Is Stoner-Rock Dying? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Is Stoner-Rock Dying?
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

Posted by IpLaYWiTLiGhTs on Jul-23-2006 14:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Tweak
anyone heard of Wolfmother yet?

they're all over MTV.

not my cup of tea, but they do have talent.

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jul-23-2006 16:12:

quote:
Originally posted by beats and beeps
So then by your theory.

Trance can be anything that puts me into a trance, well, fred penner is trance then.

Drum and Bass can be anything with drum and bass right? So actually, all stoner rock bands would be DnB too.

I get a big kick out of how you're trying to fight against a well established genre of music.

I can assure you more people recognize stoner rock as a proper genre of music, than people even recognize Trance as a proper genre of music. That is obviously only because more people are interested in rock, but just because you have fallen behind the times, and gotten stuck in your little "OH I SWEAR ITS NOT PROG" genres doesn't mean you can act like rock doesn't change when you're not around.

I'd say that's complete ownage.

Posted by RJT on Jul-23-2006 16:44:

quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'd say that's complete ownage.

I'd disagree completely.

Just because groups of people decide to "create" new genres every few years doesn't mean they'll last.

It's a fad, it'll pass, just like every single other major "subgenre" that has come before.

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jul-23-2006 16:48:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RJT
It's a fad, it'll pass, just like every single other major "subgenre" that has come before.

???

Posted by starglider on Jul-23-2006 18:04:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RJT
I'd disagree completely.

Just because groups of people decide to "create" new genres every few years doesn't mean they'll last.

It's a fad, it'll pass, just like every single other major "subgenre" that has come before.

So which other major subgenres have disappeared? Name a few.

Posted by RJT on Jul-23-2006 18:10:

quote:
Originally posted by starglider
So which other major subgenres have disappeared? Name a few.

Note that I never said it'd "disappear," I said it was a fad that would pass, along the lines of:

80's Synth Pop/New Wave
Real Electroclash (At least in the States)
"Crooners"
Arena Rock
"Electro" House
Hair Bands
Grunge Rock

..the list could go one forever. Every few years a new "buzz" term for a genre shows up, makes a few people famous, and then slowly passes to the wayside for whatever the "next" thing is.

And furthermore, shame on any of you who put Zepplin and QOTSA in the same category...

Posted by SYSTEM-J on Jul-23-2006 18:58:

So because people will eventually stop making it, it shouldn't be recognised as a sub-genre?

Posted by starglider on Jul-23-2006 19:06:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RJT
Note that I never said it'd "disappear," I said it was a fad that would pass, along the lines of:

80's Synth Pop/New Wave
Real Electroclash (At least in the States)
"Crooners"
Arena Rock
"Electro" House
Hair Bands
Grunge Rock

This is a hilariously uniformed comment. What you seem to be saying is that once a musical movement passes it is stricken from the annals of history. Just because new wave, hair metal and grunge (to name three) are no longer in the limelight doesn't make them any less valid as genres, especially since these are several of the more important scenes in popular music of the last two decades.

Posted by BearOwsley on Jul-23-2006 19:22:

quote:
Originally posted by beats and beeps
I get a big kick out of how you're trying to fight against a well established genre of music.

I can assure you more people recognize stoner rock as a proper genre of music, than people even recognize Trance as a proper genre of music. That is obviously only because more people are interested in rock, but just because you have fallen behind the times, and gotten stuck in your little "OH I SWEAR ITS NOT PROG" genres doesn't mean you can act like rock doesn't change when you're not around.

"stoner rock"="well established genre of music"? dude what the hell are you talking about. and to not only claim but "assure" us that more people recognize this unbelievably vague classification more than trance is just preposterous.

you get high, you listen to rock. stoner rock.

Posted by starglider on Jul-23-2006 19:54:

Posted by PETRAN on Jul-24-2006 02:39:

LOL,

Ok, i don't like "Stonee-rock" as well but the sub-genre of "stone(r)-rock" REALLY EXISTS, even if you like it or even if you don't!!!That means, that there are people and bands out there who play this type of rock that has some general characteristics that seperates it from grunge-rock, punk-rock,prog-rock, post-rock and whatever other -rock is out there. As far as i know the current sub-genre has it's roots in early black sabbath although it is a 90s (maybe end of 80s)idiom.
Famous bands are Kyuss, Queens of the Stone Age, Orange Goblin,Monster Magnet and Fu Man Chu.

Here is a Link in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_Rock

Cheers.

Posted by RapidFire on Jul-24-2006 03:18:

quote:
Originally posted by BearOwsley
"stoner rock"="well established genre of music"? dude what the hell are you talking about. and to not only claim but "assure" us that more people recognize this unbelievably vague classification more than trance is just preposterous.

you get high, you listen to rock. stoner rock.

read below please.

quote:
Originally posted by beats and beeps
So then by your theory.

Trance can be anything that puts me into a trance, well, fred penner is trance then.

Drum and Bass can be anything with drum and bass right? So actually, all stoner rock bands would be DnB too.

I get a big kick out of how you're trying to fight against a well established genre of music.

I can assure you more people recognize stoner rock as a proper genre of music, than people even recognize Trance as a proper genre of music. That is obviously only because more people are interested in rock, but just because you have fallen behind the times, and gotten stuck in your little "OH I SWEAR ITS NOT PROG" genres doesn't mean you can act like rock doesn't change when you're not around.

Posted by RJT on Jul-24-2006 12:31:

1. It's hilarious that all of you enjoy putting words into my mouth. My hilariously "uniformed" comment mentioned nowhere that it should be "strickened" from the annals of history - I just think it's a pointless genre that really doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

2. Just because there is a Wiki entry on something (That has been linked twice in this thread even) doesn't mean that it's some well established, socially accepted, culturally relevant subject. Just because a few internet elitist fanboys/girls decided to make a Wiki page on the subject doesn't mean that's what the rest of us buy into.

And what IS actually hilarious is that Beats and Beeps is the one being quoted as the most reasonable argument against me...

Posted by PETRAN on Jul-25-2006 01:06:

quote:
Just because there is a Wiki entry on something (That has been linked twice in this thread even) doesn't mean that it's some well established, socially accepted, culturally relevant subject. Just because a few internet elitist fanboys/girls decided to make a Wiki page on the subject doesn't mean that's what the rest of us buy into.

LOL man, i can assure you that the current genre exists.I remember back in mid-90s reading several articles in several music magazines about the current sub-genre and about bands such as kyuss who play it. The existence of the current genre (in ordet to describe the common musical ground that few specific bands e.g. a heavy distorted sound in their guitars, elements of psychedelia and a "Funky" feel to their music) is beyond doubt! I just used the wikipedia link in order to give some more detail/information for those who are interested. Don't worry, its very valid.(it's usually not written by internet kids anyway...).

Now, that there is a problem with genre-definitions i agree with you. Genre definitions can never be objective. Although they can be used as ill-defined categories in order to provide some general characteristics (which are present or more frequent in the music of a specific group of musicians in relations to another group.)and help us common folk to make sense of musical diversity. It is true though that to some extend, they are defined for financial reasons and stuff.

Posted by bananas on Jul-25-2006 13:29:

Oh RJT, can't you once agree that you're wrong and owned?

Posted by starglider on Jul-25-2006 15:02:

This thread is awesome.

Posted by thechronic on Jul-25-2006 15:48:

quote:
Originally posted by bananas
Oh RJT, can't you once agree that you're wrong and owned?

No, he can't

Posted by RJT on Jul-25-2006 16:23:

quote:
Originally posted by thechronic
No, he can't

Indeed.

Posted by Danny Ocean on Jul-25-2006 23:32:

quote:
Originally posted by DJ RJT
Indeed.

imbecile, you and all your remarks on this thread.

on a further note, im downloading your latest mix in hopes that my tainted impression of you can clean itself up a bit.

Posted by D-res on Jul-26-2006 00:50:

I think stoner rock is a "genre" in the sense that a lot of people associate certain bands like QOTSA with that genre but I'll agree with Rob about sub genres and all that bullshit. Far too many bands cross the lines that define certain sub-genres to accurately throw that into those sub-genres. Honestly, fuck sub-genres. They're too restrictive and they're generally not good representations of the bands that are labeled by them.

Posted by teknomonki on Jul-26-2006 01:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Danny Ocean
on a further note, im downloading your latest mix in hopes that my tainted impression of you can clean itself up a bit.

to detract from the subject; his mix is sweet as fuck.

Posted by stren on Jul-26-2006 09:06:

as much as i hate labels, i have to say that there is a stoner-rock genre. I am sorry rob, but you are wrong.

Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]