I keep noticing recently that when I hear the term "stoner" applied to music that it really irks me. The reason is that I don't think it's a term that is applicable to music in general...it's a lifestyle choice...not a musical description. Like so many "labels" that we stick onto bands for the sake of marketing purposes...I think it actually does a disservice to more artists than it actually helps.

As I've stated elsewhere, Louis Armstrong was quoted many times that he "smoked pot everyday of his life". Have you ever heard Louis Armstrong described as "Stoner Jazz"? The answer is no. Why not? Because it doesn't make a bit of difference what Louis did while off stage, it was the music he created ON STAGE that mattered.

So when a new band comes out (take The Sword for an example) and we immediately apply the "Stoner" tag to them...it pigeonholes them into somebody's pre-conceived notion of what that means...and since it's a very "loose definition" to say the least...it doesn't inform anyone as to what type of music they play. If somebody asked me what category I would put The Sword in I would say "Metal". Simple enough, doesn't require explanation.

If someone asked me what category I would put Wolfmother in, I would say "Rock".

Simplicity is usually the best thing. We've become too reliant as a culture to come up with 5 million sub-genres for every type of music...but usually the bands FAR outreach the labels we thrust upon them.

Let's take one album as an example: The debut album of Black Sabbath. It's usually described as metal. If that album came out today people would call it "doom" or "stoner". But the contents of that record don't bear that out.

1. Black Sabbath (tri-tone based riff, the typical building block of "doom")
2. The Wizard - heavy blues tune, not too different from what many british bands were up to.
3. Behind The Wall Of Sleep - ditto, another heavy bluesy tune with some psychedelic touches.
4. N.I.B. - proto-type heavy metal chord progression used about 5 billion times since.
5. Wicked World - blues/jazz tune with heavy breaks.
6. Sleeping Village - a little folk, a little "doomy", a little bluesy
7. The Warning - A straight blues with touches of everything from funk to jazz to blues to "freakout" in Iommi's solo section.

So what the hell category is that album? If you call it "Doom" you're basically describing less than 1/4 of the album. If you call it "Metal" you are down-playing the more bluesy elements. If you call it "Blues Rock" you're not giving it credit for how ground-breaking it was.

If you call it "Stoner"...you're not describing ANYTHING.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now....

Pretty perceptive post, for a Wanker.


I agree that labelling music in general does it a disservice, particularly with the amount of genre (or sub-genre) cross pollination that's out there. Seems to be a combination of marketing, and just the simple fact that people want a quick way to describe something. For lazy folks (myself included in this case, I think), it's a lot easier to call YOB "doom" than it is to take 5 minutes trying to describe how they actually sound. But then again, most people would also call Paramaecium doom, and they sound nothing like YOB, so your point about the quick genre labels being insufficeint is well taken.

But hey, at the end of the day...

yeah it's lame

There are 2 genres of music in my house.

Stuff I like
Stuff that sucks

Makes life a lot simpler.

This kind of topic comes up here and there every once in a while,my opinion is it is kind of like the government,a necessary evil.As a reviewer,you tend to use the currently accepted terms,after all ,how many people,use the term speed metal now.I used it a couple of times way back when but not a whole lot.With this particular term though,I can see your point,but on the other hand,some of the bands don't exactly separate themselves from the image so it kind of reverts back to what I first said.I personally in my reviews have used the term sparingly,since admittedly it is not one of my fave descriptions of music.Odd thing is though other terms can invoke the same kind of response,psychedelic implies drugs,groove is kind of related to groovy,which implies drugs,mind bending,trippy etc.,basically anything having to do with the mind or outer space.Its the influences I think and the time of the influences,60's,70's that bring forth those terms that maybe we are subconciously pre-conditioned to relate that sound to............ kind of deep ,huh?

Ha, I always had my suspicions that cookie monster was into the ganja...




I still say ... and so does a lot of the stuff that's labelled "stoner rock," even if the tag itself has become pretty trite.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. Some bands are probably happy to be labeled as such...but when you end up with groups as far apart musically as Kyuss and High On Fire being labled as Stoner Metal...it's time to rethink the description.

By the way...the most recent terms I've heard are:

"Hipster Metal" (describing The Sword) and "Heritage Metal" (describing Witchcraft).

Yeah, here's hoping those labels don't catch on!

Hipster Metal...

I like the term Fuzz Rock.
It could be considered a pretty broad term, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's not drug-related, and IS descriptive of a certain musical sound or category of musical sounds.

Terminology, shmerminology...crank up the amps!!

stoner rock sucks.

crackhead rock is where it's at