Choose sides... The Ramones vs. Sex Pistols

[nobody]

OK...who's the big daddy of Punk? The Ramones had an album out first, but the Sex Pistols seemed to have had a bigger immediate impact with much bigger sales and more public recognition. I'm not telling right away...suffice to say I waffle back and forth and will make my current fascination known later. But, c'mon, when you think of Punk, who do you credit...who do you love?

[-Jar-]

I've always liked the Ramones better than the Sex Pistols, but to me, when I think punk, I think Black Flag.

The Ramones and the Sex Pistols were definately a huge part of getting the whole punk thing kicked off, but they didn't do much innovation beyond that.

I guess I appreciate the D.I.Y. asthetic that Black Flag brought to punk and independent music. I never felt like they were a "product" like other punk bands kind of were, esp. the Sex Pistols.

Of course, I was never really a part of the punk movement, so take that how you will.

I can't wait to see that Minutemen documentary..

-jar

[Stone]

I listen to the Ramones a lot more than the Sex Pistols, but the Ramones catalog is a lot bigger too. I think the Sex Pistols really helped push the punk movement, but without the Ramones, the Sex Pistols may have never existed. After all that rambling, I go with:

[MindGoneHaywire]

>OK...who's the big daddy of Punk?

Johnny Thunders & the Heartbreakers...or Richard Hell & the Voidoids, take yr pick. Oh, wait.


<----------------

[Jim Clark]

Well it's gotta be the Ramones as far as I'm concerned. No Johnny Thunders = no Ramones every bit as much as no Ramones = no Sex Pistols/Clash. Lineage is always blurred since someone else always came first with at least the inspiration. I think the Sex Pistols changed the direction of punk rock but I think the Ramones created it and are therefore worthy of the title of Big Dogs. With the Sex Pistols came all of the negative imagery and stereotypes associated with Punk. This of course is what caught all of the media's attention and therefore what jumped to the forefront as far as the world was concerned and was the face of Punk Rock from then on. I think it's this, as much as anything else, that accounts for the fact that in terms of popularity that the Ramones never really took off. Decent people associated the Ramones with what was burgeoning in England and didn't want anything at all to do with it. It was all shock and spectacle, at least as it was portrayed in the mainstream media.

I'll tell you what though, in terms of longevity I think the Ramones are gonna win hands down. Has anyone else noticed how many of our youth are sporting Ramones t-shirts? Liking the Ramones may actually be cool now.

jc

[-Jar-]

I see 12 year old girls wearing AC/DC t-shirts.. what's THAT all about?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I guess it's time someone took up for the Pistols in this little debate.

With the Sex Pistols came all of the negative imagery and stereotypes associated with Punk. This of course is what caught all of the media's attention and therefore what jumped to the forefront as far as the world was concerned and was the face of Punk Rock from then on. I think it's this, as much as anything else, that accounts for the fact that in terms of popularity that the Ramones never really took off.

So what you're saying is that if the Pistols hadn't brought all this "negative" publicity to punk, than The Ramones would have a career like who? Springsteen? U2? I don't think so. Negative publicity didn't exactly hurt the careers of Elvis, or his contemporaries.

I think an easier argument to make is that whatever career the Ramones had, they owe to The Sex Pistols. Without the Pistols, and the marketing machine that they and Malcolm McLaren set in motion, The Ramones may have been, at best an important historical footnote, or at worst, a short-lived novelty act. But in part, thanks to what The Pistols did by taking what The Ramones and The New York Dolls started and moving it to the logical extreme, the Ramones were able to enjoy a 20 year career, including a feature movie and a spot in the R&R HOF.

So the Pistols; for bringing punk to the the attention of the media, and for paving the way for "respectable" punk acts like The Clash et al, to explore the limits of punk and alternative music, get my vote as "top dogs of punk". Besides I think Bullocks, is simply a better album than any Ramones record.

[audiobill]

OK...who's the big daddy of Punk?
who do you love?

Well, that's a tuff question. But I'll risk saying the Ramones. Only because in 1977? (78?) I saw them on a bill with 11 other bands in Toronto at something called Canada Jams.

I loved them, but they were so misplaced: Aerosmith, BTO, Edgar Winter Group, Nazareth, et al.....were the bands that most people were there to see.

My respect for them was immediate when several clowns in the first ten rows started to throw beer bottles at them. The Ramones played unfazed, ducking the bottles and kicking at the broken glass. Furthermore, they thanked everyone for being such a good audience.

Bizarre, but forever sketched in that impressionable sixteen year old's memory.

Although........ killing Bambi with a razor blade may swing me over to the Pistols at any moment, now.

Cheers,
audiobill

[Jim Clark]

So what you're saying is that if the Pistols hadn't brought all this "negative" publicity to punk, than The Ramones would have a career like who? Springsteen? U2? I don't think so. Negative publicity didn't exactly hurt the careers of Elvis, or his contemporaries.

Sure, why not? The simple fact of the matter is that Ramones music was avoided at all costs by radio stations coast to coast and a huge part of that was the image of punk rock that was created by bands like the Sex Pistols. Regardless of the backlash during the time of Elvis he was on the airwaves-both radio and TV. Had that opportunity been afforded to the Ramones-who knows?

Speaking of the airwaves ("We want the airwaves baby"), I'm hearing more and more Ramones now than ever. And not just the radio either but songs featured during TV commercials. Not that renting out songs for ads is any benchmark of success but there are at least two national ads running now that use the Ramones music. Odd how the tide has changed. Wish more of them could have lived to see the day...

jc

Besides I think Bullocks, is simply a better album than any Ramones record.

Oh dude!

[BinFrog]

The Ramones were a real punk pank who never pretended to be anything else

The Sex Pistols were a marketing ploy that worked all too well.

You decide.







Ramones by a LONG shot.

(But give me The Clash over either of them any day)

[Dave_G]

The Sex Pistols got all the hype.

Really punk was Sham 69, Clash, Stranglers, Gang of Four, et al.

Never considered the Ramones as punk per se, but I guess they were, huh.

I dunno.

I have never had a Sex Pistols album.

Dave

[MindGoneHaywire]

I don't know why Davey took down his post with the Clash album cover...but in response to it I would point out that it was after seeing the Ramones that Joe Strummer quit the 101ers...

>So what you're saying is that if the Pistols hadn't brought all this "negative" publicity to punk, than The Ramones would have a career like who? Springsteen? U2? I don't think so. Negative publicity didn't exactly hurt the careers of Elvis, or his contemporaries.

I don't think they would've had a career like Springsteen or U2 either, but certainly more like the one the Clash enjoyed than the one they had. It's not analagous to compare eras here, because punk rock was actively blackballed by the radio & record labels in the U.S. at the time. Even President Carter was said to have commented to record company executives that the idea of pushing these sorts of bands was a bad one. The bad publicity Elvis & his contemporaries thrived on didn't also have a Lee Abrams working behind the scenes to design formats that were a polar opposite to the payola-driven approach taken by DJs like Alan Freed. So that comparison doesn't wash, not when the Ramones were always far more popular in the UK, Europe, and, later, especially South America, then they probably ever could've hoped to have been in the U.S. But I think their lack of success here is a legacy of failure that doesn't make much sense given how big they were in the rest of the world, and also given that the U.S. finally caught on to punk a few years later when the Clash did break, and a decade after that when Nirvana broke, and a few years after that when Green Day broke, and so on.

>I think an easier argument to make is that whatever career the Ramones had, they owe to The Sex Pistols. Without the Pistols, and the marketing machine that they and Malcolm McLaren set in motion, The Ramones may have been, at best an important historical footnote, or at worst, a short-lived novelty act. But in part, thanks to what The Pistols did by taking what The Ramones and The New York Dolls started and moving it to the logical extreme, the Ramones were able to enjoy a 20 year career, including a feature movie and a spot in the R&R HOF.

No, that doesn't make any sense either. If anything, they owe their relative lack of a career in the U.S. to the Sex Pistols, because it was their antics that caused radio to avoid this music, caused record labels to not sign these sorts of bands, and led to years' worth of no coverage of this music in the media. The Ramones are in the HOF because although the masses never embraced them, the elites always did, simple as that. So what? I don't think it had anything to do with the Sex Pistols.

[Dusty Chalk]

No-brainer: The Ramones.