# Talk:Godflesh

"Godflesh are an industrial metal band from Birmingham, England. Originally known as Fall of Because..." - Suggest removing ref to FoB, as origins a bit more complex than that, and better explained later on in page.PaulUKFS (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I don't think it's really important enough for the lead anyway. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I rewrote the Godflesh article in 2018, and recently re-added mention of Fall of Because in the lead. I figured I'd explain my reasoning here. 1. Godflesh songs were written as Fall of Because ("Life Is Easy", "Merciless", "Devastator"), 2. Half of the band's debut album, Streetcleaner, features all three Fall of Because members, 3. Fall of Because transitioned directly into Godflesh, with a very short hiatus in between in 1987. For these reasons, I think Fall of Because basically is Godflesh, or is at least an early version of Godflesh. It certainly is Godflesh when Justin joins. Regardless, this is just one guy's opinion, and I'd be happy to remove Fall of Because from the lead if that decision is come to again. CelestialWeevil (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I started noticing that people have been editing Godflesh's page, espeicially with the genre box to the right, adding that they were once grindcore/deathgrind when in reality, they NEVER had anything to do with any of those genres even though Justin K Broadrick was once in grindcore pioneers Napalm Death and also has admited that early Godflesh has had death metal influences.  It's nonsense if you ask me though, their music has nothing to do with fast blast beats or fast huge chunks of heavy palm muted riffs.  Their whole purpose of existing was to make "apocolyptic" style gloomy industrial metal music.  Any thoughts on this confusion with the band?

It's a tough call, since Godflesh really were a genre unto themselves.  However, it's not too far-fetched to lump them in with grindcore, since, for most of the band's history, those are the sorts of bands it played with, like every other band on the Earache roster.  Ford MF 06:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to take down the neutrality banner if that's all the controversy is.  That's an incredibly minor thing.  Ford MF 06:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I provided a suorce. Godflesh were Industrial Grindcore.--Etos 13:28 (UTC)
Hello Etos, I understand that you have provided a source, but I am afraid I must dispute its accuracy entirely as Godflesh have never been a grindcore band. If you can provide even a single example of a Godflesh song that could fall under the grindcore genre, feel free to post it here. Being very familiar with Godflesh's music I am certain there is not even one such song. Often Godflesh are wrongly referred to as Grindcore due to their association with Earache records, which was a leading label in the field in its early days, although Godflesh were always a notable exception to the grindcore and arguably even the metal genres predominant in its roster Inflammator 12:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but i just want to asking, why in hell www.anus.com has defined them as grind?
Well, the many sites, wich are stated, that Godflesh were once or allways been grindcore, are certainly unreliable . 
But, problem and exception is, because anus site's work/activity is, define extreme metal. Etos

It is strange indeed; maybe someone should write to them about it. I suppose it's a categorization by association sort of thing. Broadrick himself has said in an interview (maybe more than one) that Godflesh are sometimes called grindcore but are not; a fact that any grind fan should easily be able to attest to! :) Inflammator 12:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Allright, i saw a grindcore tag again in page. Im removing that genre, knowing that, consensus is that they were never grindcore, but can whoever who put a grindcore label, give some explains to adding grindcore tag to the genrebox. Or was that, just simply vandalism?

Where do they show this in there sound? I feel it should be removed unless there is a cited source. There are various artists around these days which are classified as metal (specifically doom) because of the the of the tone of their instruments. Godflesh was highly influenced by Justins "core" background. The lyrics, imagery, vocal style and tone of bass are all easily traced back to "core". 
Also a quick digging into of 80's industrial (if you wish for me to name drop I certainly will) does nothing but strengthen their lack of supposed Black Sabbath influence. The dark and abrasive sounds of the artists of the era clearly show a lot more relevance to Godflesh's work. 
brian.bl[at]hotmail.com

I strongly disagree, as your argument makes it seem like grindcore bands somehow invented that tone.  For my money, Godflesh clearly shares a number of similarities with Black Sabbath.  Not derivative, just similar.
Well, he did not gain the influence of having the bass up high in the mix from Black Sabbath did he? And the Guitars are just sonic soundscapes. Rather then anything else.
brian.bl[at]hotmail.com
If you really want derivative, you should be talking about Killing Joke, as their first record (1979, I think) sounds like half of Godflesh's output from the 90s.  Check out the song "Requiem" if you ever get the chance.  Ford MF 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I'm Nic Bullen: I've known Justin Broadrick since 1983 (when we played together in the project Final). I have to say that Justin has been influenced by Black Sabbath: he grew up with them playing in the background (courtesy of his father and step-father), and both him and I were influenced by Black Sabbath when we decided to tune our guitars to a lower pitch in Napalm Death. Black Sabbath are definitely an influence on the sound of Godflesh (perhaps more in terms of approach and mood rather than actual physical 'riffing'). One thing to say about one specific point: the bass on Black Sabbath records is actually fairly high in the mix for an average 'rock' / 'pop' record. Justin would also never deny that he was MASSIVELY influenced by Killing Joke (as he was by Big Black, and - to a lesser extent - groups like Slab! and No Trend).

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 10:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The cover pic from Godflesh's self titled albumn is not William Hurt from "Altered States" it's from the movie "Begotten". You can even tell it's not William Hurt because it is a picture of A WOMAN (the "Mother Earth" character from "Begotten"). I thought the "Begotten" image was common knowledge and makes more sense than "Altered States" due to the exteremely graphic violent and surreal nature of "Begotten".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.142.198 (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC) 
Hi - I'm Nic Bullen: I've known Justin Broadrick since 1983.
I'm afraid that you are incorrect in thinking that the cover of Godflesh's self-titled album (originally on Swordfish, then Earache) is from the film 'Begotten'.
The picture is a still from the film 'Seconds' (1966 - d/John Frankenheimer) which features Rock Hudson as a bored executive who pays to be 'disappeared' and reappear with plastic surgery: the image itself is from the scenes where Hudson is forcibly restrained and sedated before the film's closing scenes, and the camera begins to be anamorphically distorted to demonstrate Hudson's fear.
It was a favourite film of Gary 'Benny' Green (the bassplayer of Godflesh) - he recorded it from a showing on the English television channel BBC 2 in the mid-1980's.
For another thing, 'Begotten' received a theatrical release in 1991 which is 3 years after the Godflesh self-titled record was originally released on Swordfish Records in 1988.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexing agent (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 
The label of the Godflesh-EP (eye&razor) is from "Un Chien Andalou".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.80.52 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Godflesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080817000056/http://www.godflesh.com:80/faq.html to http://godflesh.com/faq.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Godflesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.metrospirit.com/index.php?ShowArticle_ID=11012410074046204&cat=1993101070588705
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702170555/http://www.vinylnet.co.uk/record-label-discographies.asp to http://www.vinylnet.co.uk/record-label-discographies.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Godflesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719211459/http://www.roadburn.com/2012/04/godflesh-to-headline-roadburn-festival-2013-performing-pure-in-its-entirety-for-the-first-time-ever/ to http://www.roadburn.com/2012/04/godflesh-to-headline-roadburn-festival-2013-performing-pure-in-its-entirety-for-the-first-time-ever/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625005044/http://www.earache.com/bands/godflesh/godflesh.html to http://www.earache.com/bands/godflesh/godflesh.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I propose that Fall of Because be merged into Godflesh. Most of the information on the Fall of Because page either appears in the Godflesh history section, or in the article Life Is Easy. Further details about Extirpate (about the only thing not mentioned in the Godflesh article) can be added easily. CelestialWeevil (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. I thought I would start to document instances of publications using this Wikipedia article as an uncited source. I'm doing this partly because it's fun(ny), and partly because I don't want this article to be flagged for copying them.

Metro Times interviewing Justin Broadrick. The second paragraph is a thinly reworded version of the end of the Godflesh Wikipedia article's first lead paragraph (which was there as early as June 2018, while the interview was conducted in August 2018). The interviewer also asks about an obscure quote published only on a 2005 dead webpage, which is, of course, a prominent quote on the Godflesh Wikipedia article.
Official Godflesh merchandise copied the lead for their artist bio. How brazen!
I'll add more as they're published. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be changed from industrial metal to heavy metal because Godflesh has four sourced genres. Industrial metal is not vague enough to be in the lead in my opinion. ~SML • TP  14:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Sixty Minute Limit. Those four genres are genres that Godflesh has had a direct influence in, not that completely describe the band. Industrial metal is the primary genre that 90% of these ~180 references say. And, in my opinion, heavy metal is much too vague when the band has had a direct and repeated impact most importantly in industrial metal. Just to establish credibility, by the way, I rewrote this article and brought it from ~40 references to those ~180. So, if you can take my word for it, industrial metal is much much much more often said than anything else. Plus, it's cited a huge amount, and there are only a handful of sources that ever call Godflesh just 'heavy metal', and that's almost always in reference to the Hymns album. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I thought of something else. If anything should be changed, I should probably remove extreme metal and experimental metal from the infobox. Those are umbrella genres, and industrial metal often falls within them. The two main genres of Godflesh are industrial metal and, at a far second, post-metal. CelestialWeevil (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Then in that case, industrial metal may be better to keep in the lead. ~SML • TP  17:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Really good article, but I was surprised to see Metallica listed as a band influenced by Godflesh - I love both, but don't hear it. Had a look at the cites, and the first just seems to say Kirk Hammett likes their stuff; he probably likes a lot of music, doesn't exactly mean it's all an influence on Metallica. I don't have a copy of the book that's used for the second cite - is it a bit more useful?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.18.193 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC) 

Hi! The book says Godflesh was, at a point, Hammett's favorite band, so I suppose it's not much more useful. There is a quote on the first link that says "They influenced Metallica," and being from Revolver I think it's fairly substantial. I remember reading more, though; there's some conflict where Broadrick showed Hammett the Serrano-directed "Crush My Soul" video, and, because of that (at least according to Broadrick), Hammett brought Serrano up to the rest of Metallica when it came to making the covers for Load and Reload. That seems like an influence, and the reference is buried somewhere in this article. I'll find it! CelestialWeevil (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a very good point, influenced doesn't necessarily mean musical influence, and I think the cover art / artistic influence is what that article was getting at. Thanks! 82.25.18.193 (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Need your input on how to title Green's article. Should it be G. C. Green, B. C. Green, or Ben Green (musician, born 1964)? 
Please discuss at Talk:G. C. Green. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia, there are artists that have more than just full-length studio albums under Discography. Nine Inch Nails (3 EPs), Guns N' Roses (1 EP), Led Zeppelin (1 compilation), Peter Frampton (2 live albums), etc. are a few examples. These exceptions are because the aforementioned releases are considered major releases in the artist's chronology. In Godflesh's case, their debut Godflesh and also their third major release Slavestate should be included.
Godflesh

The original running time is over 30 minutes. Most people consider EPs to be under 30 or 25 minutes anyway. However, the reissue (and most widely circulated versions) is over 50 minutes, thus retroactively making it a full-length.
It appeared on the UK Indies Chart, and was the band's first charting, which is important in itself.
Although unofficial at the time, a music video was later deemed official in support of the release.
Since it's Godflesh's official debut, it has become an early example of industrial metal (if not the first ever), and various outlets have stated its influence.
Out of the 8 tracks, 6 of them are exclusive original songs to this release. The other 2 are also exclusive, albeit remixes.
Slavestate

The original was indeed under 25 minutes, but the widely circulated reissue is nearly an hour.
Various outlets pointed out the drastic change of style in the band's music, thus making it an important milestone. One of them, Decibel, classified it as an album in their Best Of ranking.
Out of the 9 tracks, 4 of them are exclusive original songs. Another 2 was released only as a limited single beforehand. The final 3 songs are indeed remixes, yet, the majority of the release is exclusively unique still.
Godflesh and Slavestate

Both of them had various shows and tours around them. A band doesn't normally tour behind something if it wasn't important to their history.
The longest running Godflesh website considered both as albums. Not a huge piece of evidence, I know, but it's something.
In contrast, the Cold World and Merciless and Messiah EPs should not be included. This is because...
Cold World

Only contains 2 original songs. The other 2 songs are remixes. Context-wise, this criteria would make Cold World a maxi-single instead of an EP anyway.
Merciless

Only contains 4 songs. 2 are indeed original exclusives, but 1 is a re-recording and the other 1 is a remix. The 2 originals were deemed outtakes.
It was released without a wide distribution. In fact, it was added to a reissue of the full-length album Selfless.
Messiah

This was intended as an EP for the fans. It wasn't exactly sold in stores, and it was simply intended to be a limited edition promo.
It was reissued years later, albeit with 4 remixes, and only through the band's own label.
Decline & Fall

It was stated that the 4 songs on this EP were all outtakes. It was a sampling of the band's album from the same era, although none of the 4 songs appeared on the album.
Due to the previous point, I'm leaning towards not including it. But my opinion isn't as concrete as Godflesh and Slavestate. Xanarki (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm in favor of including the first two. But I wanted to see if anyone else agrees with the reasoning. Indeed, EPs should not be included under Discography, but as per my very first line of text, there are exceptions. Xanarki (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Remove - Seeing EPs listed on another band's page does not create a precedent for adding EPs to another page. The standard, despite what you have seen on those pages, is to not include EPs, live albums, remix albums, etc. None of the reasons you've listed under any of the releases in the list above convince me that they should be included as an exception. There's already a whole page dedicated to listing all of the releases you're trying to add here. That's where they should remain. NJZombie (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I was hoping others would chime in since, before, only one other person bothered to. Since they agreed with me, I went ahead and added the three EPs (or, more accurately, mini-albums).
I'm surprised the reasons I listed didn't convince you that they are major releases in the band's chronology however. May I ask why you think otherwise?
I could understand if the three were limited promotional EPs, or contained only 100% remixes, or were disregarded as stopgaps/filler by the band ("All four of our records are different. Now there's the techno audience that likes Slavestate." - Justin in 1992, just one of a few instances that aligns the mini-albums/EPs as equal to the full-lengths), but they aren't. Xanarki (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with whether they’re promotional or not. The discography section is for full-length studio albums. To change that, for a specific article, you need to have the discussion, with the intent to gain a consensus. THEN the change can be made. You started the discussion and made the change before a consensus could be reached one way or the other. NJZombie (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I figured since two years had passed, with no opposition, that it'd be fine. But I won't revert the revert, mainly due to the lack of activity overall. Xanarki (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi. I was CelestialWeevil before retiring that account. I don't have a strong preference on whether we add EPs to the discography or keep them out. However, including Godflesh and Slavestate and not the other EPs, especially Decline & Fall given that it was the first reunion release, seems uncomfortably inconsistent to me. I would vote for all or none. Yawnling (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there is a decent case for including Decline & Fall. I'd be in favor of including that plus the first two I mentioned. All other EPs are either an expanded single or limited edition promo though so, unlike Godflesh and Slavestate (and maybe Decline & Fall) they're not majorly important. I'll see if I can find any evidence towards Decline & Fall (although from what I saw initially, despite it being their reunited release, it seems to be discarded outtakes similar in vein to Mericless. Xanarki (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)