not horrifying in the slightest and completely hilarious, such as the death scene where Kane's character kills some popular/pretty/preppy/"whatever-the-social-term-is girl by making her choke on the cellphone she's seen using throughout the film. There's many scenes of similar value throughout the entire movie. Still, wikipedia would not list this movie as a comedy as well as a horror. In fact, the word "comedy" never even appears in the article, nor the word "funny" or even "kitsch"! The movie still has all of these qualities and they are very noticeable. So why isn't it listed as a comedy as well even though it could very well be treated as such? Because it's a horror film in every other way. It's a definitive slasher, a single violent antagonist with a set of somewhat innocent protagonists that get picked off as the movie goes by until whoever is left triumphs over the villain. While there are definitely characteristics of other styles, the overlying one is the one that it's known by. The same goes for Godsmack. While I do not deny that there are influences of heavy metal, they have never made music that would be called as such. I don't mean this in an insulting way at all, let me make that clear, but I truly do think that even the most musically ignorant person would find that Godsmack would have more in common with Nirvana or Mudhoney than Iron Maiden or Judas Priest. For all Godsmack's influences, they have one single major overlying style that's obvious and strong in most every song and that is hard rock. 24.19.227.39 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree on that, they are most definatlly hard rock. How about we make a coprimise, Heavy metal stays in the infobox, but hard rock is in the lead. Seriously though, if you were to listen to the song "Awake", that is a heavy metal song. The same as is with "I Fucking Hate You" as well as others. Mostly songs on the radio from these guys aren't heavy metal, mainly hard rock singles, however there are plenty of album cuts that are heavy metal. As an answer to you question, I suppose hate isn't a very good word, but I don't like reviewers, because most of the time, I don't think they know what they are talking about. And by saying "kid", in my eyes, that is sort of a personal attack, because typically people will say it when they are pissed. I don't want any burning bridges here, I almost always get along with everyone. And usually the only time I get mad on wiki, is when people bring stuff up about genres that are sourced. You should become a member, because it seems like you kinda know what you are talking about. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out friggin' loud...
Can we please stop warring and negotiate a WP:TRUCE?

In the meantime, read these:
 * WP:COOL
 * WP:LOVE
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NAM
 * WP:AYNA

Thank you, and here's hoping nobody here knows what WP:ARGH! is....  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Case closed as per Skeeker/BurningClean's suggestion. The consensus...well I don't know. Let's drop it.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

IPs, shut it and read the links I posted. It doesn't matter what the genre of a band is, so long as they make good music. Stop nitpicking over a little detail and realize that there are many, MANY other articles needing attention, not just Godsmack's. Just drop it.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of glitches
I know it's already a featured article, but still, I was reading the article out of boredom, and found a few problems: ✅ I fixed all of that and replaced some other citations that I found kind of bad. Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The (((Godsmack overview))) ref (ref2) is only the opening page of AMG, it should be http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=GODSMACK&sql=11:wifpxqujldke~T0.
 * Ref 44: I don't think Bass Masta is a reliable source, but anyway, I couldn't even find the quote on the linked Bass Masta site.
 * Artistfacts.com is also not much of a reliable source, anybody can add stuff, you only need to register. Gocsa (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AIC Cover Band Period
Question: Why is there no mention of Godsmack's days as an Alice in Chains cover band? Wouldn't this be relevant to the article? Or is this something that the band themselves don't like to draw attention to? (And, if so, does that mean it shouldn't be in the article?) Just wondering. --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops - never mind, there is a mention (albeit a brief one). Forget I was here. --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I'm pretty sure they started out heavy, then they toned down over time. What about their other album, "The Other Side"? Just a thought.98.220.109.52 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)