Is "Stoner Rock" a derogatory term?

(I originally posted this at The Cave but wanted to get some feedback from here as well, sorry for those that read it twice)

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....

and how come so many black metal bands are full of white guys? c'mon.....

I never understood the term stoner rock, like Kyuss and Fu Manchu are
suppose to be pioneers of stoner rock, but the term means nothing to
me. Monster Magnet and Masters of Reality are also labeled stoner rock
as is Queens of the Stone Age and I really don't see anything that
sonically ties these bands together.

Now the Grateful Dead that is real stoner rock, but it is
reference to the sub cultural that grew around them, than their actual
music. It is a stupid term that think commerically hurts the bands,
Walmart is going to want to sell any act labeled stoner rock.

Excellent post.

I'd still call Black Sabbath's 'Black Sabbath' Heavy Metal.

Though I'm no expert in Doom, I've only heard Black Sabbath referred to as Doom by Doom Metalers who hold Black Sabbath in (appropriately) high esteem. Early heavy metal was, as we all know, heavily rooted in blues music. So I don't have a problem with it even though there are so many Bluesy tunes on it.

I think Stoner Metal can be a derogatory term. But not in the same way that Nu-Metal or it's ilk is referred to by many of us. I.E. Universally bad. Many fans of Stoner metal adopt the term willingly and positively. Just as many stoners do. SRH anyone?

I choose not to use it. Most of my feelings regarding it are similar to my feelings regarding Classic Rock. I think that it's a misnomer and a false genre. Yes, and The Eagles, And AC/DC are not the same type of music. But if you ask the radio stations in my area, they'd tell you differently. (Though I sometimes use Classic Rock because others do use that term)

And... I do think it's offensive. Therefore I don't use it.

- Robbie

mc666 wrote:

and how come so many black metal bands are full of white guys? c'mon.....

You mean black metal isn't the drummer from Suffocation? I've been so wrong all these years...













- Robbie

Thanks for an interesting piece there. I guess I never thought about it as offensive because while I love what many people describe as Stoner, I never smoke weed (anymore, I did back in the day) so that term like all the rest is just a shortcut to discoving bands I might potentially like, rather than anything I take all that seriously. To me when I hear that term I think "retro hard rock with (potentially) a hint of doom". But using it as a decriptor for everything from the Black Crowes to Black Stone Cherry to Black Sabbath isn't very helpful, I agree.
The thing about genre labels though, and why I care about them less and less, is that they just ain't no substitute for actually sitting down and listining to the damn music itself.

SAHB Healer wrote:

The thing about genre labels though, and why I care about them less and less, is that they just ain't no substitute for actually sitting down and listining to the damn music itself.

You are a wise soul.

detuned wrote:

SAHB Healer wrote:

The thing about genre labels though, and why I care about them less and less, is that they just ain't no substitute for actually sitting down and listining to the damn music itself.

You are a wise soul.

Agreed. Though the big problem is when people start creating genres like Fantasycore.


- Robbie

I don't mind labels when people aren't arguing over what is what. The term stoner rock, to me, is simply a map marker. If someone says a band is stoner rock, it gives a good idea of what sort of style they are. Of course, this sort of thing can be wrong, which then causes those stupid arguments, but in general I don't get too flustered over it all.

I've never associated stoner rock with drugs. It's nonsense. If drugs made the genre, 99% of the bands out there would be stoner rock. But "stoner rock" does imply a certain musical style to me. I'm cool with it. At the end of the day, it's just rock or metal, right?

I think it was originally called "Desert Rock"..."Stoner" came along later because, lets' face it, a lot of the bands' members are stoners & it permeates some of the subject matter...

The term is a nod to the beginnings of the "style" that was dominated by people who did acid or pot. Nowadays it doesn't mean everyone that listens to it is a stoner but it just goes back to the roots of the founders of it's sound.

I never found it to be derogatory or offensive, but I do recall trying to explain it to a co-worker and she looked at me like I was out of my mind. Possibly high.

How the term got started matters little to me and I don't mind it as a description of a style. When I hear a band labeled as a stoner band, it gets my attention because I'm a fan of the genre. And I haven't puffed in years.

I don't think so.

I've always thought it was a silly way to describe a classic heavy metal sounding band.

It's not necessarily "offensive", but I think it has 0% value as a descriptive musical term.

Many bands write and record "high" that musically have nothing in common with bands like Kyuss, Sleep, etc. I'm also sure there are quite a few so-called "stoner" bands that don't smoke at all. Hence my feeling that it's a worthless term.

Kind of similar to the old "Acid Rock" description that floated around for awhile then vanished.

And I think like the term acid rock, stoner metal genre tag will be thrown in the scrap heap.

I agree with Eyesore on this one, there are so many different styles of music out there that we need some genres or categories to separate them all. If you label every metal band as simply Metal or Heavy Metal, things would be a giant bore, and incredibly difficult to find what you liked and prefered.

I don't think its derogatory. Its just a term. Get stoned and put it on, you'll clearly see why its called Stoner Rock or Stoner Doom or whatever term its being described as.

"Stoner" implies "slacker", and even BLACK SABBATH in their earliest days didn't sound as lazy as many Stoner bands. And certainly Louie Armstrong is a more talented musician than most if not all Stoner metal musicians.

I call this genre Retro Rock, new bands elements of the 70's-TJ

It's weird how Queens of the Stone Age are described as Stoner Rock.

Schbopo wrote:

It's weird how Queens of the Stone Age are described as Stoner Rock.

That might have more to do that were offshot of Kyuss than Queens of
the Stone Age's own output that they are classified as stoner rock.

Dont really find it a deraugatory term, but unless youve gotten stoned, the reference doesnt really work.

ahem...well, let's just say I've taken many rides on the cannabis express over the years...that still doesn't mean I would want to be "labeled" as such.

Temple of Blood wrote:

"Stoner" implies "slacker", and even BLACK SABBATH in their earliest days didn't sound as lazy as many Stoner bands. And certainly Louie Armstrong is a more talented musician than most if not all Stoner metal musicians.

So if your theory is correct I'm a "stoner" in school, even though I don't smoke the reefer.