Talk:Stoner rock

Blues-(rock) roots

Nothing is mentioned explicitly about the blues roots of stoner rock/metal. Many Stoner bands are influenced by classic blues-rock bands like Jimi Hendrix, Blue Cheer and Led Zeppelin and many stoner rock/metal artists utilize bluesy scales like the blues minor hexatonic/blues pentatonic scale.

I'd like to add stoner rock has blues-(rock) roots. Emmaneul 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You must have skipped the section about the roots when reading the article.. Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer are all explicitly mentioned! Of course, there is a lot of room for improvement so go ahead and add information. But please cite your sources as you write it.. --Johnnyw talk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read it but couldn't find blues(-rock) being metioned. Blues-rock (aka "classic rock" nowadays) is one of the main influences of stoner.

I added it to the list at the right side

Emmaneul 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sludge Metal should have its own article.

Both are very distinct genres. It is noticeable when making a list of bands for stoner metal. Many Slugde bands cant be included in a stoner metal list.

I see Dysfunktion is working on this -- good show! Stoner Rock also needs a distinct page. I've found a few source articles but not the time to start the page rolling. Yet. - Laszlo Panaflex 04:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stoner metal] is also referred to as sludge metal according to that article... definitely confusing now... needs fixing. Spearhead 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason I made a Sludge metal article in the first place was because stoner metal and sludge metal aren't the same thing. Dysfunktion 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dysfunktion. Anyone involved even remotely in the metal community knows that the genre is distinct. I have made some revisions to the article, most notably being a discussion of the subgenres, and what sludge metal IS is and of itself (a fusion of doom metal and hardcore).

Did this consensus of stoners forget to take the merge proposal back off? =) -SM 11:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: Stoner Metal vs. Stoner Rock

TheDoober says Sgt. Sunshine is Stoner Rock -- for which there is no page and instead a redirect here -- and not stoner metal, yet at the same time the two genres overlap. So how does one tell, ask Doober? If the genres overlap, why does one belong here while the other does not, or is that an arbitrary decision made by one contributor, who has deleted numerous bands off the page as "non-noteworthy"?

Let's be clear: different conceptions of what defines Stoner Rock/Metal are at play here, and until some distinction is made, this page is arbitrary and meaningless - or worse, one guy's opinion. If there is some mysterious line between the two sub-genres, what distinguishes them, degree of "metal" content? WTF is that?

Is Spickle metal enough to be here? Does Sgt Sunshine have 10% too little grind to be metal? I've always heard of Queens of the Stone Age referred to as stoner rock, yet they are included here as stoner metal. If the genres overlap, which bands could be considered both?

If there is a sensical difference between Stoner Rock and Stoner Metal, it should be delineated clearly and the pages separated. If not, both should be included here along with a discussion of their distinguishing characteristics.

Until a clear distinction is made, both Sabbath and Sunshine belong here. A user interested in finding out more or learning about bands similar to ones he likes may like to know about these and others. If, otoh, this is merely a list of TheDoober's favorite bands, with all others to be dismissed as non-noteworthy, it should be moved to his personal area. - Laszlo Panaflex 01:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• If a band is identified on its main article page as being "stoner metal" then it stays. Bands can be part of different genres but their article should mention them all. If the main page gives an alternative genre, and if it is included on a category list for that genre elsewhere then don't be scared to remove it from this list. This is a serious list / article and it's going to get better... ++Deiz 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no mention of Stoner Rock on this page, even though searchers for that term are redirected to this page, and even as the bands discussed here are discussed as Stoner Rock at sites like these: [1] and [2]. The page used to say the two overlapped, but naturally no one can say what the difference is, nor distinguish between the genres or the bands purportedly belonging to them. Honestly this page should be AfD'd for being unencyclopedic and irreparably subjective. Laszlo Panaflex 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is incomplete and I apologize that I haven't fulfilled my promise - yet - to rewrite the article. But I have to disagree about your statements regarding AfD. Don't be mislead by your opinion about the band-listing, the article deserves it's space on WP. If there are respectable sources stating that a band is a stoner rock band, we will include them.. thus making the list verifiable and objective. This is all part of the cleanup Deiz initiated only a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, you are invited to help improve this article anytime! =)--Johnnyw 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I initially came here (or I was redirected here, more accurately) to learn more about Stoner Rock. I've found a number of great bands that I think fit within the genres discussed here, but whenever I've added them (Sgt. Sunshine, Spickle, Mammoth Volume), they've been removed. My contributions have not been welcome because I ostensibly do not know enough about the subject, yet no one can say what does belong, or why these bands do not. They certainly fit the description of this evening's rewrite, but it all seems to depend on who edited the page last. Laszlo Panaflex 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Laz, your contributions are very welcome... only in the interests of making this a kick ass page it's important that any bands added are a) notable enough to have a separate WP entry and b) either extremely well known and identifiable as "Stoner", or identified in the intro to their WP page as a stoner band. There are tons of stoner bands out there, and just as many bands who are something else first and stoner second, we need to use the WP notability criteria to ensure quality. ++Deiz 04:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's right chaps, don't you worry about a thing... The definitions are a headf**k but that isnt stopping us putting together a kick ass article. Oh not on your nelly. The rework has begun... ++Deiz 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stoner rock is closely related to the term "desert rock",

This kind of connection between music and the use of drugs is not unique in music culture. Similar comparisons can be made between dance music and recreational drugs such as ecstasy.

I believe Stoner rock is a much broader term to even the most dedicated music fans than it is defined here. After reading this article I felt like I was entering a strange world and reading perhaps a SoCal understanding of what defines stoner rock not how most music fans would define the term. The term "stoner rock" was alive an well long before bands like Kyuss came into existence. I lived in places like Chicago, Minneapolis, Orlando, Houston and Boston from 1988 to 1995. I didn't smoke weed but many of the people I met or hung out with did. Sex, drugs (mainly weed) and rock-n-roll were the absolute most important parts of these peoples lives. There was a very close association between bands like Metallica, Pantera, White Zombie, Rage Against the Machine (among many other bands) and smoking pot. Is Metallica metal? Yes, but it also stoner rock. The same can be said for bands like Pantera, Zombie, Rage and many others. It always has been and always will be. Smoking weed was (and is) a huge, if not essential, part of the experience for many fans who followed these bands. For some bands like Pantera it is absolutely impossible to separate the band culture from the pot culture. To say that a band like Pantera does not qualify a stoner rock because of their musical style misses the forest for a few trees. It certainly doesn't take into account how the band sees themselves. It also missed the fact that many fans openly refer to them as stoner rock. Would we say that the band and the fans are wrong or misinformed? I do not believe so. Stoner rock in the narrow sense defined here is a misfortunate title that does not reflect the greater societal understanding of the term.

To say Kyuss started and/or defines stoner rock is inaccurate in my own experience and the experience of many people outside of the Southern California region. In all of the places I lived I was surrounded by fans of "stoner rock." No one in my circle of friends/acquaintances had ever even heard of the band Kyuss. I personally didn't become aware of their existence until I moved to Los Angeles in 2003. It seems strange to me to hear someone else look into the past and closely associate the genre of "stoner rock" with a band most fans outside of Southern California have never heard of.

At the very least the page really needs to be updated to reflect that stoner rock is often understood to be a general type of disambiguation. One that is very prevalent among metal/punk, etc. fans within popular Western culture and not always associated with the narrow sense of the term as defined on this page.

Thanks J.R.

Los Angeles based music journalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.60.202 (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Stoner rock" cannot be "stoner metal"; there is no serious fan of stoner rock that refers to it as "stoner metal". As soon as stoner rock can be called metal, it's "doom metal". That's the point of these genre variations; one is for rock bands, one is for metal bands.

Stoner rock is sometimes called Stoner metal, K? They are different names for the same thing, not different genres. Queens of the stone age is stoner rock. Therefore it is stoner metal. Stoner rock is really a metal fusion genre, not rock. It has some elements of hard rock, but hey Thrash metal has elements of hardcore punk. Does that make it "Thrash punk rock?"

Terminology: Black Sabbath

So is Black Sabbath included or not? We have a little reversion war going on here, yet no one notes why they include or do not include them.

Comically, in the text, Black Sabbath has been noted as what the genre is, and as what the genre is not. So at least the ‘stoner’ part is clear enough...

Black Sabbath is, in the metal community, regarded as doom metal. They do not belong in the sludge metal section.

Black Sabbath can be classified as "both" doom metal and sludge metal. Particularly the latter because Iommi's guitar playing has had an immeasurable influence on sludge metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.170.175 (talk • contribs) .

I am sorry to say so, but that does not make sense. To classify a band by genre by the influence a band had on a different genre is the wrong way around. Otherwise, Jimi Hendrix would be stoner rock.. does not make much sense, does it? --Johnnyw 22:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Black sabbath is a Heavy metal and Doom metal band, but Sweet leaf was one song that was definitley the beginning of stoner rock. The lyrics are about weed, the downtuned, but no quite depressing guitar sound, the slow rythymn...It all is stoner rock alright

Terminology: Non-Noteworthy?

Bands included by some contributors but deleted arbitrarily by others:

• Karma To Burn
• Catapult The Smoke
• Cowboys & Aliens
• Dozer
• Honcho
• Mustasch
• Orange Goblin
• The Atomic Bitchwax
• Black Sabbath
• Clutch
• Dead Meadow
• Drag Pack
• Mastodon
• Pawnshop
• Pelican
• Pink as a Panther
• Sgt. Sunshine [3]
• Six Sigma
• Superjoint Ritual

Further, I added Spickle to the list and it is still on the main page. But if Sgt Sunshine does not belong, I don't suppose Spickle does either. But then who knows? Which bands belong appears to depend on who made the last edit. - Laszlo Panaflex 02:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider Eyehategod to be stoner metal. Anybody else want to remove this? Making this comment here because of the list of deleted bands. Also, early Black Sabbath was stoner metal. Most of the rest wasn't. -- Fergdude33 17:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Eyehategod is sludge metal, plain and simple. Or, if you really want to split hairs, some would call them 'southern sludgecore', which I discuss in my revision of the article. Early Black Sabbath wasn't stoner metal. The only stoner song they had was 'Sweet Leaf', the importance of which is fairly overrated. Stoner Metal was created by people trying to emulate (and stumbling onto something new in the process) Black Sabbath, not Black Sabbath themselves.

In reaction to the above list: I agree that Orange Goblin, Karma to Burn, and Clutch are definitely Stoner Rock bands that deserve a place in the list. Dozer and Cowboys & Aliens is definitely a stoner rock band too, but I'm not sure they're famous enough (if that's a criterium) to go in the list. Other suggestions: We (from Germany), El Caco (Norway), 35007 (the Netherlands). (RagingR2 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

How about Blue Öyster Cult? It's article defines it as Psychedelic/Heavy Metal, so if it's both, is it stoner rock? It is a pretty notable band, so i'm going to add it. Disagree? Remove it, and just say why... - 70.109.72.185 23:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks

The best criteria for deciding who stays and who goes - if a band is redlinked for a while then nobody considers them worthy of an article, so until such time they can be excused. This process starts now chaps... Deiz 17:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Clean-Up

All red-linked bands have been removed.

The following bands have been:

-removed from the list because their link pointed to a disambiguation page and they had no article: The Body, Smoke

-removed for blatantly not being stoner metal: Budgie

-nominated for deletion because they are non noteworthy: Chromasoul, Lowrider, Side Seat Driver.

The following bands need more context in their article or risk future nomination for deletion: The Miracle Workers, Morris, The Mushroom River Band, Spirit Caravan.

Basically any band who have are noteworthy, have a legit WP article and are indentified in said WP article as being stoner metal are fine. It's a sliding scale from there... ++Deiz 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Should point out that being nominated for deletion is for failure to satisfy wikipedia criteria, not for making bad music or not fitting into the category.. please be up on WP:MUSIC before casting votes and opinions... ++Deiz 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination to delete Lowrider has been withdrawn, article set to be expanded. ++Deiz

Are there any open tasks regarding the cleanup, that I could assist you with? --Johnnyw 10:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just promotion of the cause of world domination by stoner metal.. creating a better general article and band pages on WP is a small step but one we can all make together... main priorities are: 1. A real history as the main body of the article - this should be the main thrust of the page with the list secondary. 2. Continuing to expand band pages, especially the bands listed as future AfD candidates and 3. Policing the list and making sure new entries belong here. Your stoners need YOU ++Deiz 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, count me in. I'll see what I can do 'bout writing a stoner metal history. Although it's quite difficult regarding the interchange between stoner rock, desert rock etc. to write a history about stoner metal. If all goes well with the Lowrider article tomorrow, I'll might even start tomorrow. What better place then here? What better time than now (eh, tomorrow)? --Johnnyw 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Lowrider (band) is done, but the Stoner rock history will have to wait til next weekend...--Johnnyw 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Good work J, I've touched up some of the grammar on the article. I'll do what I can on the main article too when I have a chance... ++Deiz 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of merge tag

As the merge debate link showed 2 responses, the last of which was 3 months ago, we can assume this page will not be merged with Sludge Metal. Tag removed accordingly. ++Deiz 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Stoner doom

"Stoner doom" (as mentioned on Doom metal) seems to be the same thing as stoner metal, considering that the bands named in that section occur in the list on this page. On the other hand, this page says "There also are similarities to doom metal, but most aficionados consider the two genres distinct." Which is accurate? — Hex (❝?!❞) (UTC)

They are distinct genres. "Stoner doom" describes the cases where there is an overlap (such as Sleep and Electric Wizard) -Cassandra Leo 06:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then that would mean there is no such thing as stoner metal... Wizard consider themselves true doom anyways. Stoner rock and doom metal are two similar but distinct styles/genres/whatever.There is no such thing as 'stoner metal', except to the uninformed ( i have heard isis and sleep both categorized under that same style, which is bullshit). —This unsigned comment was added by 207.75.36.34 (talk • contribs) .

Rework

First of all I'd like to praise Deiz work for his rewrite, seeing the article blossom makes me having to squeeze a little tear from my eye ;) Tonight - after a hard day's rockin' - I'll join in our common goal for world domination. On the road to world domination - of course - lie several steps in between, imho our intermediate goal should be to make this article a good if not featured one. To make work a bit easier, I'd like to ask you to add open tasks here. If you see a task that fits your expertise, add a comment to the task (preferably with a schedule) and please sign it. That's all folks! --Johnnyw 12:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Tasks

• copyedit first rewrite

• Done with the first half. Also did some restructuring and stuff... --Johnnyw 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Check and complete infbox Template:Stonerrockbox

Permanent task:

• determine open tasks (content missing? pictures ok? structure fine? stoner rock in different countries?)

Closed Tasks

• first rewrite

done on 2006-02-17 by Deiz

• I've made the list a lot easier to read and removed some shite from it, notably the link to morris dancing, not sure how that survived so long, and the link to "smoke" which somebody put back up after it was previously deleted, listen jackass: just because there is some band called "smoke" doesn't mean you can put them on the list and link to the article about actual smoke - they need their own article of it becomes listcruft and that is not acceptable.

A lot of bands on the list deserve to be there but their articles are seriously lacking and if they were nominated for deletion (I personally won't nominate anything that deserves a page but other deletionists might) they will need some defending... so if anyone knows anything about the bands whose pages are on the short side, get writing. ++Deiz 19:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's in charge?

When bands like Karma to Burn and THICK -theKingsOfTexasSchwagRock are deleted from this list, the musical knowledge of frequent contributors is in question. Please... someone fix this problem. GIGGLER The preceding comment was left by User:Spacegiggler who has a lifetime total of 5 Wikipedia edits: 2 on this page and 3 concerning Skitz O'Fuel, a singer whose article is currently being considered for deletion. The article for "Thick" was recently deleted after due AfD process.

• Hi Spacegiggler. This is an encyclopedia article. Bands who are significant enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles and are widely recognized as being stoner rock, stoner metal or stoner music belong in the list. To ensure quality, no redlinks (i.e. links to articles which do not exist) are permissible. I believe your problem is not actually with this article, but with the fact that bands / people you are interested in have not been considered sufficiently noteworthy to remain on WP. Maybe you could create or improve the articles of bands you are familiar with and if they satisfy the above they can be included in the list immediately. Rest assured the people who edit this page are huge stoner rock fans, and all of us like bands which don't qualify for this list for one reason or another. To criticize fellow stoner music fans for lacking musical knowledge is strange as Wikipedia policy, rather than musical taste or knowledge, dictates who can be on this list. ++Deiz 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that your criticism has been noted, and let me reply by asking you some things worth considering..

• Why not take a look at the guidelines for notability Giggler and find out for yourself why Thick and others have been removed?
• And why didn't you take part in the discussions relating to those articles? (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick (band))
• Or why didn't you bother with improving the article of Thick or Skitz' o Fuel although they were tagged as articles with need for much improvement for months if you care for them as much as you do?
• Why would you put the work of the frequent contributors in question who put hours of their rare spare time into this while you aren't even willing to significantly improve just one article even if it's to save it from deletion?

The band-articles that are removed are most often solely removed due to insignificance. To save articles from this fate, the article itself should show that a band is significant (using verifiable) sources). --Johnnyw 12:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• hmmmm... so your choices are based on significance? and you get decide what that word means? thx for the heads-up. you maniacal nerds can can rule this part of the inter-web... we real peaople will move onto green pastures where the truth is what we're after. good luck with the whole thing. giggler

• A tragic loss to the WP stoner rock community... if you want to come back then do us all a favour and read the WP policies that govern what we do here (start with WP:MUSIC) before you embarass yourself talking about things you don´t understand. Like "significance"... I don´t appreciate being called a "maniacal nerd" and could easily interpret it as a personal attack, but we´ll let it slide for now. Click on the history of the stoner rock article and see what it looked like 3 weeks ago. Deiz 15:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to add my two cents, although Deiz already's said what had to be said. Obviously, you don't understand what this is about: this ain't a personal website. Nobody "rules" anything here. If you had bothered to take a look at my profile you would have realized that this is particularly true with me before writing your flamebait. You are free to add whatever you have to contribute to this community, and I am welcoming you to do so, so that I, too, may one day have a real life ;) The guidelines that exist say what significance means on Wikipedia. It was a community decision, that I wasn't even part of, but I participate and agree to keep the guidelines in mind. If I feel that they need change, I challenge the guidelines! If I feel I can't do that, I keep away from Wikipedia. All this is voluntary work, so please be a _little_ appreciative to ppl who try to spread knowledge about and defeat ignorance towards stoner rock. --Johnnyw 17:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

maybe Karma to Burn and some of the other bands taken off this list consider it a personal attack to be removed from a list on which they rightfully belong. when you did that, you made this a childish debate. all you have done is make vague ref. to the guidlines; a thin disguise for your attempt to control history. i read the articles on most of those bands that were removed and saw nothing that warranted a deletion. your list is rank with personal taste. that fact (or opinion as it were) alone brings down the credibility of this wiki section, not to mention the removal of Mastadon and THICK. giggler

Dear giggler, please be serious. Not one band was excluded from this list because of personal taste. All those that were - not only removed but - deleted from Wikipedia were deleted, not by me or Deiz or any other contributor to this stoner rock article but by a third party. We call this process AfD, Articles nominated for deletion. Just as I pointed out earlier, at the end of this process Thick was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick (band)) and afterwards removed from this list. Please keep in mind that removal from this list and deletion are two seperate things! As you can see at the debate linked above, I actually tried to see if the band qualifies to remain. If an article remains at WP or not, should be determined by the "vague" guidelines, that are, e.g. "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources.". Thick did not meet these criteria. But if Thick DOES meet these criteria and we voted for deletion by mistake, you are welcome to help the page get undeleted by reading Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. About readding wrongly removed stoner rock bands to the list: go ahead! The only thing that you need to be aware of is, that all the links must lead to articles, that are verifiable and undeniable show that a band is a stoner rock band - while the band at the same time must meet the criteria that I talked about earlier. I hope that helps.. please don't be a dick and prove me right about assuming good faith.. --Johnnyw 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. And giggler, let me boil this down to three sentences regarding the list you care so much about: Bluelink + stoner rock = On the list. Redlink / not stoner rock = not on the list. Personal tastes of contributors = unimportant. Hope that's clear enough. I have never heard Thick, Karma to Burn or Mastodon's music and would be interested to hear it. Sounds like good shit. Deiz 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• On second thoughts I think have heard Mastodon, but unless I'm thinking of the wrong band it wasn't stoner rock at all... more like grindcore or speed / death metal. Anyone? Deiz 20:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular songs

Hi, I removed the new popular section that was kindly contributed by Aaron J Nicoli since a list of "popular songs" is really POV. People will only add and remove songs from this list whichever way they feel like, since there is no source regarding popularity besides selling terms and things like that. Either we transform the list into something verifiable, that is sourced and not original research, or we keep the new section removed. Secondly, I removed the image Corrosion.. the image did not have any source information and will therefore most likely be deleted in the next couple of days. Please, never add images to articles that will likely be removed from WP due to copyright issues... Sorry Aaron, I hope you agree. --Johnnyw 14:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's right kids... this article can only really contain the history of the genre and a list of bands who have their own WP article and are identified there as "stoner". No lists of songs or minor bands to ensure quality. Deizio 17:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk above originally from Talk:Stoner metal

I moved the entire talk page from Stoner metal to here. Everything that was there is now listed above. I didn't find any guidelines regarding this, I hope I did rightly so... --Johnnyw 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wolfmother

I was under the impression that Wolfmother is psychedelic rock more than stoner rock, and I personally don't think it belongs on the stoner rock page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Actumen (talk • contribs) .

While your personal opinion is appreciated, categorization by notable 3rd party sources are the only relevant criteria here. AMG for example, lists Wolfmother [4] as stoner metal. --Johnnyw talk 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AOL Music [5] also lists Wolfmother as a Stoner Metal group, and it should be included on the list. AMG also lists their influences as Blue Oyster Cult, Black Sabbath, etc., which should make them count. Furthermore, psychedelic rock has a much different sound. If you want to hear psychedelic rock, listen to bands like Jefferson Airplane, early Grateful Dead albums, and Kenny Rogers and the First Edition.

Merge desert rock into stoner rock?

I wouldn't mind supporting the merger of desert rock into stoner rock, as suggested. Yet I wouldn't know what to do about those "first wave" desert rock bands, which I know nothing about. Is their music stoner rock? Probably not. Does anyone know about those? --Johnnyw talk 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not merge desert rock with stoner rock. I witnessed this artistic movement with my own eyes during its first wave and have shared words with those responsible. Suffice it to say that the geography for which this particular art and music resides is very important in understanding the moods and the words put forth. Steven McTowelie 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another NO MERGE vote from another stoner rock fan. I don't like desert rock that much. It's the different between Kyuss and Queens of the Stone Age. The sound is very clear. Does it sound like old Sabbath? It's stoner rock. Desert Rock is just boring to me...more refined more mature sounding and not heavy.

18 Speed Tranny

Attention band members of 18 speed tranny. Your attempted link on this and the main page is considered spam. Myself an others have noted it. Several administrators agree. It goes agains wiki policy. If, though, you with to create a wiki page about the band, and link it into the article (providing it meets all criteria), I'm sure no one would have any problems with that. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask your questions here.

Monster Magnet "Later Band"?

I am confused by the fact that the Stoner Rock article seems to imply that Kyuss were a pioneering stoner rock band while Monster Magnet were a later band that joined the movement.

According to Wikipedia, "Spine of God" was released in 1991, and "Blues for the Red Sun" was released in 1992.

I've always believed that Kyuss and Monster Magnet were twin founders of the genre. Both bands were working on their sounds on different coasts concurrently, and both bands released albums that could be considered heavily influential on the creation of Stoner Rock within one year of each other.

Based on that information, I'm not sure how Kyuss leads and Monster Magnet follows. For the record, I'm a huge fan of both bands.

Thoughts?

Fasthurricane 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sign your posts dude. Yeah, sounds like fair comment... i think kyuss get the headlines because their sound is the purest form of the genre, MM have been influenced by a lot of different stuff but you've got a point in terms of the numbers. Haven't heard Spine of God for a while, need to get hold of it... Deizio talk 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• After thinking about it more, I think that "Blues for the Red Sun", "Spine of God", and "Sleep's Holy Mountain" are probably the the three most important records relating to the creation of stoner rock. I'd suggest another section after 'The Palm Desert Scene' that talks more about the general begginings of stoner rock. The way it reads now, Kyuss single handedly created the genre, and I just don't think that is correct. Fasthurricane 16:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Add whatever info you find in respectable 3rd party sources. NME e.g. says simply says Kyuss was the first w/o any comment, which we basically stuck to. This is probably why the article might downplay the influence of other bands during that time. If there is information we didn't dig up, and is worth including, it would of course be a good additon to the article! --Johnnyw talk 17:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Palm Desert Scene

The whole section needs to be re-written.

"After a couple of EP releases they came rumbling out of Palm Desert with 1992's Blues for the Red Sun and kids who just didn't click with the grunge sound of Seattle knew they had found the answer. Kyuss were throughout their existence a rare thing in music - a band whose fans adored them, who received critical praise from all the right sources but never became over-exposed or pressured to conform - exactly what their fans wanted them to be."

Oh, come on! Feijuada 14:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it, I appreciate any creative input. The version you see hasn't been touched in quite a while after the major rewrite. --Johnnyw talk 17:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

this is terrible. Just because it has been there for a while (too long) doesn't mean it sounds anything like a proper article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.2.85 (talk • contribs).

I didn't draw the conclusion either from what I've written above. So why don't you give it a shot and rewrite it? If you need help, the Manual of Style could help. If you have any questions, just contact me at my talk page. --Johnnyw talk 22:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

well I went ahead and did a modest rewrite and another user touched that part up (as well as other areas). How does it read now? daveh4h 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should Tool be included in the stoner rock/metal list?

Tool should be included becasue they are rooted deeply in stoner rock. Tool derives much of their sound from Kyuss and The Melvins both of whom are stoner rock bands.

What?? Who? No. Tool is not a stoner band. Where did you get this derives much of their sound from Kyuss and The Melvins?? --Jemijohn 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stoner influences, yes... stoner band, no. Deizio talk 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wolfmother

Wolfmother tends to drop in and out of the list... I'm personally not opposed to them being here, but would listen to strong arguments against their presence? Deizio talk 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the criteria for inclusion in this list? Is it just people's opinion? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bands need to have a WP article which identifies them as a stoner rock band. Personally I would prefer a removal of the entire list and a link to Category:Stoner rock groups? Of course, we would have to go through the list and add the bands to that category accordingly.. --Johnnyw talk 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Debate: "Stoner rock" & "Stoner metal"

I think it's about time we had a proper debate concerning the terms "stoner rock" and "stoner metal", and what changes, if any, should be made to the article in relation to them. Therefore anyone who wishes to participate should (a) explain their view of the terms (b) describe what changes, if any, should be made to the article and (c) feel free to challenge another editor's views. Participants should not be required to quote sources as this debate is intended to gauge editors' opinions. However, I would encourage giving examples of the music itself and would urge you to listen to it before contributing (if you don't own the albums try websites such as [6]).

In my opinion, from listening to numerous examples of "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" bands, the "stoner genre" has two closely-related but distinct sides/styles: one is rock and one is metal. Some bands could be classed as definitely rock but definitely not metal, and vice-versa.

What links "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" bands is a set of shared musical traits. Typically, the music is:

• Slow-to-mid tempo
• Low-tuned and bass-heavy
• Has strong psychedelic influences
• Uses significant repetition

STONER ROCK
Stoner rock is essentially basic rock music or hard rock with these traits applied to it.

Examples: Brant Bjork, Desert Sessions, Fatso Jetson, Nebula, early Queens records.

STONER METAL
Stoner metal is essentially doom metal with these traits applied to it. The bands may also be categorised as "stoner doom". However the sound differs significantly from traditional doom metal to be considered distinct. For instance...

Doom metal is heavy metal which typically:

• is played at a slow-tempo
• uses very low-tuned guitars
• evokes an atmosphere of misery and despair

Stoner metal is doom metal which typically:

• retains the slow-tempo and low-tuned guitars, but...
• adds elements of psychedelic rock
• adds the bass-heavy sound
• evokes a more positive atmosphere

Examples: Acid King, Acrimony, Sleep, Slo Burn, Witch.
For lots more examples see: [7]
For more info on the topic: [8] (sections 12 and 18) and [9]

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO
Essentially it boils down to the difference between rock/hard rock and heavy metal/doom metal. Perhaps easiest way to distinguish is to ask: which bands could be classified as definitely rock but definitely not metal, and vice-versa? Listen to bands classified as each, comparing the heaviness and density of the music, and the structures in which it is played. However, there are some bands which seem to cross the divide (Kyuss included) and I think the simple solution is to classify them as both, if other methods fail.

SUGGESTIONS
In my opinion, creating a separate article for stoner metal may not be necessary. As User:Deiz has pointed out, the problem lies with finding reliable sources to establish the two genres as separate. Indeed this is a problem with both terms, as there appears to be very little sources of information on them. However if there were significant support for a separate article I am willing to participate.

I propose, with consensus, that the article be re-written to appear neutral; fully recognising that this is a subgenre of both rock and metal. It should include detailed descriptions of each term that incorporate the prevailing views of the fanbase. I think the best way to do this would be to create separate "stoner rock" and "stoner metal" sections.

Superfopp 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was waiting for a discussion..

What I'd like to add to your points is a what I think is one of the most important aspects of stoner rock/metal... Both are hugely influenced by "classic rock" and therefore have blues(-rock)/psychedelic/jam band traits. I think that is the connection, that's what makes both genres "stoner". I don't think stoner metal bands are doom metal per se. Bands like Down or Alabama Thunderpussy don't sound as heavy and slow like doom metal stoner variants like Eyehategod and Sleep (but all have the same 'pentatonic' blues-rock feel of 60s/70s hard rock). In fact, I think this 60s/70s hard rock feel is what distinguishes all stoner bands from other genres like groove metal, doom metal, grunge, sludge metal, etc

They all have a groovy 'pentatonic' blues-rock feel, so, what's the difference then? I think it's fairly obvious. Stoner rock is rock, stoner metal is metal (like post-metal vs. post-rock). And what makes a band metal (in this context)? Well, the incorporation of/emphasis on heavy metal elements such as shouting/grunting, heavily distorted and downtuned guitars, arguably the image of a band, and dark lyrics. Like you said, there will always be bands that fit both (The Quill comes to mind or bands with heavy guitars but without extreme metal vocals like Mustasch), but that's not going to be a big deal.

Having a separate stoner rock and stoner metal section is a good idea but the problem is that the terms stoner rock and stoner metal are used interchangeably in some cases (allmusic, for example only uses stoner metal). The article should be clear about that. Nice sources, by the way, those could be very useful. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 22:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting debate, but as Superfopp hints at above, unfortunately it is slightly irrevelant in the context of Wikipedia. As a tertiary reference, WP draws its content, including genres and categorisations, from reliable secondary and appropriate primary sources. We therefore need to find references to stoner rock and stoner metal in the wider media, rather than decide on definitions amongst whoever is currently taking an interest in the topic on WP. So if the references are there, we could have two articles.. as long as everything is done within WP practices. Deiz talk 23:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Stoner Rock Vrs. Stoner Metal

that should be a heading. Stoner rock? Kyuss. Stoner metal? Sleep or Bongzilla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.130.211 (talk) 20:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Genre box

I think stoner rock/metal should have a genre box. like punk has a genre box that has subgenres, fusion genres, regional scenes and other related article. Just a suggestion. User:Deadblob93 7:18pm, 23 September, 2007

You mean a template? There just isn't enough in the way of notable sub-genres, scenes etc. to justify it. Deiz talk 02:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i guess so. there is 1 fusion genre (Stoner Doom), 2 subgenres (or 3(Desert rock, Sludge metal, Doom metal)), pleanty of related articles and bands and regional scenes. i think that would be enough for a template.Deadblob93 1:41 pm 26.07.09

I would have to agree with Deiz. But another major problem is that there isn't yet a consensus on the terms "stoner rock", "stoner metal" and "desert rock". We can't make a template without being able to define them, see the discussion above. ...Superfopp 19:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Should Punk rock be listed as an infulence? I think so because it is generally faster than grunge, sludge metal etc. (DeanBaetz (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Confusion

I have to confess I haven't read all of this page, but I would just like to point out this:

The kind of connection between music and the use of drugs is not unique in music culture. Similar comparisons can be made between dance music and recreational drugs such as ecstasy. Various bands and artists who identify themselves as marijuana users, most notably Pantera (who have included cannabis leaves on their t-shirts and other promotional items) do not qualify as "stoner rock" as the style of their musical output is largely outside the genre.

and ask...what? --67.164.24.126 05:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

stoner doom vs. stoner sludge

which would isis fall under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.194.181 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Euro Stoner Rock/Metal

There's a brief mention of Colour Haze, perhaps the best known European stonerrock band (along with Orange Goblin), but the entire movement spawned in the CA desert is actually strongest now in Europe and it deserves a better section.

Stefan of Colour Haze runs the German Elektrohasch label which houses a number of prominent SR bands such as Rotor, Josiah, Causa Sui, Sgt Sunshine and others. Sweden is the undeniable king of modern stoner rock with bands such as Dozer, truckfighters, Greenleaf, Turbonegro, Witchcraft, Burning Saviours, Astroqueen, Firestone, Mammoth Volume, and many others. the UK is headed by Orange Goblin and the whole sound grew out of Black Sabbath and there are many British stoner bands deserving of mention.

There also need to be a section/links for the major stonerrock festivals where many of these bands play: Emissions From The Monolith, Stoner Hands of Doom (SHOD), Duna Jam, Roadburn and others.

Additionally, the labels that house the stoner bands like Meteor City, Elektrohasch, Small Stone, RekordsRekords, Fuzzorama, TeePee, Southern Lord, Liquor & Poker, Relapse, Rise Above, ... need a section/links.

In short, I think this article is a stub and not a very informative one as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.13.133 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it seems like there's a scene in Western Europe and Scandinavia right now that's comparable if not larger than the Palm Desert Scene in the 90's. I agree that it deserves more of a mention.

Is this... really... worth storing?

Would the world be better or worse if we just deleted this article? Marskey (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since their are still a number festivals, websites, record labels and blogs devoted to this genre of music in 2009, it's a valid entry IMO 71.133.139.186 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ween

I think Ween deserves a place in this article. I can't think of another band that is more deserving of the label as a stoner band. Thoughts? - Floydian ^τ _γ 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Towson, MD?

I'm no expert on stoner rock / stoner metal, but in the "regional scenes" area, Towson, MD is present. Why? I live in Maryland near Towson and I've never heard it referred to as a scene for stoner rock, nor does the article mention Towson anywhere within it. Any clarification on this? Moviemaniacx (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

redirect to stoner rock/metal from psychedelic metal should be removed

I was thinking that psychedelic metal is a different genre and was notable enough to have it's own article. also stoner rock has influences from doom metal, blues-rock, etc. which a psychedelic metal article wouldn't have. 70.245.145.186 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Vocals

Are you sure that Stoner Rock has melodic vocals. I just listened to Dopesmoker by Sleep and it definitely dosn't have clean vocals, more like growling. (Jamcad01 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

Hardcore & Punk Rock

Hardcore & punk were definetly huge influences on stoner rock.

"Heavy metal's psychedelic forefathers, Black Sabbath and Blue Cheer, were usually the first names invoked when people heard Kyuss, but Homme always shrugged them off. "I never really listened to metal," he later told Spin. "I wanted to be able to claim that I'd never heard the music that supposedly influenced me." He instead cited punk rock, especially the dense, sludgy hardcore of Black Flag's 1983 album My War. "I was listening to the Smiths and the Cult; the rest of the guys were listening to the Misfits, Bad Brains, Black Flag, the Ramones," Garcia says. "We knew that we wanted a sound that nobody else had."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, they were also big influences on similar genres/stoner subgenres like desert rock. Wtvrg (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hardcore punk is as similar to Stoner rock as Adolf Hitler is to Mohandis Ghandi.

Origins

There's not much of a discussion about the origins of the genre, St. Vitus and Trouble don't get any mention, for example.

Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SleepyHead (talk • contribs) 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I was revising the section "Early development (late 1980s-1990s)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_rock#Early_development_.28late_1980s-1990s.29) where I ran into the following sentence: "Releasing their first album in 1988, Soundgarden have been called the standard-bearers of stoner rock during the 1990s."

I checked the reference, however, and it makes no such claims ever so far. It doesn't include any statements about the contributions of their first album, Ultramega OK , nor does it have references to any particular timespan, such as the 1990s.

There is a good Wikipedia article discussing the stylistic influences of Soundgarden in great detail, album by album at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundgarden. As you can clearly see, there are lot of styles and genres influencing Soundgarden's production. Stoner rock, however, isn't one of them.

So far, there is only one weak-reference relating the concept of stoner rock to Soundgarden. Any elsewhere such classification hasn't fitted, though. Therefore I removed the above-mentioned sentence, at least for a time until proper reference has been found. In the light of current knowledge, such statement can be misleading. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have been revising the section "Early development (late 1980s-1990s)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_rock#Early_development_.28late_1980s-1990s.29) more closely, more and more questionable claims are made with absolutely no references. In addition to that, the statements made are even conflicting with the other Wikipedia articles. Therefore, the whole paragraph I last edited seems to stand on no grounds. For example:

"In 1990, the doom metal band Trouble introduced a lot of acid rock elements in its self-titled album, which were even more present in 1992's Manic Frustration, and in 1991 British band Cathedral released its debut album Forest of Equilibrium, featuring a stoner/doom metal style. During the early–mid-1990s, a number of Californian bands developed the style that would be called stoner rock."

1. Even the Trouble article itself doesn't present that it'd have included acid rock elements on the album. No references have been added to support this claim, and so far my quick inquiry didn't provide anything to support this either.

2. The album Manic Frustration has not been described as "stoner rock". Again, I got no positive results for such an idea. The album is, however, said to have taken a strongly psychedelic and progressive direction (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble_(band)#Music_and_image).

3. At the very Trouble Wikipedia article, no references are provided to support the idea of Trouble belonging under the "stoner rock" genre.

4. According to the Wikipedia article of Cathedral, it is not classified as "stoner rock". Neither is the album Forest of Equilibrium characterized under the label of "stoner rock".

5. The last sentence cannot remain in the paragraph as an orphan. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Even deeper delved have I. This time it's about the band Corrosion of Conformity, one which is described as heavy metal in its own article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion_of_Conformity). Furthermore, there is no mention no reference that this particular band would go under "stoner rock" category. Not in this very wikipage considering "Stoner rock" nor in the one dealing with Corrosion of Conformity.

Second, the reference in the end (...Other bands from this era include Fu Manchu, Clutch, Sons of Otis and Corrosion of Conformity.[27]...) is told to pertain to the very band, Corrosion of Conformity, yet when you try to look at the link, you'll notice that the page doesn't even exist. It'd be understandable if the "References" section in the end would just simply announce the date when the article was retrived. However, there isn't such info available neither. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

some of these edits are helpful, some not so much. for example, regarding cathedral, you can't use wikipedia as a source. wikipedia is not a reliable source. some of the information you removed uses rolling stone mag as a ref, which is an extremely reliable source. Kaini (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have expressed myself in an unclear manner. When I have made a reference to another Wikipedia article, it has been meant as a mere confirmation of the the faults in the main article.

It seems I only mentioned it on number 1 & 2, that I have done inquiries by myself, yet with no results. Actually, I've done that always when I've encountered some suspicious claims. Sorry for that.

And why I have done that is because there are no references provided for these certain claims. If you look for information upon Cathedral, for example, it is obvious that they are defined under "doom metal" category, but such a claim conserning "stoner rock" is hard to find already.

Rolling Stones mag edit I admit to be a controversial one. I didn't mean to question their credibility, but rather set that "tiny little fragment of comment" in contrast to the highly defined and well-supported album-by-album analysts. In my point of view, some certain categorization, let's say stoner rock, is not something that applies throughout the entire career of a band; it may vary from album to album. Therefore I think it's highly generalizing, and maybe in some terms misleading, to suddenly label all of sudden the whole musical production as something... even though an extremely reliable source, yet making a rather weak-reference to it (just one sentence -> made to generalize the whole concept).

Hmm... maybe it could be put somewhat: "According to Rolling Stones, though, it can be labelled as stoner rock^reference, though, this view is considered somewhat controversial" etc. etc. ... or then just mention the names of those works that can be classified as "stoner rock"

Just ideas. But thanks for your comments! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre: Queens of the Stone Age

In the article, there's been written:

"In 1997, Roadrunner Records released the stoner rock compilation Burn One Up! Music for Stoners, which included tracks by bands such as Fu Manchu, Celestial Season, The Heads, and notably a track by a new band named Queens of the Stone Age, which included former Kyuss member Josh Homme.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_Rock#Middle_years_.281995-1999.29)

Yes, the band might have included a member from a notorious past stoner rock band. This doesn't make the band automatically a "stoner rock" band though.

I checked the reference given[8]; it had nothing to do with the statement.

Even further:

"In June 2000, Josh Homme's new project Queens of the Stone Age released their breakthrough album Rated R, which helped bring the stoner rock sound into the mainstream, despite the band themselves rejecting both the genre and their being labelled as such.[31](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_Rock#Mainstream_exposure_.282000-present.29)

I removed such references since the are strong, reliable sources denying such statements on genre. Not using Wikipedia as source, but the following entries on the band's rejection on such terms are very well-grounded:

"In June 2000, Josh Homme's new project Queens of the Stone Age released their breakthrough album Rated R, which helped bring the stoner rock sound into the mainstream, despite the band themselves rejecting both the genre and their being labelled as such. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_Rock#Mainstream_exposure_.282000-present.29)

<=>

"The sound has been continued on by directly descendant bands Unida, Slo Burn, Hermano, Mondo Generator, Fu Manchu, Brant Bjork and the Bros, and at times by Queens of the Stone Age, who have since largely departed from Kyuss' stoner rock sound, and reject the label, preferring the term "desert rock"." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_Rock#Mainstream_exposure_.282000-present.29)

Maybe it's the writer's own opinion, I don't know ... but there are no well-grounded reasons to put this well-celebrated band, Queens of the Stone Age under the category of "stoner rock" by force... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

External Links/Stoner Rock Wikia

Hey, I wanted to add an external link to a wikia I'm currently building for the stoner rock scene. It's slowly but surely gaining ground. I tried adding it before but a bot removed it within an hour or two. Is there any way of getting it on this page? It's not just a mere cheap plug, I'm aiming for that wikia to be a definitive source for info on the genre as more gets added. Gedmundo (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

At WP:EL, the guideline says several things that apply here:

• Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked.

I notice that some content at your wiki is taken directly from Wikipedia, for instance the connection is explicitly stated here:[10] At that same linked page, there is a song file which can be played, embedded from YouTube, but the uploader does not have the rights to the song, so this is a link to a copyright violation and cannot be used on Wikipedia.

• Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?

As a new wiki, your work has no proven track record of functionality.

WP:ELNO says that "Links to be avoided" include "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

So it looks like a pretty tough set of rules is stacked against you. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair points, well made. Was worth clarifying. I'll see where the wiki is at a year down the line and try again.Gedmundo (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

other important website

http://www.roadburn.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.38.230 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

other great sources for stoner rock at cosmicfuzzfm.com. a radio station dedicated to the genre all day and all the time 2A02:C7F:460C:6A00:29F0:D3D0:607E:1E0E (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Subgenres should be mentioned

Stoner rock has many subgenres and similar microgenres such as tundra rock, desert rock, fuzz rock, doom rock, etc. I feel as if these subgenres should be included and possibly have their own pages. Wtvrg (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If there are multiple reliable sources validating their existance and notability, then sure. But without them, it's a no-go. ABC paulista (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)