I do. I do. Check out the new film End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones

What is your opinion of the band?

For
Against
Indifferent

and he proceeded to follow me around for three fucking hours, but like a block or two away!! At first i thought it was cool, but then i started to get scared, i thought he was gonna mug me and steal my jacket and sell it for drugs!

the guy goes, "i could never get into the ramones, their songs are too short."

800oldfunk said:

That's hilarious. Maybe he wanted you for a trick. I love the part in End of the Century when he's receiving induction at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and he says, "I want to thank myself. I want to thank Dee Dee Ramone. I want to pat myself on the back. I love you Dee Dee."

[color=darkblue]Anybody remotely interested in punk rock needs to listen to the Ramones. They stripped rock down to its 3 chord, 3 minutes (many times shorter), bass/drums/guitar essence.

Supernova said:

You'll probably shoot me for this ,but I dont understand why this is a good thing.But Ive also never been remotely interested in punk rock. I dont understand it's appeal.It seems to me like a fad that caught on very suddenly and died just as quickly due to an obvious lack of talent by (mostly) all involved( not necessarily the Ramones ) who were angry at how bloated the "Rock" industry had become.Despite what critics said at the time, it didn't really change anything for the better, did it? If anything ,such a reactionary movement would be more appropriate today, than in the late 70s.

Supernova said:

You'll probably shoot me for this ,but I dont understand why this is a good thing.But Ive also never been remotely interested in punk rock. I dont understand it's appeal.It seems to me like a fad that caught on very suddenly and died just as quickly due to an obvious lack of talent by (mostly) all involved( not necessarily the Ramones ) who were angry at how bloated the "Rock" industry had become.Despite what critics said at the time, it didn't really change anything for the better, did it? If anything ,such a reactionary movement would be more appropriate today, than in the late 70s.

Also, as I understand it, one might want to make a distinction between Ramones punk rock and Sex Pistols punk rock.

MrTation said:

No shooting. I don't listen to tons of punk myself, but there is that percentage of it that to me has the appeal of running around naked in the house and screaming the lyrics.

To me stripping it down to its bare essentials of bass guitar and drums isn't the appeal in and of itself. If you remember, in rock music's early history it was a pretty much basic style of music, and a 3 minute single dominated business, until the more artistic album free of (as much) filler became the standard in the late '60s. Rock isn't a genre that started out as being guitar based, but once it became guitar based 3 chords for a 3 minute song was the common calling card.

To make rock music like this at that time was the norm, but by it becoming the standard it eventually fell out of favor. Any rock musicians can make short rock songs, but to make it short, and make it compelling is something else altogether. And granted, whether it's compelling or not is in the ear of the behearer.

When the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones, et. al. started creating their "statement" work, rock music started to become more elaborate, the arrangements more complex, the production became more glossy, it was shedding its garage band appeal, and that's eventually what dominated FM radio. Concept albums became the norm, groups like Pink Floyd, Rush, Led Zeppelin, the Stones, Boston, the Disco genre, progressive rock in general - these things were in part what Punk was rebelling against.

The punks called any groups who (they deemed) were complacent and had a history of selling out arenas and stadiums "Dinosaurs." In short, any established group who was extremely successful. They were the corporate fat cats. It was as much a backlash against the state of the music industry and its values as it was against any recording artists.

I think that breeds a much needed shot in the arm at times. I don't think it's a bad thing to light a fire under some asses when the zeitgeist loses sight of what Rock music is about: not your parents' music, it was geared toward the common geek, outcasts who discovered music that spoke for them.

If rock's early days were about throwing a brick thru the window of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson's house, then punk rock was about aiming a wrecking ball at the house of corporate rock, at The Man, at stagnation.

When you say it caught on suddenly and died quickly, you're right. Punk is a limited genre to begin with. You don't need to be proficient on your instrument (but that's really not the point of it) and a lot of punk groups can't play worth crap. If you try to expand you'll be acccused of selling out and becoming what you once rebelled against. Which is what happened when The Clash released London Calling, which is also probably why they're my favorite, they were talented enough and smart enough not to let the limits of punk become self-defeating.

As far as it changing anything, not if you're talking about the movement becoming the norm, no. Tho, the work is there for eternity, and its influence is still heard in many subsequent artists. But as I said, to me when it became a movement in the late '70s it shook people up, while at the same time giving voice to anger and social alienation.

Ps, ironically (and at least in the States), it was "corporate rock" fans and dj's who were burning Disco records. I don't remember Punks taking it that far. [/color]

MrTation said:

I'm sitting here in my Sex Pistols T-shirt. I'll pretend I did not just read that.

MrTation said:

No shooting. I don't listen to tons of punk myself, but there is that percentage of it that to me has the appeal of running around naked in the house and screaming the lyrics.

To me stripping it down to its bare essentials of bass guitar and drums isn't the appeal in and of itself. If you remember, in rock music's early history it was a pretty much basic style of music, and a 3 minute single dominated business, until the more artistic album free of (as much) filler became the standard in the late '60s. Rock isn't a genre that started out as being guitar based, but once it became guitar based 3 chords for a 3 minute song was the common calling card.

To make rock music like this at that time was the norm, but by it becoming the standard it eventually fell out of favor. Any rock musicians can make short rock songs, but to make it short, and make it compelling is something else altogether. And granted, whether it's compelling or not is in the ear of the behearer.

When the Beatles, Dylan, the Stones, et. al. started creating their "statement" work, rock music started to become more elaborate, the arrangements more complex, the production became more glossy, it was shedding its garage band appeal, and that's eventually what dominated FM radio. Concept albums became the norm, groups like Pink Floyd, Rush, Led Zeppelin, the Stones, Boston, the Disco genre, progressive rock in general - these things were in part what Punk was rebelling against.

The punks called any groups who (they deemed) were complacent and had a history of selling out arenas and stadiums "Dinosaurs." In short, any established group who was extremely successful. They were the corporate fat cats. It was as much a backlash against the state of the music industry and its values as it was against any recording artists.

I think that breeds a much needed shot in the arm at times. I don't think it's a bad thing to light a fire under some asses when the zeitgeist loses sight of what Rock music is about: not your parents' music, it was geared toward the common geek, outcasts who discovered music that spoke for them.

If rock's early days were about throwing a brick thru the window of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson's house, then punk rock was about aiming a wrecking ball at the house of corporate rock, at The Man, at stagnation.

When you say it caught on suddenly and died quickly, you're right. Punk is a limited genre to begin with. You don't need to be proficient on your instrument (but that's really not the point of it) and a lot of punk groups can't play worth crap. If you try to expand you'll be acccused of selling out and becoming what you once rebelled against. Which is what happened when The Clash released London Calling, which is also probably why they're my favorite, they were talented enough and smart enough not to let the limits of punk become self-defeating.

As far as it changing anything, not if you're talking about the movement becoming the norm, no. Tho, the work is there for eternity, and its influence is still heard in many subsequent artists. But as I said, to me when it became a movement in the late '70s it shook people up, while at the same time giving voice to anger and social alienation.

Ps, ironically (and at least in the States), it was "corporate rock" fans and dj's who were burning Disco records. I don't remember Punks taking it that far. [/color]

mmm! i just read supernova's big ol' response above (niiiiice ) and it was right on. people have totally just passed off punk as just the whole safety pins n'gobbing-type thing, but it ain't so. this summer i've been reading a couple books about the entire punk rock movement here in the u.s., and if you don't know a whole lot about how it all was then you may wanna run to the nearest library or bookstore and have a peep at these:

we got the neutron bomb: the untold story of l.a. punk by marc spitz & brendan mullen (i just finished this one a couple days ago and i learned a lot from it)

please kill me: the uncensored oral history of punk by legs mcneil & gillian mccain (just started readin this one...so far, so good)


...both of these books have tons of testimonials from people who were there when the whole shebang started and how it all used to be before the mainstream caught on to it and watered it down. get a hold of these two books if you haven't already, ya'll.



btw, i just came across a copy of rock n'roll high school on dvd today...just started watchin a bit of it a few minutes ago and i think it's fuckin awesome. that, and i found out the other day that the ramones documentary is gonna be showin here in mpls on the 17th, so i'll definitely be headin over to see it. can't wait!

Great explanation Supernova.

Like MrTation, I didn't get it either.

"...there is that percentage of it that to me has the appeal of running around naked..."

Is that available for purchase anywhere?

Supernova said:

Well, for me in a nutshell, (God I can't believe I even just used that term. I hate it) Anyway, I am a huge old school punk music fan and I'm also a huge fan of classic (arena rock) as well. I got into both at the same time in my life, (all the while being ridiculed by fans from both camps ) yet somehow I've been able to embrace both genres, even to this day. They can both move me, yet in completely different ways of course.

You're yankin my chain.

"...there is that percentage of it that to me has the appeal of running around naked..."

Is that available for purchase anywhere?

Nahh. I keep my exhibitionism confined under my own roof.

No, seriously.
I understood the political end of it. Raging against the machine and all.
For a long time I just couldn't get behind the lack of musicianship in a great deal of it.

tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...rmusic.htm