Talk:Godsmack

Metal Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

woah what happened to the formatting

Heavy metal band or not?

Okay...Godsmack is not a heavy metal band. bob craven sucks 23:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Who says?

I beg to differ. Godsmack's guitar styles are very reminiscent of classic heavy metal, and the lead singer's style is much more of a metal style of singing then alternative rock, at least in my opinion. VH1 list's Godsmack as an alternative metal band, and i think that is what we should go with. The link is right on the page. Sarcastic Avenger 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but...heavy metal is a completely different animal compared to alternative metal.

Godsmack is no metal! It is not even hard rock! Alternative rock is not bad. a metal magazine put into the "heavy rock" section. You should write (like the german wiki) that gsmack is a mixture of both. you should also mention similar bands like Disturbed. I know disturbed has a very different sound, but this is one "circle". Means this band is often linked with disturbed.

dude, the wikipedia def. of heavy metal is the same as regular metal, so accept that. godsmack is metal. disturbed's music is loud, i know since i have a CD, and also metal, but the guitar riffs in godsmack's music is really low, and similar to those found in heavier metal. and i strongly disagree that disturbed is similar to godsmack. godsmack is no where as nu-metal as disturbed.Itachi1452 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!!!

Elton John and Elvis Presley are believed to be the primary influence upon Godsmack... since when does godsmack's music sound anything like them?!! i thought the primary influence was Alice in chains. Itachi1452 01:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains

On the controversy regarding 'Alice In Chains' instead of reading like this:

"It came from the lead singer insulting one of his band mates for having a cold sore on his lip."

the word 'allegedly' should be added:

"It allegedly came from the lead singer insulting one of his band mates for having a cold sore on his lip."

This way the article can become even more neutral, because both arguments have equal credibility and should be presented as sides and not necesarily facts since neither can be verified

Speaking of Neutrality, should we really describe guitar solos as "Mind-Blowing" and guitarists as "Amazing?"

In an interview in Los Angeles based radio station KROQ, Sully confirmed the cold sore issue. Sully made fun one of the members for having a cold sore and ended up getting one himself. He callled this "Godsmack." Kind of like Karma. MrMurph101 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alice In Chains (Part 2)

I think most of the first paragraph (everything but the first sentence) should be added to a new section, perhaps "Origins," which would obviously serve the purpose to explain the band's origins. I feel the Alice In Chains rip-off contreversy should be addressed in th

I added an Alice in Chains influence section and included other influences in there citing and quoting statements made by the band in several interviews (both early and more recent).

On the issue "is Sully less credible". I choose to state he gives an "alternative" explanation because it directly contradicts what he's stated in previous interviews.

Can you site those interviews? Interviews before 1999? MrMurph101 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sentence that states "Many mistakenly believe Godsmack obtained their name from the Alice in Chains..." needs some work. first of all, is it proven that this is definitely NOT where the name came from? if so, then you can keep the "mistakenly" in there. if not, then it needs to come out. secondly, if you are going to say that the name is "mistaken", get right to the point and tell us the other theories directly after telling us it is "mistake". there are too many sentences about influences before getting back to the name point.Dandube 17:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section needs some work actually. Ok, maybe the "mistakenly" should be taken out and I noticed somebody took that out and took out the "many believe" part out too. Anyway, it has been cited that Sully has used the "cold sore" story. However, no one cited anywhere that the name originated from the Alice in Chains song. A cited entry should take precendence over something not cited. While there is no doubt Godsmack is influenced by Alice in Chains, it does not mean they necessarily used one of their songs to name themselves after. That would be a non sequiter. Anyway, the best thing to do is to organize the article better to address the matter much better than it is right now. MrMurph101 23:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting sections

Since the Alice in Chains stuff is controversial, it is important for it to remain neutral and present both sides of the argument. To the person that has been trying to delete all of this, please stop. Mr. IP 142.176.111.58, 142.176.117.205, and 142.176.117.72. You already did it once and destroyed the page with your POV statements. Now, you removed the whole influence section and simply cut and pasted information that also contained POV from the Godsmack website. I understand you are a fan of the band but stop deleting others work because you don't like it.

I Stand Alone

Who and Why keeps deleting the I Stand Alone section?

Cover band

As a long-time listener of their hometown station WAAF, I remember frequently hearing advertisements of "Alice in Chains cover band Godsmack" concerts before they started recording their own music. In the tradition of The Machine, Physical Graffiti, Draw the Line and The Joshua Tree they named themselves after an aspect of the band they covered.

Unfortunately I don't have anything in the way of citations, so this wouldn't be appropriate to include in the main article. Perhaps others could find some? Ubermonkey 00:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be included. Usually a citation is needed if something is disputed although it is always recommended. The comparisons to Alice in Chains should have its own section though and make the top part of the article an introduction, followed by the history of the band, like what most other band articles are like. MrMurph101 00:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arthur Magazine" Interview

Perhaps mention of the 'controversial' interview with Sully, re: their promotion of military recruitment. This recently featured on Australian radio TripleJ's program "Hack" on May 30th 2006. Apparently the audio recording of the interview is floating around the net. The use of their music in military recruitment advertising campaigns, on its own, likely warrants mention.

Biased article

I came to this article to learn more about Godsmack, and somehow all I know now is that they may have derived some parts of themselves from Alice in Chains, in my opinion that should be a small part of the article, perhaps even a section, but it definitely shouldn't start off with that. It's a very biased, poor quality article in my opinion. Avuton 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's not biased, it's purely objective. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's biased. I agree there needs to be more about the band. Unfortunately, the band hasn't done much. Do you have any suggestions to improve the content. 68.196.250.47 05:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overemphasis on Alice in Chains comparisons in the intro which can be perceived as biased. I agree with putting the comparisons to them in a seciton with a sentence in the intro that addresses it with a "see below" guiding readers to the substance of the content on that issue. MrMurph101 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Wicca?

Remember when Godsmack was first touring, they used to have a big pentacle flag in the background of the band. There is no discussion on the question of Sully's beliefs. I think he was into Wicca, but I don't remember. Regardless, there should be something about it here since it had to do with the band.

Sully has his own article which discusses his beliefs. It would still be good to maybe include how his beliefs are incorporated in Godsmack's music for this article though. MrMurph101 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sully is a Celtic Witch, but someone keeps deleting the religion bit off his webpage. BMan1113VR 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godsmack vs. Nine Inch Nails

Okay firstly, Godsmack are not heavy metal; not every damn band with a "heavy" guitar tone doesn't make them metal, it's the way they play their music that makes them metal or not. Their music has more to do with grunge and hard rock than actual heavy metal.

Now my real discussion: Godsmack's "Time Bomb" from their debut album has been said to rip off a main riff that Nine Inch Nails used on their song "Wish" from their album "Broken". If you listen to both songs, they sound very distinctivly alike. NIN released their song around 1992 or sometime around then while Godsmack released their song around 1997. Would this be or should it be necessary to include in the article, regardless if it's true or not? I think it'd be interesting to show.

I'm indifferent to whether Godsmack is considered "Heavy Metal" or not or whatever label you want. They are all subjective. They have been labeled by outside sources as metal so it's not wrong to put that label in. If you do not believe their metal you are entitled to that opinion but just leave it in since that label can be verified. As to the NIN, you just have to find whether or not Trent Reznor is doing anything about it. MrMurph101 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is many people don't even know what heavy metal is. People say metal is Korn but it isn't... heavy metal for one is not Godsmack so yeah it's an opinion but there's a lot of basis for that. Comparing a heavy metal band and Godsmack can show that Godsmack MAY HAVE heavy metal influences but their grunge roots show more from bands like Alice in Chains and also their hard rock roots (their last full length, "Faceless" definitely has shown their hard rock influences.) But honestly, heavy metal should be taken out because, in a simple example comparison, Godsmack have more to do with bands like Staind than a band like, say maybe Judas Priest or Iron Maiden or Dio, all which are heavy metal. PS - Many channels and shows as shown on MTV and VH1 may say whatever they wish about Godsmack and other similar bands, saying they're a heavy metal band, but then again the mainstream media has a very skewed view on what metal is and not the full actual idea to what metal is so basing Godsmack being metal on shows in the mainstream isn't a great argument. (I'm not saying you said this, but I read in previous postings that people want to base Godsmack as being metal because a show said they were on VH1.)

Next, about the NIN issue, well to my knowledge, I remember that there was some controversy behind that with Trent and NIN fans against Godsmack but it wasn't any huge music news but I'll search into it more and reveal what I find.

Sorry, but your personal opinion has no more credibility than anyone elses, the "Heavy Metal" label should stay. Whatever label has been attributed to them should stay in the infobox. Trying to delete what you don't agree with is just nit picky. MrMurph101 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC) For the record, I do not believe VH1 or MTV has any more credibility than anyone else either. MrMurph101 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is all pointless trying to classify their genre. Furthermore, if you are going to argue that they have a more "grunge" influence than heavy metal due to the Alice in Chains influence, here's some food for thought. Alice in Chains was classified as heavy metal when Facelift came out. They reclassified themselves as "grunge" (because they were from Seattle) to cash in on the "grunge" explosion that was going on right before the release of Dirt. They flat out admit this on the Alice in Chains timeline of their Unplugged DVD. You can find references all over labeling Godsmack as Heavy Metal, Nu-Metal, Post-Grunge, Hard Rock. You aren't going to be able to say which one is right.128.6.78.50 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more accurate way to decide what they may go under is to look at similar artists and where they get their influences. Id personally put them under Alternative Metal seeing as its a huge umbrella type term that pretty much describes everything(look at the list of alt. metal bands; even Alice In Chains is on there) I do recall reading somewhere about Godsmack being an AiC cover band when they started out. If they were there is no shame in it, lots of bands start covering stuff at first. I personally love both bands and they are similar-ish. Not completely, but they do have their similarities. When I 'group' Godsmack with other bands, I normally put them in with Seether, Alice In Chains, Fuel, Bush, Flyleaf and maybe some others. Godsmack is definitely one of the more Grunge influenced bands as opposed to more metal influenced bands like Disturbed and Mudvayne. They have the whole heavy distortion thing going on. And Sully doesnt sing like Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath(what I tend to consider heavy metal seeing as they are some of the progenitors). Does anyone else agree with my comparisons? Theyre definitely seperate from other modern bands(Korn, Limp Bizkit, Chevelle, etc) and they share more traits with other bands(Fuel, Nickelback, Seether, etc). The predicament is what one categorizes such a group as. Thats why I just say Alternative Metal. It tends to make the world a happier place(i.e. less disagreements)Lamentingvampire09 12:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ok does anyone know if they have the song speak in any movie or i might have just heard it when i whent bowling last week.[reply]

nu metal ??

does anyone think they should change this ? i really don't consider godsmack to be nu metal to be honest. what do you guys think ?

I don't see how they're simlar to any Nu-Metal bands (Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Korn,etc).Jason f90 04:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they have been classified as Nu-Metal by numerous sources. They have also been classified as Post Grunge, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock etc... All very broad genre's. Rather than choose one over the other, it's better to just list them all.

All Music Guide doesn't clasify them as nu-metal, and most of sources either, and to make for these nu-metal tagging, posers matters worse, you can't say objectively say there are nu-metal band, because of time signatures, different influences, lack of rapping and turntables, not using high-pitched shortly repeated riffs, and so on...It's so lame...Stop tagging them nu-metal! Sully already disbanded this term! Broken soul 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Nu-Metal be cause they have nothing Nu-Metal. No Rapping and no turntables. I would classify them as Hard Rock but I'm leaving Metal and Post-Grunge there.