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.

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.

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...

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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.

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

This thread is awesome.

quote:

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

No, he can't

quote:

Originally posted by thechronic No, he can't

Indeed.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

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.

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.

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.

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.

___________________

insignificant cor member alliance