Week 35: 50 Albums That Changed Music

[Swish]

It appears we have another excellent choice this week, and something tells me we'll agree on the one for next week to make it three-in-a-row. And the selection is The Ramones - The Ramones (1976).

'Fun disappeared from music in 1974', claimed singer Joey Ramone. To restore it, it took he and his three 'brothers' just one album and 16 tracks, all under three minutes. Brevity was the New York punk rockers' first lesson to the world, along with speed, a distorted guitar thrash and a knowing line in faux-dumb lyrics. In an era of 'progressive' rock pomposity and 12-minute tracks, the Ramones' back-to-basics approach was rousing and confrontational. Without this...no fun.

I'm sure J and Jimbo Clark will be commenting as soon as they see this. I think they're the two biggest Ramones fan on RR, not like that's a bad thing.

Swish

[3-LockBox]

They were a fine 50's biker-punk, rock'n'roll revival act, but way, way too much importance (IMO) is levied on this and other punk rock acts. I don't know how a band like the 'Remoans' garner such adoration among the music press while anyone showing an abundant amount of musical talent and mastery of their instruments get nothing but derrison from the same critics.

The Ramones were a fun diversion; a sort of throwback to the rebellious early days of R'n'R, but for me, my interest stops right there. They were a younger, angrier, slightly scarier version of Sha Na Na.

[Dusty Chalk]

Hard to argue with this choice, as well. It was definitely an important album. No argument from these quarters.

[nobody]

Great band...great album. Totally disagree that it gets too much importance tagged to it or to punk in general. Like it or not, rock music was drastically reshaped by punk and it continues to be a strong influence today. The post-punk stuff in the 80s was a direct outgrowth of it, the grunge of the 90s was highly influenced by it and even the garage rock stuff that has been quite popular this decade is influenced strongly by it. The DIY business model that grew from punk influenced the whole indie movement. Even punk style has become a staple with a black leather jacket hanging in even the most conservative of closets.

I can see why you may have issue with the album or the genre from a personal taste point of view...althogugh it is one of my favorite albums of all time that I can listen to again and again But, denying that punk changed rock music deeply and permanently just doesn't really seem very plausable to me.

[Troy]

Yeah, nobody is right.

My own personal dislike of the band hass been well documented here over the years, so I won't go into that . . . but their influence on rock was wide-spread and is still being felt today . . . for better or worse.

Safe and obvious.

[Swish]

They were a fine 50's biker-punk, rock'n'roll revival act, but way, way too much importance (IMO) is levied on this and other punk rock acts. I don't know how a band like the 'Remoans' garner such adoration among the music press while anyone showing an abundant amount of musical talent and mastery of their instruments get nothing but derrison from the same critics.

The Ramones were a fun diversion; a sort of throwback to the rebellious early days of R'n'R, but for me, my interest stops right there. They were a younger, angrier, slightly scarier version of Sha Na Na.

Really, I don't see any correlation between the Ramones, a solid punk band, and a group of doo-wopping knuckleheads like Sha Na Na. Not even close. And your comment regarding musical talent and mastery of instruments? I know plenty of excellent musicians who don't have one iota of creativity and all they can do is mimic what they hear. Mastery of an instrument, while impressive, doesn't always translate into good music. In fact, I could care less these days about how fast or incredible someone plays, unlike when I was a snot-nosed kid. What I want to hear are great songs. Period.

Swish

[nobody]

Hell...if nothing else punk rock kept the whole argument over whether it matters if you're a good player going for the last 30 years.

[BradH]

What I want to hear are great songs. Period.

A lot of people say that but, if you think about it, there's more to it. I mean, why not just read the sheet music and be done with it? I like Stewart Copeland's comment that it's the songwriter's job to write good songs and it's the musician's job to make it interesting.
And The Ramones did both. It was a narrowly selective, highly stylized slice of early 60's pop cranked up to 11 like never before. The comparison to Sha Na Na is ludicrous. The influence of this album ranges far and wide to this day, much more than some of the other picks on this list. The Ramones drew the blueprint for the punk explosion that eventually caused the record companies to needlessly spook the hell out of the prog bands ("we don't know how to promote you anymore!") who reacted by making crappy albums in 1978.

[3-LockBox]

At least Kiss had the cool get-up

[Resident Loser]

...or at least some members would show up on a local (NJ) UHF station on the "Uncle Floyd Show"...

Interesting info I never knew (but discovered as a result of this thread): they all used pseudonyms (gee and I actually thought there was a Ramone or two)...they started on the mean streets (????) in Forest Hills in Queens NY (given the per capita income of the area, so much for the whole "disaffected youth" aspect, just a few more middle income snots with nothing better to do) and "Joey Ramone" held everyone to a strict dress code of black leather and hi-tops (image, image, image)...

IMHO they can be summed up in one song "I Wanna' Be Sedated"...

jimHJJ(...which BTW I actually like...)

[Jim Clark]

Tough to top the Ramones in my estimation. But hey, that's just me. There's plenty of room if you want complex mastery of writing and performance. The Goodwills around me are loaded down with classical music LPs. Personally, I don't really like that stuff too much. Then of course there's the whole prog. thing that some around here go for. Well, I'm gonna copy Troy, my stance is known.

With regard to the musicianship of the Ramones I can simply cough up a response I read from J sometime over the years. It had to do with playing all of that music on a guitar using nothing but the down stroke. Apparently it ain't all together easy to do. J went on to espouse Tommy's drumming bringing something new to the party, but all of that would be better left to J.

Wish I had more time but for now I gotta get my butt back to work.

jc

[Dusty Chalk]

People with OCD can do the same things over and over again, too.

Hey, if you're going to bait me, expect me to bite.

[Resident Loser]

...It had to do with playing all of that music on a guitar using nothing but the down stroke. Apparently it ain't all together easy to do...

...using only downstrokes tends to make the sound a bit heavier, hitting the bass strings for effect is fairly common in the harder stuff, makes it sound ballsier with or without distortion...Unfortunately, it also can tend to make the playing sound monotonous...Add a bassist and drummer accenting the same beat and...well...If you are interested in simply providing a head-banging effect, slashing at the first two or three strings will do the trick...Most competent, involved, creative musicians will tend to gravitate to other attacks and/or arpeggios, simply to present some of their innate creativity...whomp, whomp, whomp, gets old...unless the song involves a series of whompings.

If you pay close attention, guitarists (and bassists who seem rarely to go much higher than the third or fourth fret) who play in this "punky" style tend to have low-slung instruments (which additionally gives the requisite visual "I'm bad" effect), however more melodic players e.g. classical, jazz, will hold their instrument higher on their torso allowing for unrestricted movement of the fingering arm and greater access to the fretboard...

jimHJJ(...'tain't easy, 'tain't not...it's simply a rudimentary style...)

[Resident Loser]

...The Goodwills around me are loaded down with classical music LPs. Personally, I don't really like that stuff too much...

...indicates what?

That most likely the previous owners are dead...and that most moderns don't have the mental capacity to appreciate anything (ideas OR music) much longer or more complex that a soundbite...or that TT users are rather rare these days 'ceptin' for some diehard vinylphiles whose good fortune it is to stumble on out-of-print classic performances?

jimHJJ(...sad places those second-hand shops...entire lives reduced to a few mean possessions...)

[Luvin Da Blues]

Are we really talking about the Ramones as ground breakers???????????

Competent yes but thats it IMHO

NOW I've heard everything.... I can die in peace now LOL

[nobody]

Are there really still people out there so deep in denial that they can't admit that The Ramones changed everything in the rock 'n' roll world?

[Luvin Da Blues]

Hey Nobody

OK I admit it ..I don't get it

Can you explain "everything" for me

[nobody]

Well...for one, punk pushed prog rock and more treaditionally blues based rock onto the back burner where they have mostly stayed after a period of complete dominance up until punk came around. In additional to just specifically punk sounding styles, in the later 70s and early 80s many of the same musicians started branching out into various types of experimental musical styles in teh post punk era free of the restraints that had been previously imposed on rock music.

For example, Johnny Rotten formed PIL after the Sex Pistols collapsed making some of the most experimental music of the era that sounded nothing like punk rock, yet was only made possible through it's explosion and aftermath. The harder edge of punk music went undeground in the Hardcore movement which in addition to having at least some effect on the thrash and metal scenes that developed in the later half of the 80s was the cornerstone of the independant music business model that that has become a major staple of modern rock when bands struggling to get their records through many major labels just pressed and released them on their own, booked their own tours and developed their own networks.

Meanwhile, major labels devolved into the crap they are today, just pushing teenie pop acts and a select few artists that "fit the clothes" to superstardom while leaving most rock bands to fight it out on their own, something only possible through these independant labels.

Punk also led the change from the traditional rock look of that long haired hippie thing to a vastly different stylistic statement that still pops up regularly today. Remember when the point of dying hair was to make it look natural? Remember when only bikers dressed in black leather?

Now, how much do you want to credit the The Ramones specifically as the grandaddy of punk bands who were the standard bearers for punk in the US for decades and were key figures in inspiring the UK punk scene when they toured England in the mid 70s? Well, that could be debateable...maybe if not them, someone else would have led the charge. But, they were the ones who jumpstarted a musical and cultural movement that has had far reaching effects, even if you don't like them.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Thanks Nobody

well written and informative......I stand corrected

[Resident Loser]

Are there really still people out there so deep in denial that they can't admit that The Ramones changed everything in the rock 'n' roll world?

...to be a PITA (although the term fait accompli seems apropos), if ya doesn't mind me askin'...how so? I admit to their iconic status and like the old joke if you look up "punk" in the dictionary you probably should find a photo of them but....there was other music going on during their tenure...Elvis Costello and Joe Jackson are two that come to mind...Even groups like Ian Drury and the Blockheads showed skill at their craft and Gruppo Sportivo and Plastic Bertrand seemed to have some musical sensibilty beyond punk...B-52s, Blondie, The Cars...I mean there was way more going on in those 20-odd years...

Are there still bands emulating the Ramones garage band style? Sure there are, but "...changed everything in the rock'n'roll world..."?

jimHJJ(...Elvis and the Beatles, maybe Michael Jackson...but the Ramones???...)

[nobody]

I think how much they were the direct influence depends on your perspective and how much credit you wanna give 'em for punk in general.

But, for punk in general, just speaking to the bands you mention...

It was in the height of the punk explosion in England when Elvis Costello and Joe Jackson were signed up as a more polite version of things happening at the time. Their early stripped down style wasn't in vogue until punk struck. Ian Dury is probably the best axample of something breaking through outside punk, even though again that srt of pub rock sound found more favor when people were less enamored of more complicated fare.

Blondie was considered a punk band themselves in their early days and shared the stage with The Ramones as CBGB regulars. The B-52s, the Cars, and new wave in general was a very splintered genre that sprung up in the wake of punk rewriting the rule book of what was and wasn't "correct" in rock music. The difference in what was accepted under the rock umbrella pre and post punk was vast and allowed many of these sorts of band access they would not have had before.

Is crediting the whole thing to The Ramones stretching a point? Sure, especially in purely musical terms.

But, they were the foundation for punk in general, which had far reaching effects and was a much more diverse musical mash-mash than it has eveolved into and as practiced by 4th generation pop-punks today.

[Resident Loser]

Well...for one, punk pushed prog rock and more treaditionally blues based rock onto the back burner where they have mostly stayed after a period of complete dominance up until punk came around. In additional to just specifically punk sounding styles, in the later 70s and early 80s many of the same musicians started branching out into various types of experimental musical styles in teh post punk era free of the restraints that had been previously imposed on rock music.

For example, Johnny Rotten formed PIL after the Sex Pistols collapsed making some of the most experimental music of the era that sounded nothing like punk rock, yet was only made possible through it's explosion and aftermath. The harder edge of punk music went undeground in the Hardcore movement which in addition to having at least some effect on the thrash and metal scenes that developed in the later half of the 80s was the cornerstone of the independant music business model that that has become a major staple of modern rock when bands struggling to get their records through many major labels just pressed and released them on their own, booked their own tours and developed their own networks.

Meanwhile, major labels devolved into the crap they are today, just pushing teenie pop acts and a select few artists that "fit the clothes" to superstardom while leaving most rock bands to fight it out on their own, something only possible through these independant labels.

Punk also led the change from the traditional rock look of that long haired hippie thing to a vastly different stylistic statement that still pops up regularly today. Remember when the point of dying hair was to make it look natural? Remember when only bikers dressed in black leather?

Now, how much do you want to credit the The Ramones specifically as the grandaddy of punk bands who were the standard bearers for punk in the US for decades and were key figures in inspiring the UK punk scene when they toured England in the mid 70s? Well, that could be debateable...maybe if not them, someone else would have led the charge. But, they were the ones who jumpstarted a musical and cultural movement that has had far reaching effects, even if you don't like them.

...a bit dizzy...this replaces that and rock replaces Perry Como and Patti Page and blues-based rock/prog replaces that and so on...That's simply evolution...it ain't your daddy's Oldsmobile...Didn't punk get replaced by New Wave and yada, yada, yada?

And yet post-punk experimental was set free of "restraints"? Well wasn't progressive free of the restraints of three-chord 4/4 tunes? And didn't punk eschew that freedom to roam for the simplistic freedom of three-cord 4/4 tunes...so isn't the resultant experimental stuff in essence another form of progressive??? What goes around comes around?

Think about it and simply compare some retro-types...think Stray Cats vs. Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps, there's always some little sliver of the past either continuing to be played or being "discovered" by some enterprising types...OTOH, there's always been and will always be garage bands, call it grunge or thrash or incurable rash...whatever... it's really reactionary; both are a revelation to the uninitiated.

And as I recall there are early 60s photos of this insignificant little Brit pop group in their teddy-boy doos and black leather jackets...so I'd guess there's very little new under the sun...

Don't get me started on the music biz...

jimHJJ(...I think we are of a like mind when it comes to that...)

[Troy]

nobody:

The inherent artistic dead-end of punk as a genre was made obvious by Joe Jackson, Elvis Costello, XTC and countless others who got their start with the stripped down punk era, who once they were established, released music that was much more artfully produced and arranged. And it's THAT work that most of these artists are remembered for. Your assertion that other forms of rock were subservient to punk for more than a coule of years is wrong. Punk sales have never been as big as the more mainstream genres of rock.

Yes, a lot of PiL sounded nothing like punk because it was basically progrock. It was "experimental" to someone weaned on punk, but they were just rehashing tried and true prog/spacerock formulas from the early 70s. Your assertion that PiL's sound was possible only with "punk's explosion and aftermath" is simply wrong. It's just an obvious fact to anyone that knows prog.

My point being, while The Ramones DID change the landscape of rock music, it was a step backwards for it. Many of the artists who got their start with the punk scene turned their backs on it as soon as they were able to.

The Ramones didn't, and while it could be argued they they remained "true to their roots", I personally think they were simply a one trick pony, a novelty act who couldn't shed their whole "onetwothreefour", fish-heads and leather jacket schtick because they were simply incapable of doing anything else.

[nobody]

Ok...maybe I stretched things a bit.

And, yes change is constant. But, I think the central point that punk was a monumental shift in music and at least one of the biggest shifts of the 70s/80s holds true. And, The Ramones are ground zero for that.

Good point about prog tossing off one set of restraints, but to me they seemed to just trade in one set for another, perhaps more confining type of restraint with such complexities always expected.

Yeah those guys turned their back on punk after their first couple albums...but then they atarted to suck (pure opinoin on that one...just never liked nmore than the first couple from any of 'em)

[BradH]

Good point about prog tossing off one set of restraints, but to me they seemed to just trade in one set for another, perhaps more confining type of restraint with such complexities always expected.

There's no doubt the prog bands were trying to introduce more complexity to pop music. They were continuing a trend that had been growing throughout the 60's after others turned to heavy-metal and folk-rock. But they also gave themselves the freedom to play simple tunes when they wanted to. John Lydon listened to Ash Ra Tempel, Hawkwind, Neu!...none of those bands necessarily specialized in complexity and yet were wildly experimental. Pink Floyd didn't get down with the Soft Machines of the world and, early on, acknowledged the Softs were better musicians. Eno didn't even consider himself to be a musician. The prog bands were about throwing off restraints. The punk bands were about putting them back on. They talked about it, they wrote about it, it was an entire radical philosophy they had and it worked. And yeah, it was the single biggest stylistic shift in pop/rock music since the British Invasion. But Troy nailed it, it was the maturity and branching out of the early new wave bands that was fascinating - like it was the early 60's all over again, every album marking a major move forward for The Jam, XTC, Talking Heads, etc. It was that music that sparked my interest in 60's music other than as a birthplace for prog. There was a connection to those simple pop songs and how they were subtly manipulated into something truly great. New wave was less Cream and more Kinks. Less Hendrix and more Beatles. Yeah, yeah, the punks all talked a lot of smack about everything sucking before their own arrival but they were all wearing flairs a few years before and Paul Weller would never rest until he created his own Revolver-style collection of perfect songs, which he did with Sound Affects. Even the Clash claimed Sandanista to be legitimate because it was an accurate document of where they were at the time. Y'know, like it was a...(gulp)...dare I say it?....a Musical Journey! Take away the Socialist posturing, put some hair on it and it could've come from the mouth of Jon Anderson. I remember college dj's soothing the spike heads about Sandanista by saying things like, " When you check it out there's a lot of really good music here" and using words like "expanding" and "boundaries". The Heads released "Remain In Light" about the same time and exploded everything. That was the Sgt. Peppers of New Wave, period. And what was Yes doing that year onstage? Alan White was pounding out a solid 4/4 rhythm on the floor toms in "Go Through This" - as close to pure punk/new wave as they ever got. That drum style goes straight back to Tommy Ramone, no way around it, over it or under it. So, I take a dim view of a lot of this genre war bullsh!t. The punks had to put on the harness in order to break out of it. To make that car move you had to re-invent the wheel.

[nobody]

So, I take a dim view of a lot of this genre war bullsh!t.

I agree whole heartetdly with this. I think sometimes in an attempt to validate an opinoin or just for ease of being consise the temptation to describe music, and same goes for other art forms as well, in terms of some sort of linear series of movements is the easy way out when the reality is never so simple.

Like the Big Boys said in Fun, Fun, Fun...

I'm a punk and I like SHAM
COCKNEY REJECTS are the world's greatest band
But I like JOY DIVISION, PUBLIC IMAGE too
Even though that's not what I'm supposed to do

None of us should listen to just what we're supposed to listen to. We should all be listening to whatever we like, regardless of genre, and regardless wether some faeless boob on the internet or some big name rock critic likes it.

Funny comparison that seems to be coming up though...you get the punk explosion all power and fury...then an aftermath branching out all over the place and some people prefer the noise and energy and some prefer the complexity trailing along behind and forming in teh mist. Similarly, you had a big bad rock and roll explosion in the 50s/early60s and then a bunch of more complex stuff that followed and some people would rather sit around and listen to LIttle Richard records while others wanna hear Sgt. Peppers.

Interesting that bands like the Clash from the punk era and the Beatles from an earlier time are so respected when they share the way they both straddle both the explosion and the expansion...something few bands really seem adept at.

But, since I'm way off topic now...let me just say...THE RAMONES rock!

[3-LockBox]

I don't deny that The Ramones specifically and punk rock in general had a major impact on music and culture to an extent, but a lot of punk fanboys act like punk never went away. Hell, even punk's main target of derrission, disco, lasted longer than punk did in the public conciousness. In fact, compared to most music trends, punk was just a blip on the radar. Sure, punk had its influences, but changed music forever? meh...hell disco had a longer lasting influence. Punk may very well have survived the '80s to some extent as an underground thing, but disco's influence could be heard everywhere throughout the '80s (and beyond) in everything from R&B and rap to techno and top-40 pop. Punk was a fad...in the '70s, it was a cool excuse to rip the sleeves off a perfectly good shirt, in the '80s it was as much a punchline culturally as disco was.

Hell I had fun listening to punk rock, don't get me wrong, I listened to quite a few punk acts back in the day and enjoyed them, but it didn't stick with me. Somewhere in the mid '90s the rock critic/revisionist historians started to pump-up punk rock to pretentious heights never attempted by prog/art rock.

Punk could be a word that decribes every fledgling band's attempts at rock-n-roll, even a country band. It was a very rudimentary style, very reminiscent of '50s rock. Some grow out of that stage, some don't. As someone else pointed out, it was an evolution. The Clash's London Calling is a perfect example of this, as it scarcely resembles a 'punk rock' album, but an amalgimation of different influences. You could call it a musical journey or you could call it a sellout, depending on your point of veiw (I certainly don't fault them for wanting to make some money). But as Troy pointed out, those that could evolve did, those that couldn't...were called The Ramones. Fun band though, if only for a short time.

My reference to Shan Na Na (earlier) was to be followed up by a link to a vid of The Ramones guest spot on Sha Na Na's TV show from the late '70s, but I searched YouTube in vain for it and couldn't find it. I saw it when I was a kid. They performed Rock-N-Roll Highschool while various members of Sha Na Na paraded around in highschoolish dress (some as girls) and Bowzer did a lot of posing and mugging. Come to think of it, Sha Na Na whore leather jackets, too. No I don't really think The Ramones sounded like Sha Na Na musically, but lyrically...hhmmm...

Take that yous greasers!

[BradH]

Somewhere in the mid '90s the rock critic/revisionist historians started to pump-up punk rock to pretentious heights never attempted by prog/art rock.

I don't give a damn what rock critic/revisionist historians have to say, I watched the influence of punk roll through rock 'n' roll like a tidal wave. Sure, it died out as a movement and became a style to be picked up or dropped just like anything else. But there have been huge lasting influences, mostly in the vocal department. All of that alt-rock and indie stuff in the 90's is way closer to 70's punk/new wave in style than anything before punk.


But as Troy pointed out, those that could evolve did, those that couldn't...were called The Ramones.

I tend to agree with the sentiment regarding pure punk bands. I disdained the L.A. bands and wasn't much impressed w/ Minneapolis either. But the Ramones didn't change because Johnny Ramone wouldn't let them. It was a very strange situation, a unique circumstance involving extreme characters in bizarre working relationships. It's one of the oddest stories in rock history and it passed mostly under the radar. But when they performed they were a juggernaut of power and precision, making terms like "simplicity" and "complexity" totally meaningless. Detractors like to focus on their image and their middle-class background and whatnot, basically everything that's not important.

[nobody]

I think it is a misconception that punk was a short-lived fad. If you view punk as that English thing with the Sex Pistols, then, ok, as a popular movement in England, punk was a bit of a flash in the pan. But, if you look at the long line of bands going through from The Ramones (and some people like to start even earlier with The Stooges) to the English punk bands and back to the Hardcore punk bands of the early 80s and right on through until SST, one of the big punk oriented independant labels, put out the first Soundgarden album in the early years of grunge. Toss in modern practitioners like Green Day and the pop punk bands of the 90s and you're covering some ground.

You also cover some pretty diverse musical ground with bands like Television, Blondie, and The Ramones all sharing a stage in New York, bands like The Slits mixing up the scene in London through to bands like the Big Boys who played hardcore but would trot out a full horn section to do covers of stuff like Hollywood Swinging and the Minutemen, who had a unique sound all there own.

And, while I can see how people could not like the LA scene, which admiddedly turned ugly and violent often. It did produce great bands like X and the nuclear bomb that was Black Flag...maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but sneaking a few drinks and begging a ride at 13 to get to a Black Flag show and seeing the place erupt into complete mayhem was a pretty formative experience for my musical tastes for more than a few years.

[Resident Loser]

But there have been huge lasting influences, mostly in the vocal department. All of that alt-rock and indie stuff in the 90's is way closer to 70's punk/new wave in style than anything before punk.

...this is somehow a good thing? Unmelodious near-atonal monotony? Is this like deja vu all over again? Is it Week One? The range of a 59cent harmonica? As someone into good vocals and harmony, if such an "influence" is the best thing punk offered it's truly a sorry state of affairs...


But when they performed they were a juggernaut of power and precision, making terms like "simplicity" and "complexity" totally meaningless. Detractors like to focus on their image and their middle-class background and whatnot, basically everything that's not important.

"Juggernaut of power and precision"?????????????? Mighty big words...particularly for a style which IMHO exists purely on the twanging of power chords and the lockstep rhythm...a, er...make that beat...rhythm implies a certain complexity...

Image is a contrivance, whether it's Epstein's make-over of the Fab Four or the insistance of biker jackets and Cons for all...as is the whole "disaffected youth" thing which strikes me as a bit of dishonesty with your audience...If you are capable of that, it sorta' makes your whole oeuvre suspect...

The "Best of" album can be reduced to "Sedated" and "Rockaway Beach"...

jimHJJ(...the Ramones in a nutshell...)

[BradH]

I think it is a misconception that punk was a short-lived fad.

Well, I for one never called it a fad because its influence was too far reaching. I just thought the California hardcore stuff was a cul-de-sac with bands releasing albums that weren't much different than their previous releases, none of which I liked. So, I thought punk was dead as an evolving musical movement. Before, I thought it was alive in Britain because it kept changing and growing. It seemed more musical to me. Naturally, it evolved itself out of existence while L.A. rose from the grave as the never changing, freaking undead. For me, L.A. killed it as a movement and made it a style - in their case they also romanticized and increased the violence along the way. I have no illusions that I'm being objective in any of this. I was already inclined to listen to the Brits anyway with all that prog. (It's like I told Jay, it's not about where you were, it's about when you were.) Looking back I can see the Pistols and the Clash and all that came after was one huge bank shot coming from the Ramones and headed back across the Atlantic with a different style. I didn't take it seriously until they started to step away from the formula and take some chances, then I backtracked and saw the value of the earlier, more energetic stuff. I was also learning to play the bass by 79/80 and had a whole new crop of idols in J.J. Burnel, Tina Weymouth, Colin Moulding, Jerry Casales, Bruce Foxton...it was as technically challenging and musically rewarding as anything I'd heard - and I could practically play Yes's "Roundabout" in my sleep at that point. So, I rejected all that crap about how it was simple or stupid like it was "Smoke On The Water" or something. (Listened to that incident the other day too...Zappa onstage doing "King Kong" when the balcony caught on fire. Howard Kaylan:"It's Arthur Brown in person!")

Anyway...


"Juggernaut of power and precision"?????????????? Mighty big words...particularly for a style which IMHO exists purely on the twanging of power chords...

How do you "twang" a power chord?

[nobody]

Did you just misquote me...the Twang part...?

Bruce Foxton's a great bass player.

And, a little trivia you may enjoy...did you know that Pat Smear of the Germs was always a huge Yes fan and until he started making Germs songs, the only other things he knew on the guitar were some Yes songs. That kinda puts some of the cross-genre animosity in perspective.

And, I can see the point about the hardcore bands and they were hundreds of cookie cutter hardcore bands all across the country. But, I do still think delving into the era does unearth some gems that took things in different directions. The Minuteman had an absolutely fantastic rythm section.

[Resident Loser]

...How do you "twang" a power chord?...

...that wasn't nobody (how's that for English and how she is spoke), that was me BTW...

Guitars twang...so twanging two notes separated by a perfect fifth is how one twangs a power chord...or you could have two good friends pull tight on a Shunyata Anaconda Helix and give that a good pluck...

jimHJJ(...but that would be twanging a power cord...)

[BradH]

The Minuteman had an absolutely fantastic rythm section.

Yeah, I always liked them. I thought X was excruciating. Do you remember a band called Killer P*ssy? I think they were from Arizona.

Sorry about the moniker mixup.


Guitars twang...

Not this one.

C'mon Loser, feel the power!

Hey, isn't there a classical notation for that? Y'know, "Sling axe low" or something in Latin?

[nobody]

Yeah, I always liked them. I thought X was excruciating. Do you remember a band called Killer P*ssy? I think they were from Arizona.


Neved heard them...but the Meat Puppetts outta Arizona were good...the first album at least. I kinda lost interest after that, although I think they got some tunes on the radio eventually. I think the feederz and JFA were from Phoenix too.

Surprised on such a negative view of X. Even if the earlier punk stuff ain't your bag, later albums like More Fun in the New World were pretty good roots rock kinda things. And Billy Zoom was a really good guitar player, another overlooked top quality musician from the scene.

[BradH]

And Billy Zoom was a really good guitar player, another overlooked top quality musician from the scene.

Yeah, he was excellent. Sort of a dumb@ss in his comments but he played hot. But I swear Carl Wilson solo'd exactly the same way on the Beach Boys video from Knebworth 1980. It's that really hot Gibson sound some guys get. Smokin' rock 'n' roll.

But X...those vocals...just shoot me now. Gotta admit it was head of its time w/ the whole Carter/Cash thing nowadays but man, that was ugly. Not my cuppa.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Couldn't get to this before now. Uh, the Sha Na Na comparison is no no no. Columbia students who did little besides covers, including standards, vs. a bunch of delinquents...whose mostly original music was mostly put together by a mentally ill drug abuser who had been a...male prostitute? Musically & in just about every other way, two different sides of the tracks here, but I think that's fairly understood & that remark was meant to troll more than anything else. People do forget that Sha Na Na was at Woodstock and, amongst the hippies, may have kindled something in folks who created stuff like American Graffiti, prior to which there wasn't much of a nostalgia movement in pop in the wake of the album rock of the late 60s. I have the video of the Ramones on the Sha Na Na program from 1979 or so, it's included on the We're Outta Here set, and the lack of a reason for any sort of comparison is fairly obvious.


Brad:

>I like Stewart Copeland's comment that it's the songwriter's job to write good songs and it's the musician's job to make it interesting.

I don't unless there's a qualifier that both are not always possible, in which case I assign more value to the songs than how 'interesting' the musician is capable of making them.

>The Ramones did both.

So many people disagree with this that it's amazing, but it's why I think Copeland's remark needs a bit more context.


RL:

>at least some members would show up on a local (NJ) UHF station on the "Uncle Floyd Show"...

At least 30 times. Mugsy R.I.P., in case you didn't know. "Peter Punk," indeed. Remember Joe Franklin's lawsuit in the sketch involving Joey Ramonie? The "Martian Paint" commercial was priceless. But then Floyd was one of the most sorely overlooked comic talents of the 20th Century in my book.

>Interesting info I never knew

Yeah, except it was Johnny who ran the band with the iron fist, not Joey. More relevant is that their drummer was actually an accomplished recording engineer who'd worked with Jimi Hendrix. More interesting is that he wasn't a drummer...and when he left & they were forced to hire a new drummer, the guy they got--whose instrumental ability dwarfed anyone in the band--had to work hard to play the drums the way the non-drummer had. Like I always say, in some cases it's the people who lack ability who sometimes hit on interesting ways to approach the instrument, and end up creating work, and styles, that end up being considered unique and influential.


JC:

>playing all of that music on a guitar using nothing but the down stroke. Apparently it ain't all together easy to do.

It's not, though I got into a big dust-up on a 'music industry' board with a poster who apparently does a lot of playing who feels otherwise. Typical exchange I've had with 'superior players' (not that he represented himself as such) over the years. Blues is simple, blah blah blah. 3 chords, simple, blah blah blah. Then you actually play some of that simple stuff with them, and they're wired to play complex music, and some find the hard way that they actually can't play simple music well. Which is something I don't think there's anything wrong with, mind you. But I get sick & tired of hearing how easy stuff is to play because it sounds easy, by people who think it's not as good merely because it sounds simple, and sometimes it even turns out to not be as simple as it sounds. Some can hack it, and that's great, because then you know you're dealing with someone who understands the difference. In the world of the genre wars, not on message boards but among musicians, professional and otherwise, it's even more tired & stupid than on message boards. And if every hotshot who can play every Eddie Van Halen solo note for note could play the way Johnny Ramone did, or even understood what they're hearing, you wouldn't get a peep out of me on this. Meanwhile, what I find interesting about the downstroke-only approach is that it's the dead giveaway whenever you see, well, just about anybody attempt a Ramones cover. Nobody ever does it right, so it never sounds right, and I mean nobody. I've seen one band get it right, a tribute band. I think there's a recording of covers where it sounds like someone knew how to do it, also. Of course, you don't have to copy a cover exactly, note for note. Go ahead, spice things up. But in my experience most guitar players either don't grasp or just plain couldn't physically play that style.


Dusty:

>People with OCD can do the same things over and over again, too.

So can people without OCD. Good thing, too. If people didn't do a lot of the same thing over and over again, there's a lot of necessary things in the world that wouldn't happen. Same goes for pop and rock music, although to a more limited extent. But then we get into a discussion of chord structures, which of course everybody knows are so 'simple' since they were all '3 chords.'

Examine some of those 'simple' '3 chord' structures on, say, the Road To Ruin album, and if you still think they all sound the same, or that they're all simple, blues-based structures, come back & let us know why.


RL:

>it also can tend to make the playing sound monotonous...

Which for some is mitigated in the presence of melody & hooks. Obviously not for all, but that's okay.

>If you are interested in simply providing a head-banging effect, slashing at the first two or three strings will do the trick..

But since that's not what was done, an effect beyond what you describe is what was created.

>Most competent, involved, creative musicians will tend to gravitate to other attacks and/or arpeggios, simply to present some of their innate creativity...

Most competent, involved, creative musicians play music written by others, which leads directly to the point of why this record was influential: the songs were good enough to support a lack of what most competent, involved, creative musicians would tend to play.

>whomp, whomp, whomp, gets old...unless the song involves a series of whompings.

Or a melody & hooks. Everybody's tolerance for 3-chord structures is different, but there's a reason why 'Louie Louie' was as popular as it was.

>If you pay close attention

You can validly say image was part of the equation. I would quarrel with the idea that it held, or was supposed to hold, any more importance than the music itself. Thousands of bands cultivate image, but only a handful are successful. An easy point of attack when one doesn't think much of a particular band is to point to the image. I don't find this point to hold much validity, otherwise I could point to a lot of other bands against whom the same charge could be levied, and I don't think it's any more valid.

>'tain't easy, 'tain't not...it's simply a rudimentary style...

If you believe that use of rudiments as they applied them was or is easy, I suggest you try it. Then maybe you can tell me why it is that nobody ever played that way before, or sounded like that. Ever.


Luvin Da Blues:

>Are we really talking about the Ramones as ground breakers???????????

Yes, and I think nobody handled that well enough. I'd only add that if you listen, many of these songs feature blues structures, so if you're 'luvin' that, you might want to take that into consideration.


RL:

>there was other music going on during their tenure...Elvis Costello and Joe Jackson are two that come to mind...

And? I think we all agree this is a deeply flawed list, but it's based on influence. You hear many acts these days that sound like what Elvis Costello or Joe Jackson or some of the other Stiffs were doing in 1976? Or even up until 1980? Geez, I wish. Beats the hell out of all the mall-punk stuff, but what gets lost in this is how great Elvis Costello was. So far as I'm concerned I'd rather hear bands that were influenced by Rockpile and people like that, than Blink 182 & Good Charlotte & all that sort of thing. Not to mention the slew of bands from the past few years who sound just like Roxy Music, XTC, Joy Division, Gang Of Four, et al. With an exception or two, I could live without all of that revivalism...but none of this negates the influence of the Ramones.

>Are there still bands emulating the Ramones garage band style? Sure there are, but "...changed everything in the rock'n'roll world..."?

Yes. The Clash, Sex Pistols, Damned, etc. etc. saw the Ramones in July 1976, surely you've heard that tale. They were in various stages of development, but all gushed about how seeing the Ramones galvanized their approach to what it was they were doing, and wanted to do. Then there's the long list of USA acts who were moved to get more serious about their bands, or start one in the first place, after hearing the Ramones. No need to list them here, especially since I doubt a chap like you puts much stock in the sorts of bands who would show up on such a list, but to deny it is simply foolish.

>Didn't punk get replaced by New Wave and yada, yada, yada?

Yes, forcefully, and on purpose. The President of the United States made it known, directly, to music business executives, that he would prefer to not see this type of music given much publicity. What label signed not only the Ramones, but also the Talking Heads, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, the Dead Boys, etc.? Sire. What outfit distributed Sire Records when the first Ramones record came out in 1976? ABC. Result? Some of the same sorts of tales that outfits like the Velvet Underground had dealt with--release a record, on a national, major label, tour it, arrive in a fairly good-sized town, and find that the local record shop that catered to offbeat tastes...couldn't get the record in because their distributor wouldn't carry it. Sire didn't align with Warner Brothers by accident. Why did Slash have to sign all of those California bands? Think Elektra pushed Television much in 1977? Hell, Epic stuck with Cheap Trick through three commercial failures until they broke through...a few months after Blondie did, but only through Heart Of Glass, which was a far cry from CBGB. Would any of these bands have been successful if they'd had decent promotion from the record labels, or were they just too disgusting, raw, untalented? Maybe. But then there was this band called the Clash who hit it big in the USA, not all that long after, beginning with a radio hit drawn from London Calling.

The 'new wave replaced punk' nonsense is...exactly that.

>What goes around comes around?

No argument here...so what?

>Don't get me started on the music biz...

Why, because you've seen the photos of the Beatles in leather jackets? Give a listen to the first track on the Lingasong issue of the Beatles Live At The Star-Club, the Elvis cover. Yr point is? That the Beatles could've reasonably be described as a 'punk' band in many aspects is not an unreasonable, or difficult, conclusion to come to. So?

The Beatles didn't play at the Roundhouse in July of 1976. Neither did the Rolling Stones, the Sonics, the MC5, the Stooges, or anyone else. And that series of gigs is, as much as any other reason, why this album sits on this list. If you dispute this, please elaborate.


Troy:

>The inherent artistic dead-end of punk as a genre was made obvious by Joe Jackson, Elvis Costello, XTC and countless others who got their start with the stripped down punk era, who once they were established, released music that was much more artfully produced and arranged.

You leave out one little detail, which is that there was a small measure of commercial success in the UK, and absolutely NONE in the U.S. Not until the Clash hit, which was six or seven years after the first Ramones album. The Ramones, in spite of soundtrack placings, popular club choices, and, eventually, stadium soundbites, never hit. The 'inherent dead-end of punk' led to more than ex-pub rockers who wrote great pop songs, it also led to the Clash, the Bad Brains, California hardcore, and...please tell me how bands like X & the Minutemen fit into the concept of the 'inherent dead-end of punk.' Yr point on PiL is well-taken, but calling it prog is a stretch, even for this thread, and that certainly doesn't begin to explain X's vocals or D. Boon's ideas.

>while The Ramones DID change the landscape of rock music, it was a step backwards for it.

A much-needed step backwards. With the exception of Roxy Music & Bowie, I don't think there were too many during this period that were doing music any favors by pushing it any further forward than it had advanced up that time.

>Many of the artists who got their start with the punk scene turned their backs on it as soon as they were able to.

Of course, but not in all cases due to the limitations of the music: in quite a few cases it was because of the lack of support extended towards punk acts by the music industry (that they did ridiculous things like vomiting publicly didn't help). Tom Petty was 'new wave' on Shelter Records before he chose to reinvent himself; John Cougar had been, to an extent, as well. After being in Television, Billy Ficca turned up in the Waitresses--who hit. Ivan Julian, Richard Lloyd, & Robert Quine all eventually played with Matthew Sweet, who I gather sold more records than the Voidoids or Television, maybe, probably, combined. David Johansen became Buster Poindexter...but if he ever really wanted to stop doing NY Dolls-type stuff, then why did he keep coming back to it over the years?

>The Ramones didn't, and while it could be argued they they remained "true to their roots", I personally think they were simply a one trick pony, a novelty act who couldn't shed their whole "onetwothreefour", fish-heads and leather jacket schtick because they were simply incapable of doing anything else.

Perhaps partially, or even mostly true, but then have you heard Mark Bell's playing on the first Richard Hell album? Their covers were an example of what they could do when they removed limitations. Ever listen to the Phil Spector album? Uh, they wrote ballads. They covered the Doors & the Rolling Stones. And Tom Waits & the Righteous Brothers. But the problem they had with limiting themselves was that the one guy who could write songs for them was deranged & sick. After he left they still used his songs. But when he left it was just about over, and they continued on for seven more years.

Why? Maybe because after 15 years of playing in 1,000 capacity rooms, they were all of a sudden headlining soccer stadiums in South America? Stuff like that prolongs many careers, often unnecessarily so in an artistic sense. But, unlike some of the punk bands, the Ramones never said they weren't interested in actually making money.


Brad:

>the punks all talked a lot of smack about everything sucking before their own arrival

What a bunch of crap, ultimate stupidity. And yet the band that shouted that louder than anyone was the one that came up with London Calling. Go figure.


3-Lock:

>Hell, even punk's main target of derrission, disco,

Not true. They were far more critical of corporate arena rock. Which is not to say they were fans, but then there's Blondie to consider. Hmm?

The Talking Heads spoke of touring & enjoying hearing the Bee Gees on the radio, that even hearing the same hits over & over wasn't so bad because they actually dug the tunes, that what they dreaded was having to hear something like Debby Boone singing 'You Light Up My Life.'

>compared to most music trends, punk was just a blip on the radar.

You may believe this if you wish. It's simply incorrect.

>disco had a longer lasting influence.

How so? Green Day sounds a lot more like the Ramones to me than the Andrea True Connection, so since they both started during roughly the same time frame, and the influence of both is still felt, can you tell us what you mean here?

>Punk was a fad...

Explain Nirvana. Fads don't lurk in the underground for 15 years, do they? I'm not waiting for the comeback of the Pet Rock or streaking.

>It was a very rudimentary style, very reminiscent of '50s rock.

Television, rudimentary? How so? The Voidoids? Please explain.

>No I don't really think The Ramones sounded like Sha Na Na musically, but lyrically...hhmmm...

The album this thread is based around includes a song about being a male prostitute and murdering a john. What Sha Na Na album can I find such a song on? How about 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue?'


RL:

>...this is somehow a good thing? Unmelodious near-atonal monotony? Is this like deja vu all over again? Is it Week One? The range of a 59cent harmonica? As someone into good vocals and harmony, if such an "influence" is the best thing punk offered it's truly a sorry state of affairs...

Yes, it's a good thing. It allows people who can write but not necessarily play or sing to express their ideas. You don't like it? Don't listen. Some of us value the creation of music to be at least as important as the actual performance of it, or the ability to do so.

Which is not to say that some poet should be awarded a record contract based on shrieks & wails, but for Pete's sakes, you're the one throwing in an extreme example here. Tom Verlaine couldn't sing well. Have you ever even heard a Television album? Richard Hell couldn't sing, does that mean it's a bad thing that Robert Quine did what he did in that band? Henry Rollins can't sing like Barbara Streisand, but nobody expressed emotion quite like he did. If the music doesn't require a master vocalist, then what do you care, especially if you won't be listening to it anyway?

>"Juggernaut of power and precision"?????????????? Mighty big words...particularly for a style which IMHO exists purely on the twanging of power chords and the lockstep rhythm...a, er...make that beat...rhythm implies a certain complexity...

Johnny Ramone didn't play power chords...are you serious? You do know the difference between a power chord & a barre chord, don't you? If so, then perhaps advancing the discussion to examining the precision in the rhythms, as you so condescendingly refuse to refer to them as, is a worthy exercise. If you believe they are the same thing, then probably not.

Power chords. Sheesh.

[Dusty Chalk]

Don't hold your breath.

[Resident Loser]

...given your avatar, I realize there is little reason to do this, so I'll keep it relatively brief...

I think I saw the news re: Mugsy on the UF website some time back...and I do agree FV is definitely an under-rated comic...

Re: non-drumming drummers etc. Yep, there's no doubt in my mind that folks with little or no formal training are responsible for interesting approaches to their chosen instrument...Part of it has to do with the fact that they've never been told they can't or shouldn't do things in a particular way...The problem arises when you try to do more (dare I use the word) mainstream things that require having learned the proper technique...which is one of the reasons I'll never be a really good classical guitarist...my thumb ALWAYS gravitates from the proper postion, ending in a near choke-hold on the neck...

Re: The Ramones' sound...Garage bands tend to sound that way...Whether it's Wild Thing or Louie, Louie or The Cryan Shames cover of Hey Joe, it's rudimentary...it was done before the Ramone's and will continue to be done...simply because it's an LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) style...To me it's similar to the "dawg" factor of Bill Clinton...lower the bar enough and "everyone" can identify with it and jump right on...It's loud, it's raucous, it's a perfect knee-jerk reaction to the supposed excesses of progressive...and, timing-wise at least, it was obviously a marketable commodity. Everybody thinks they've discovered something new or re-invented the wheel. Popular music has done that forever...and eventually the "new" becomes the "been there, done that"...and X years later ad infinitum...

Re: "...don't get me started on the music biz..." I think you have gotten the wrong impression...I'm as much against the "...starmakin' machinery behind the popular song..." as anyone, along with ..."...thirteen channels of $h!t on the TV to choose from"...Get a hit, market it and clone, clone, clone...

Re: difference between a power chord and a barre chord? The closely related PC (root and perfect fifth) is missing the major third of the triad and additionally the barre has some octaves tossed in...And this somehow proves exactly what? Will there be a test? Should I bring two #2 pencils?

Re: vocalists...never said anything about vocal abilities or a pretty voice...two of my faves are Dylan and Waits...it's the melody, the harmony, the counter-point (or rather lack thereof) that I have taken issue with...

Re: Precision of rythym...???...Again, everyone accenting the same beat isn't diffcult...jack-hammers and pile-drivers do that...and again, it simply gets tedious...

Re: "don't listen to it"... Well, honestly I don't, nor do I listen to much other contempo pop, rock, whatever-it-is these-days...however, since this is a more or less public forum, I'm simply voicing my opinion and responding from my POV to some things that were put forth...

And I still like I Wanna' Be Sedated...

jimHJJ(...unfortunately, IMHO, that's them in a nutshell...)

[Resident Loser]

Not this one.

C'mon Loser, feel the power!

Hey, isn't there a classical notation for that? Y'know, "Sling axe low" or something in Latin?

The headstock and body shape make me say Mosrite and if that don't twang (think Ventures) I dunno' what do...

jimHJJ(...with a little whammy on the side...)

[3-LockBox]

I just meant that Sha Na Na and the Ramones were similar in the way that I could care less about either...

Its easy to see how Bowzer influenced The Ramones style and delivery.

[Resident Loser]

I just meant that Sha Na Na and the Ramones were similar in the way that I could care less about either...

Its easy to see how Bowzer influenced The Ramones style and delivery.

..."...hails of derisive laughter, Bruce..."

jimHJJ(...and then some...)

[Resident Loser]

...for the fu-fu-fun of it...Just got around to reading a review in the NYT Book Review concerning Sister Rosetta Tharpe, entitled Shout, Sister, Shout!. In it, the reviewer mentions that this lady "...didn't quite fit their secular, guitar-as-phallus ideal..."

Here's a little YouTube for your perusal...wait for the break, how many rock phrases can you hear...(even a little bit of Pete Townsend's propeller spin!)...so Johnny, Joey, Zeke and/or Choo-Choo, eat yer hearts out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnIJR3PWTT8

Rock...before there was a rock...

BTW and FWIW my best guestimate re: her guitar is that it's the more sculpted Gibson Les Paul with three humbuckers and a Vibrola tailpiece. It was produced for a time after the ubiquitous "arch-top" single-cutaway model, but before it morphed into simply the SG...

jimHJJ(...just some more useless information...)

[nobody]

My favorite part of the book Nancy's mom wrote was the account of when Sid cam to visit the family in America and mostly just sat around half passed out telling everyone to make sure he was awake to watch Sha Na Na because it was great and his favorite show.

Sadly, I think he nodded off and missed it.