The Ramones

[Vladimir]

I got called a "pretentious music nazi" the other day for expressing this opinion. Every Ramones song sounds the same to me; they're all excessively simplistic derivatives of blues. It's all I-IV-V, and its not even well-played or well-written I-IV-V.What's the difference between Rockaway Beach and Rock n Roll Highschool? Not much. People always jump on me for hating them, but I've never heard anyone actually provide an argument in favor of the Ramones. Anyone agree with me, or even think I'm a pretentious music nazi? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts because it seems like a band people feel strongly about.

[DroppinScience]

Later on, they actually did start mixing things up a bit... and I mean, just a bit (cases in point, "End of the Century" and "Too Tough To Die").

Ramones belong in a very small group of bands whose songs and albums all sound the same, but we can still love them for that, because that one song they wrote is such a kick-ass song.

And no matter what you feel towards the group, the fact remains that they managed to inspire so many different fantastic groups throughout America and the UK, that you're simply just asking to be called a "pretentious music nazi" if you speak ill of them. ;)

What Ramones (and punk rock as a whole) represent is that anyone with enough passion can start a band. You don't have to be particularly talented or good looking or whatever.

And don't sit here and tell me you don't get a thrill out of hearing "Beat on the Brat." Eh, it's your loss.

[ms.peachy]

What's the difference between Rockaway Beach and Rock n Roll Highschool?

Rockaway Beach is more Beach Boys; Rock n Roll High School is more Bill Haley and the Comets.

[paulb]

Ramones are moderatly decent. They have some good songs, but its true that alot of them sound the same.

[So Ruff]

Ramones are moderatly decent. They have some good songs, but its true that alot of them sound the same.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much the consensus around here. The first album is neat.

[EN[i]GMA]

I got called a "pretentious music nazi" the other day for expressing this opinion. Every Ramones song sounds the same to me; they're all excessively simplistic derivatives of blues. It's all I-IV-V, and its not even well-played or well-written I-IV-V.What's the difference between Rockaway Beach and Rock n Roll Highschool? Not much. People always jump on me for hating them, but I've never heard anyone actually provide an argument in favor of the Ramones. Anyone agree with me, or even think I'm a pretentious music nazi? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts because it seems like a band people feel strongly about.

Energy.

They're representing themselves better than most bands could ever hope to do.

It's real shit.

You don't hear that often.

[DroppinScience]

Ramones are moderatly decent. They have some good songs, but its true that alot of them sound the same.

This board is on crack if the Ramones are deemed "moderately decent" :(

[Vladimir]

I guess maybe my problem is the irrational reverence people have for them - people treat the Ramones like Shakespeare, in the sense that they consider it amazing solely because it is old. Too many people "like the Ramones" because they're "legends." Their legend-status, at this point, is as much a Hot Topic trend as it is a legitimate legacy. Yes, the Ramones were revolutionary and are legends in the history of music - when your revolution has been recycled and rehashed as many times as the Ramones, it seems to me that it loses any musical luster as anything other than a moment in musical history. In other words, there's nothing at all punk about the Ramones anymore. However, I'm not going to discount a musical act because of its trendiness or because of parts of its audience; to do so would be pretentious music nazism.

The same could probably be said of Nirvana, except I think Kurt Cobain's lyrics are far more thoughtful and insightful, as well as more interesting, than the Ramones' mantra. If the musicianship of a band is flawed, the band's musical significance can easily be established through high-quality song-writing. The musicianship of a band like, for example, Weezer, is not exemplary (though I would argue far better than the Ramones). The song-writing, however, is unique as well as interesting AND of extremely good quality in my opinion.

Personally, I've been putting a lot of time and energy into musical training since I was six years old. I would never pull the "I'm a musician so my opinion is more valid" card, because I too consider that to be immensely obnoxious and pretentious. However, I have a great deal of respect for musicians who clearly put a lot of time into honing their craft, above and beyond raw passion for it. Call me an elitist, but I don't think the sole fact that a band is completely unskilled at their instruments is a mark in their favor. 100 years ago, the guitar was considered an instrument for simpletons - for peasants. Andrés Segovia changed all that, and made the guitar into something that is respected all around the world as an instrument on par with the piano, violin, etc. Bands like the Ramones are not furthering that movement. If anything, they are more regressive than progressive; arguably, they are doing a disservice to their instruments.

I really don't want to be seen as a music elitist because that's not what I want to be. I just feel that this band does not deserve the praise that it receives - musically, lyrically, or otherwise. I know 12 year olds who are more musically articulate than the Ramones - they just don't wear leather.

[Freedom Toast]

My favorite scene from ANY movie ever made is when they're in the Ramones-mobile singing "I Just Wanna Have Something To Do " in Rock n Roll High School...what a kick ass scene. Filmmaking doesn't get any better than that!

[DroppinScience]

I guess maybe my problem is the irrational reverence people have for them - people treat the Ramones like Shakespeare, in the sense that they consider it amazing solely because it is old. Too many people "like the Ramones" because they're "legends." Their legend-status, at this point, is as much a Hot Topic trend as it is a legitimate legacy. Yes, the Ramones were revolutionary and are legends in the history of music - when your revolution has been recycled and rehashed as many times as the Ramones, it seems to me that it loses any musical luster as anything other than a moment in musical history. In other words, there's nothing at all punk about the Ramones anymore. However, I'm not going to discount a musical act because of its trendiness or because of parts of its audience; to do so would be pretentious music nazism.

You gotta understand, the "hyping" and "legend" status of the band only emerged once they broke up. When they were still around, they tried like hell to break "big" but never quite made it. So anything you're getting irritated about is how they are retroactively popular.

You may not like the Ramones, but chances are if it weren't for them, a lot of the bands you like would not have formed. When they first played England in 1976, from just a few concert dates (particularly the 4th of July), members of what would become The Clash, The Sex Pistols, Generation X, The Damned and other key British punk bands formed.

When they toured American cities, the same deal. Bands such as Bad Brains, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, etc. formed in the Ramones' wake.

Like it or not, they're the first punk band and countless other bands (some arguably better, sure) owe them.

I know it really sucks when the likes of Shania Twain (yes, Shania Twain) are seen wearing Ramones T-shirts. But just ignore that shit. Don't let them win.

[Vladimir]

So anything you're getting irritated about is how they are retroactively popular.


Their popularity negates their punk-ness, and I don't see what else there is that is interesting or compelling about them besides that. It irritates me that no one can make an argument in their favor besides stating that they are responsible for the existence of a lot of other bands. I don't deny their cultural relevance; that it has been watered down in recent years is of little import and I shouldn't have brought it up. I'd like to hear someone explain why their music is good.

[Kid Presentable]

The Pistols were around before the Ramones came over. They weren't (at least John) really inspired by the Ramones. To them, the Ramones were another long-haired Rock 'n' Roll band. They aimed to be the opposite. It was John who really turned things around. Steve juiced up Glen's melodies and made them the vile sound (vile in a good way) they are today.

The Clash were inspired by both the Pistols and the Ramones.

Teenagers with history books. Bah.

The Ramones are shit, and that's what's good about them. The same deconstructed post-modern logic applies to all of punk rock except for The Clash, who could write and play a decent tune.

But ultimately any of us waxing savvy on the subject come off as wankers, so what's the point?

[alexandra]

gabba gabba we accept you, we accept you one of us!

[DroppinScience]

The Pistols were around before the Ramones came over. They weren't (at least John) really inspired by the Ramones. To them, the Ramones were another long-haired Rock 'n' Roll band. They aimed to be the opposite. It was John who really turned things around. Steve juiced up Glen's melodies and made them the vile sound (vile in a good way) they are today.

The Clash were inspired by both the Pistols and the Ramones.

July 4th, 1976. London. That was the gig. The Pistols, Clash, et al. were all there to see the Ramones and that's when their lives changed. It's well documented.

[DroppinScience]

Their popularity negates their punk-ness, and I don't see what else there is that is interesting or compelling about them besides that. It irritates me that no one can make an argument in their favor besides stating that they are responsible for the existence of a lot of other bands. I don't deny their cultural relevance; that it has been watered down in recent years is of little import and I shouldn't have brought it up. I'd like to hear someone explain why their music is good.

The reason I didn't bring up why their MUSIC is good is because you simply don't like the music, so I thought: "What's the point?". If you've listened to their first four albums and you still don't like what you hear, there's simply no getting through to you on this.

Ramones are the epitome of "dumb fun" - the songs are all about boredom, sniffing glue, wanting girls they can't get, being a loser in general and then the occasional cover of a classic '50s or '60s rock song. This material may not be "high brow" but they were never more smart about being dumb.

70's music was getting too bloated with all that "arena rock" or "prog" or whatever else was going on at the time. Ramones and punk rock sought to bring rock back to its basics, only play it a lot faster and a lot shorter. They injected a sense of freshness that was sorely needed at the time.

Enjoyment of the Ramones is all on a visceral level, and either you're gonna feel it or you're not. It seems for you it's the latter. It seems you're not interested in being convinced, so I don't know if there's anything more to be said.

And as to the "their popularity negates their punk-ness"? The hell? It's a remark like that that will get someone to call you a "pretentious music nazi." From Day 1, they've always wanted to be popular, and now that it seems to have arrived (after the fact) and most of the original members have now died, I say let them have their vindication.

And I don't think you should get hung up on having a band's popularity skew their musical output.

[yeahwho]

I got called a "pretentious music nazi" the other day for expressing this opinion. Every Ramones song sounds the same to me; they're all excessively simplistic derivatives of blues. It's all I-IV-V, and its not even well-played or well-written I-IV-V.

You Vladimir, are one of the smart people who have figured out whats really going on here.

Myself, being one of the cretin variety peoples, I will never figure it out.

I suffer for my arts.

Those Ramones tricks me every time.

[EN[i]GMA]

Let's all just listen to PiL albums and be satisfied.

I'm actually listening to PiL right now; Theme that is.

Quite good.

[ms.peachy]

Their popularity negates their punk-ness
Yeah, I don't think I can talk to anymore after this, as I didn't realise you were such a world authority on 'punk-ness'.

[Vladimir]

Yeah, I don't think I can talk to anymore after this, as I didn't realise you were such a world authority on 'punk-ness'.

Come on, that's obnoxious. I never said I was an authority on anything. It's obviously my opinion; that's why my name is above it.

I never said that no longer being against the grain reflects poorly in any way upon them. Let's forget that entirely. The history of the band, the popularity of the band, what cultural niche they fit into, etc. etc. etc. It's really trivial when it comes to the music. Yeah, DS, when I said, "I'd like to hear someone explain why their music is good" I was subtly implying that I am interested in being convinced. I've read your posts; I respect your musical taste. I really, truly would like to hear what about their music you like. Honestly, I'd really like to be proven wrong because I feel like an idiot who doesn't like this band that is seemingly universally adored, and I just don't get it. I don't know where a lot of you guys get off telling me that my opinion is pretentious because it differs from yours. I'm just voicing something I've been sitting on for awhile. Additionally, you can tell me that I think I'm smarter than you as much as you like, but I don't think you could possibly refute that the music they play is simple and derivative of blues-rock, for better or worse. I started off on the wrong foot in this thread; I shouldn't have come out as aggressively, I was just really pissed off because I had just gotten attacked by someone for not liking the Ramones.

[yeahwho]

read (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/_/id/121860/rid/5945084/)

[yeahwho]

What I like is that TMBG never gets into the fray. Because They Might Be Giants.

Nobody wants to fuck with a Giant.

I really do love the Sex Pistols and the Ramones equally, but Norcen is correct, they are two completely different bands. High energy is the key and the Sex Pistols don't sell cars. (y)

[Vladimir]

Rolling Stone likes the Ramones?!?!?!?!?1/1/1

a few choice quotes:
"I've never seen [Johnny Ramone] play anything but power chords onstage."

"[Joey Ramone] has stolen just about every affect of the early British rock singers."

I'm not quite sure why a journalist's opinion is more legitimate than that of anyone on this board, or anyone else for that matter. I mean, let's say the Ramones are the best band ever. Rolling Stone gave Kanye West's 2nd LP a 'Classic' 5-stars, and if my research serves me the Ramones never reached higher than a 4-star rating. Given this, I'm not so sure why Rolling Stone's opinion is really that important. However, for the sake of reason, I decided to pick out all of the complimentary things I could find in there.

"Road to Ruin is a real good album."
"Over half the songs on Road to Ruin are straight-ahead rockers anyway." (I assume this is a compliment)
"Joey...really puts his guts into these antiquated but beautiful lyrics and pulls it off." (Describing a cover song)
""I Wanna Be Sedated" [is a] killer cut...to be ranked up there...with the Ramones' finest."
"Wonderful feel for the catchy chord progression"
"nice hook in the melody"

and my favorite:
"[T]he music certainly is listenable"

Call me crazy, but I would say that if a four star review lauds your music as 'listenable,' you need to do something different.

[yeahwho]

Rolling Stone likes the Ramones?!?!?!?!?1/1/1

a few choice quotes:
"I've never seen [Johnny Ramone] play anything but power chords onstage."

"[Joey Ramone] has stolen just about every affect of the early British rock singers."

I'm not quite sure why a journalist's opinion is more legitimate than that of anyone on this board, or anyone else for that matter. I mean, let's say the Ramones are the best band ever. Rolling Stone gave Kanye West's 2nd LP a 'Classic' 5-stars, and if my research serves me the Ramones never reached higher than a 4-star rating. Given this, I'm not so sure why Rolling Stone's opinion is really that important. However, for the sake of reason, I decided to pick out all of the complimentary things I could find in there.

"Road to Ruin is a real good album."
"Over half the songs on Road to Ruin are straight-ahead rockers anyway." (I assume this is a compliment)
"Joey...really puts his guts into these antiquated but beautiful lyrics and pulls it off." (Describing a cover song)
""I Wanna Be Sedated" [is a] killer cut...to be ranked up there...with the Ramones' finest."
"Wonderful feel for the catchy chord progression"
"nice hook in the melody"

and my favorite:
"[T]he music certainly is listenable"

Call me crazy, but I would say that if a four star review lauds your music as 'listenable,' you need to do something different.

Like I said, I'm stupid.

[DroppinScience]

That's funny, because Lydon never claimed to be influenced by that show or the Ramones. I don't think he cared much for them or the New York scene. I just get my info straight from the source. The Pistols were doing their thing before that gig. In fact, the Pistols' songs aren't really that fast like the Ramones. They are pretty slow for "punk".

I'm going by the liner notes for the reissue of the "Leave Home" album...

And I quote:

In the U.K. , the Ramones played the Roundhouse to sell-out crowds in July of '76. Punk-rock royalists came to pay tribute, offering gratitude, including Chrissie Hynde, Johnny Rotten, and Joe Strummer.

[DroppinScience]

That could be a bit misleading. Doesn't mean he was influenced by them.

Whether directly or indirectly. Consciously or unconsciously. I'd say there's some influence.

[Documad]

I still don't get the Ramones.
I hated that documentary.
I enjoy when one of their songs comes up randomly on my ipod, but I still can't sit down and actually listen to a CD.

(I've said before that it's their t-shirts that bug the shit out of me because the wearers of the shirts are not actual fans. In fact, I can't remember the last time I met an actual Ramones fan in real life.)

[DroppinScience]

(I've said before that it's their t-shirts that bug the shit out of me because the wearers of the shirts are not actual fans. In fact, I can't remember the last time I met an actual Ramones fan in real life.)

I knew a guy who owned every Ramones T-shirt he could possibly get his hands on and could name practically everything they ever recorded. He was the biggest "actual Ramones fan" I've ever seen in real life...

[verdedaffhetto]

Ciao

I was in rock and punk bands for years, I play guitar so I think I can confirm partially what you say about Ramone's music:
that Punk Rock is quite simple and for sure is close to the blues schemes some of you told, but I always thought that punk must be normally "simple" to be punk.... but it's my opinion.
What I can assure you is that they are really fast player, it's not that easy to play many songs at those speeds with a rithmic guitar or beating on the charleston, even the bass is not that easy... it could give you bone's pains in years of honorable carrier! ah ah! and then go up up to the brain!
I like jass the best, but sometimes it's nice to listen a quarter of hour of Ramone's suonds!
ciao a tutti

I got called a "pretentious music nazi" the other day for expressing this opinion. Every Ramones song sounds the same to me; they're all excessively simplistic derivatives of blues. It's all I-IV-V, and its not even well-played or well-written I-IV-V.What's the difference between Rockaway Beach and Rock n Roll Highschool? Not much. People always jump on me for hating them, but I've never heard anyone actually provide an argument in favor of the Ramones. Anyone agree with me, or even think I'm a pretentious music nazi? I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts because it seems like a band people feel strongly about.