Talk:Streetcleaner

Genre

EVERYONE SAYS ITS DOOM/SLUDGE METAL AS WELL AS INDUSTRIAL.--202.158.207.242 (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please cite a reliable source stating this. "EVERYONE" is vague, since I'm sure a majority of people on the planet have never even heard of this band. I have removed these genres from all the Godflesh album pages (and the band page) that you added them. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is the same discussion in the sludge metal article and the same claims that nobody had heard of this band. I guess most editors are simply too young to know one of the biggest bands of 90s underground. Anyway, as I don´t know most of the bands recollected in the sludge metal article, I don´t really give a damn. But to claim Godflesh unimportant should be prohibited.213.166.53.115 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Grindcore?

I gotta question putting grindcore as a genre here. Yes, it's sourced, but the only thing this album has to do with grindcore is that one of its members was in a grindcore band. Anyway, I'll leave it for now, but it really doesn't belong here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You can pull it if you want. I only added it because I was adding the review quotes and saw it was the first thing it mentioned. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 06:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. If someone else wants to re-add it, we can all discuss it here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this again, and in the grindcore article is a reference pointing to the official Earache Records blog, which also describes Godflesh, specifically Streetcleaner, as industrial grindcore. So between that, the Allmusic reference calling it "one of the darkest, best classics of grindcore", and the Piero Scaruffi site, which says Streetcleaner "fused grind-core and industrial dance", that seems like it should be included as a genre. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess if it's sourced (although a blog as a source? Even if "official", it's still highly questionable. Also, is that Scaruffi site a WP:RS?). Still makes no sense, Godflesh sound nothing like grindcore whatsoever (no d-beats, no punk guitar or punk influence of any kind, no screaming/growling, no blast-beats, nothing remotely grindcore other than Justin was in Napalm Death prior to starting Godflesh), but whatever. Add it if you want. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the blog is iffy, but like I said, it's used in the grindcore article, which is classed as a good article. I hope that means it was vetted already. I've been looking into this Scaruffi guy, because I had to pull his reference from KMFDM about a week ago for the FAC. This article about him is pretty interesting. He's notable for his music reviews, so I think he's legit. It might be better to mention some of the grindcore stuff in the text, but not the infobox, since the sources have some qualifying language, instead of just saying "they're grindcore" straight out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that's enough of an endorsement of his reliability for Wikipedia. And I thought my collection of 1500 CDs and 3000 records was a lot...I got nothing on this guy!

I like the idea of using it in the text. For example, "Scaruffi said that Streetcleaner 'fused grind-core and industrial dance'." – That seems like a better way to add that info. I'm always wary of people describing bands as "grindcore", as it's an oft-misunderstood genre (I don't know how many times I see some metalcore/deathcore band described as "grindcore" when they clearly aren't). Anyway, I think main-body article text is the way to go with these for now. I guarantee that if it ends up in the infobox, we'll have edit wars over it (not you and I, but every other editor that comes along). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool, sounds good then. I'm contemplating trying to get this article up to GA status, but I'm still looking for good details to add to the background and production sections. If you have any ideas, let 'em fly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoseCherry64 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Good article for the most part, some things should be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

• (resolved) "on an independent label known as Swordfish" — very weird phrasing, why not "the independent label Swordfish"?
• (resolved) "is another critic favorite" — This reads a bit casual and not encyclopedic. I would use "one of the [insert wording here] track according to critics"
• (resolved) "wall of feedback that Dominick Fernow (better known as Prurient) credited as a major influence on his musical experimentation" and "In 1999, the band Isis covered it, beginning a long partnership between frontman Aaron Turner and Broadrick." — the influence of the album on other musicians and covers is off-topic for said section and should be moved into the critical reception and legacy section
• "Devastator / Mighty Trust Krusher"; "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher"
• (resolved) Listing "drum machine" in the personnel section is odd. We know the particular drum machine used on this record, Alesis HR-16, so why is the most generic term used? The CD liner notes do list "Machine — rhythm", but it should rather be a note instead of a bulleted credit since it's unorthodox.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• (resolved) Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide is a self-published (Lulu.com is as much of a book publisher as Bandcamp is a record label) Wikipedia mirror ebook (reference) and has to be removed — per WP:CIRCULAR. This source is not used as the only reference for the claim, thankfully. [Sidenote: This book is no longer available through lulu.com, preview no longer accessible through Google Books and worst of all: cited on 13 Wikipedia articles. I'm going to scrub it from other articles. Edit: Done, except for Godflesh-related articles. Please handle those!]

• "Both are extended songs that have been manipulated and altered" — AllMusic review cited do not talk about these songs?

All other sources look good to me. I could not access all sources in print magazines (only The Wire), but the online ones and liner notes accessed via Discogs scans are credible and confirm the statements.

(resolved) Citations in tracklisting seems like WP:BLUE overciting, one would assume that it is printed on the appropriate release.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers every aspect of the album well.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All subjective opinions are attributed to critics. Nothing here to complain about.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Good music samples. The images, other than the cover do lack alternative text, I'm not sure if the captions are enough or if alt text is required.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice job with the article! Most issues are minor, and shouldn't take too long to be resolved. Pinging nominator @CelestialWeevil: RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @RoseCherry64:. Your speediness is admirable. I've put in most of the improvements, but I had a couple of specific questions.

• On "Devastator / Mighty Trust Krusher" against "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher", to me it seems like it should be all in one title since most new editions have that as a single track with the name literally being the two song titles combined (here is an example of this: https://img.discogs.com/hRBbjoeQjQrAP2KBzsKxZxRze08=/fit-in/600x480/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2328928-1376090799-8005.jpeg.jpg ). It's not a big deal, though; I'll happily change it if you still think it's a good idea.
• And as for the AllMusic citation on "Both are extended songs that have been manipulated and altered", this is kind of tricky. This is the relevant section from AllMusic: "As an interesting bonus, the CD version contains four tracks originally recorded for an EP but never formally released as such, including the planned title song "Tiny Tears," and "Wound," later re-recorded and remixed for other releases." What I'm citing here is "Wound" being later re-recorded and remixed, which is, though not explicitly stated, "Wounds" on the 1990 Godflesh reissue. I know it's a pretty poor citation, but this is all there is on written info on those two tracks. In my combing through of the ~200 best Godflesh sources, nothing ever talks about them, including liner notes. I can take it out if you think I should, but I think the "Wounds" and "Streetcleaner 2" songs are important to mention on the article.

Anyway, thanks again. I really appreciate the review. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 01:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would put it as: On some releases, tracks 6 and 7 are combined into one song listed as "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher"

It doesn't give it a new title technically. This is a minor nitpick.

Following these improvements, you pass! RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Potential References

https://www.treblezine.com/shadow-of-the-horns-the-best-metal-albums-of-1989/?fbclid=IwAR1nHpkFGUCKvBo1vGgvzd-gGwzCr2IOYAE279KTEKmjxO30AU6IZS_bnuo CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 16:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

A reference change

Just in case my poorly-formatted comment didn't make sense, I've removed the reference to the LA Times top 10 industrial albums article, as it only mentions Godflesh in passing. The article at https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-04-19-ca-737-story.html reads:

Head of David, “Dustbowl” (1988). This is basically the recording that introduced death disco to heavy-metal-riff guitar (singer Justin Broadrick was also a founding member of grindcore band Napalm Death and went on to form grind/industrial band Godflesh), and as such was surely one of the most avidly studied obscure albums of the late ‘80s. Though it probably sold only a few hundred copies in the United States, you can hear echoes of “Dustbowl” in everything from Ministry to Nine Inch Nails.

Useful as a more general evolution of industrial metal reference or something for Head of David, but it's not really a Godflesh article or point, just a note that Broadrick was involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.171.50 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, great catch! Thank you. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)