Talk:Stoner rock

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Terminology: Stoner Metal vs. Stoner Rock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology: Black Sabbath 

message: 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 
*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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology: Non-Noteworthy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redlinks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of merge tag 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Stoner doom 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rework 

message: * copyedit first rewrite
:* Done with the first half. Also did some restructuring and stuff... --Johnnyw 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Tasks

message: * 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)
thread_title: Closed Tasks

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular songs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk above originally from [[Talk:Stoner metal]] 

message: 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  as stoner metal. --Johnnyw talk 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfmother 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge desert rock into stoner rock? 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: *  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Monster Magnet "Later Band"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The Palm Desert Scene

message: 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)
replies: text: Stoner influences, yes... stoner band, no. Deizio talk 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Tool be included in the stoner rock/metal list? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Confusion

message: which would isis fall under?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.194.181 (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  stoner doom vs. stoner sludge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Euro Stoner Rock/Metal 

message: Would the world be better or worse if we just deleted this article?
Marskey (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this... really... worth storing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ween 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Towson, MD? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  redirect to stoner rock/metal from psychedelic metal should be removed  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vocals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hardcore & Punk Rock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Genre: Queens of the Stone Age

message: http://www.roadburn.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.220.38.230 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  other important website