Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 44 of 44
  1. #26
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    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!

  2. #27
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    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!
    Last edited by 3-LockBox; 03-14-2007 at 09:59 PM.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
    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.

  4. #29
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    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.

  5. #30
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    And...

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    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...)
    Last edited by Resident Loser; 03-15-2007 at 11:25 AM. Reason: If you're gonna use the friggin' pretentious words at least spell 'em right
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  6. #31
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    "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?

  7. #32
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    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.

  8. #33
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Anyway...

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    ...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...)
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  9. #34
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Resident Loser
    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?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  10. #35
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    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.

  11. #36
    Forum Regular BradH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Research Station No. 256
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    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.

  12. #37
    Forum Regular MindGoneHaywire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Manhattan
    Posts
    1,125
    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.

    I don't like others.

  13. #38
    Crackhead Extraordinaire Dusty Chalk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    below the noise floor
    Posts
    3,636
    Don't hold your breath.
    Eschew fascism.
    Truth Will Out.
    Quote Originally Posted by stevef22
    you guys are crackheads.
    I remain,
    Peter aka Dusty Chalk

  14. #39
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well MGH...

    ...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...)
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  15. #40
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Well...

    Quote Originally Posted by BradH
    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...)
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  16. #41
    Suspended 3-LockBox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Hey! Over here!
    Posts
    2,746
    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.

  17. #42
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    To quote Bruce...

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    ..."...hails of derisive laughter, Bruce..."

    jimHJJ(...and then some...)
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  18. #43
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Just...

    ...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...)
    Last edited by Resident Loser; 03-20-2007 at 07:14 AM.
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  19. #44
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    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.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •