Most influential Punk bands.

Originally posted by The Core
Anti. Pro. Politics were at the root, I thought that was already implied. The Ramones "uniform" was more "slob" cum 50's greaser than anything. When you say punk. I think spiky, colored hair and trashy clothes. Not torn jeans, unkept locks, and leather jackets. I tend to think The Ramones songs were short because you can only write so much nonsense about being bored. Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but it's true. They made "punk" for people who didn't want to commit to the lifestyle. [b]Punk, the term actually coined by Dave Marsh of Creem magazine in '70. You can Wiki that if you don't believe me.

The Ramones were a glorified, grungy version of The Beach Boys.

[/B]

i'm not sure you're understanding the chronology of this. singing songs about being bored is punk. it was the invention of punk, before the pistols made it a stage show and the clash made it political. whether or not you think of spiked hair and trashy clothes as punk, it's not. the reason english punks dressed so outrageously was the new york dolls. the dolls were managed by malcolm mcclaren. the same man who formed the sex pistols like a boy band, and also the owner of a shop called "sex". sex specialised in outrageous, dolls-style wear, influenced by drag and glam. certainly not punk.

and secondly, either you've never heard a beach boys song or you've never heard a ramones song. all they share is a vague, sunny aesthetic. the beach boys are infinitely more advanced.

Originally posted by The Core
Popular opinion is still an opinion, and 1/2 of the people's input is baseless or uneducated. The Ramones being a "punk" band, a good example. They got lucky, sharing NONE of the characteristics of the true punk bands, other than fast guitars and drums.

Not much else I can say other than The Ramones, in theory, were not a punk band. Wether it defies popular opinion or not. It's educated opinion that prevails in the end, not predisposition by what you've been told all your life, or so convinced of.

They were influential. They were a band. Just one of the rock n' roll variety.

i think your input might be on the bad side of that half.

read please kill me. i don't want to recite three hundred odd pages just so you can know how wrong you are.
i'm going to make a sandwich and come back to you, so you have time to go to wikipedia and then pretend like you have authority on the subject.

I know all I want to know about punk. You take popular opinion, and public perception, of punk into consideration, fact of the matter is The Ramones still don't fit it.

Songs about being lazy isn't "punk", because of it is, then Green Day are just as much punk as The Ramones, all because of "Longview". Bands aren't immune to"de-volving" once their predecessors redefine the genre. Especially in a matter of a year or two after Their influence can still be there, loud and clear, but that doesn't mean that in retrospect, when people see what ultimately defines the genre, that they can re-evaluate it.

It's not some music taboo, people do it all the time. Punk is rebellion, not boredom.

all you want to know is clearly not enough to make an informed opinion. i'm not taking popular consideration into my own view, i'm saying that popular opinion happens to be correct on this one.

just trust me. do you admit that i know far, far more about this particular movement than you? all you've said is that they didn't look punk and they sung about being bored.

jesus man, the ramones started the speed, the lo fidelity, AND the three chords three minutes foundation of punk.

Originally posted by manorastroman
singing songs about being bored is punk. it was the invention of punk

"Punk wasn't about going out of your way to establish a dress code, it was the opposite. Dressing how you wanted to dress without a care of being accepted or rejected. Punk wasn't a fad, it was something we used to survive through an era we hated.".

-John Lydon. I think he knows a bit more about punk than you do.

Punk wasn't about being bored, it was about being fed up, there's a very big difference. Some reacted more vehemently than others.

The Sex Pistols reacted in a more comedic, snotty way. Black Flag and Minor Threat, Articles of Faith and D.O.A, these bands went off like a bomb.

The Ramones made lazy punk for people too lazy to get into what real punk was, and what real punk was; Energy and passion. They gave punk rock atrophy, and it took the hardcore and emotive hardcore punk movements to shake it out of sleep, which is why those bands were so violent.

Everyone that punk was meant to be against ended up liking The Ramones. Just like crowd surfing was a way of expression, but to quote Billy Corgan; "When you see crowd surfing in car commercials, you know its time has gone.".

-AC

oh...my...god. the willful ignorance. john lydon's version of punk was extremely image oriented, highlighted by the fact that he mentions dress style as the crux of his statement. john lydon is a f'ing hypocrite, considering he was chosen and dressed up (similar to the members of n sync) by a business oriented manager, one malcolm mcclaren. by his own admission, the sex pistols were manufactured. image, message, everything. how punk is that?

for the love of god, read some of the literature and interviews of the era. please kill me is your friend.

"I know more about punk because I read a book." seems to be your rationale.

John Lydon's statement is still relevant to how things were THEN, not how he is NOW. It also doesn't alter the fact that he's had more to do with punk, and knows more ABOUT what punk was and is than you do. You sit in your chair and read books about it, he was there living it, he was there on an album that defined a genre, an era and subsequently influenced bands and artists across the board. Regardless of how they came to be, their music was great and their one and only album has had more influence than most punk albums of any era. It's held up as a standard, a classic. Over here it shook the establishment as it was meant to do.

"Punk was about being bored.". I say STOP reading books and listen to some damn music, it was nothing to do with being bored, it was about rebellion, not apathy. The Ramones made punk lazy and that's why hardcore happened.

Do some research, don't sit there saying "I know about punk, read the books.". Why are you arguing literature in a debate about such an incendiary MUSIC genre?

-AC

Originally posted by manorastroman

just trust me. do you admit that i know far, far more about this particular movement than you? all you've said is that they didn't look punk and they sung about being bored.

jesus man, the ramones started the speed, the lo fidelity, AND the three chords three minutes foundation of punk.

I admit it, not that it means anything to me, because you keep insinuating you're "more punk" than I am because you read a book. I said before, time signatures don't define a genre or a movement. The Who had more attitude than The Ramones ever could. "My Generation", anyone? "Teenage Wasteland" ring a bell? They created the power chord. They were loud. They were fast. They were violent on stage. They, infact, were punk personified.

I have yet to see one instance where The Ramones, while influential, pioneered anything new for punk rock in general. They popularized the best parts of their favorite bands and made "punk" for, like I said, people that liked the music, but were afraid of what their parents would think, considering true punk kids would tell their parents to **** off.

The Ramones influenced pop-punk, which is truly a worthless genre in my eyes. Pick one or the other. You can't willingly sell a sound thats rooted in anti-establishment, yet make it for the masses and use it to sustain yourself monitarily.

?????

i'm not punk in the least. i despise punk. i think it's bad music for sad people. that doesn't mean i don't know nearly everything about it.

everytime you make a post, you say something truly proving your opinion is groundless. in no way did the ramones make music for kids who were afraid to piss their parents off. that's wrong on so many levels i hardly know how to begin. aside from the fact that the ramones didn't make music for kids, the ramones DID piss parents off. they were boycotted.

as for john lydon, i never said that his statement ought to be relevant now. but it stands that if you knew the first thing about the sex pistols formation or lydon's personal life at the time, you would realize that his statements on punk aren't exactly authoritative. though i'm sure he knows more about punk than me, he certainly doesn't know more about punk than any of the hundreds of others who were "there".

back to the chronology aspect, the ramones didn't make punk lazy. how could they? they predated the sex pistols, and just about every other "punk" band as well. they didn't "make" punk anything, except perhaps exist. and i'm not sure why the core keeps mentioning monitary value. the ramones were not a rich band. during their first three years, dee dee was hustling his cock because they had no money.

why is this the only topic on which ignorance is somehow a virtue? it's clear you two know very little about the era, and equally clear that it's somewhat important to each of you. so why not learn more about it? is reading not punk enough?

i didn't just read one book. i read many. as well as many interviews. and don't even start to pretend that i haven't listened to the music. i've forgotten more punk albums than you will ever own.

back to the main topic of the thread: the ramones are FACTUALLY one of the mosti influential punk bands. even if for no other reason than this: they are responsible for the beginning of english punk.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i'm not punk in the least. i despise punk. i think it's bad music for sad people. that doesn't mean i don't know nearly everything about it.

Sad, funnily enough.

Originally posted by manorastroman
everytime you make a post, you say something truly proving your opinion is groundless. in no way did the ramones make music for kids who were afraid to piss their parents off. that's wrong on so many levels i hardly know how to begin. aside from the fact that the ramones didn't make music for kids, the ramones DID piss parents off. they were boycotted.

You're not exactly proving...well...anything. You don't appear to know anything more than anyone who has read a book about punk.

The fact that they pissed PARENTS off suggests they were making music that kids loved.

Originally posted by manorastroman
as for john lydon, i never said that his statement ought to be relevant now. but it stands that if you knew the first thing about the sex pistols formation or lydon's personal life at the time, you would realize that his statements on punk aren't exactly authoritative. though i'm sure he knows more about punk than me, he certainly doesn't know more about punk than any of the hundreds of others who were "there".

They were there because of him and the bands that made it happen.

The Sex Pistols formation and John's personal life don't change the fact that they pioneered what came to be known as punk rock. That's a fact.

Originally posted by manorastroman
back to the chronology aspect, the ramones didn't make punk lazy. how could they? they predated the sex pistols, and just about every other "punk" band as well. they didn't "make" punk anything, except perhaps exist. and i'm not sure why the core keeps mentioning monitary value. the ramones were not a rich band. during their first three years, dee dee was hustling his cock because they had no money.

Predated? Yes, by a year, BARELY. They formed in 74, The Sex Pistols in 75, their self-titled album came out in 76, Never Mind... came out in 77. It was barely enough to call it true "pre-dating".

They didn't make punk lazy by coming after someone, they made punk lazy in comparison to The Sex Pistols, who were making music that sounded more like what original punk is known for. Punk was about rebellion, not boredom.

Originally posted by manorastroman
why is this the only topic on which ignorance is somehow a virtue? it's clear you two know very little about the era, and equally clear that it's somewhat important to each of you. so why not learn more about it? is reading not punk enough?

I don't care about being, looking or acting punk, the fact that you don't know how to construct a valid point is what's bothering me.

All you can say is "You know little.", despite the fact that I've raised many points you haven't even touched, and so has Cine.

It's not "important" to me, but I know music history, and you're interpreting it in a biased way.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i didn't just read one book. i read many. as well as many interviews. and don't even start to pretend that i haven't listened to the music. i've forgotten more punk albums than you will ever own.

Again with the fact claiming. "I've forgotten more punk albums..." when did you look at my CD collection? Idiot. Stop trying to make it seem like you're so much more knowledgeable on punk rock by saying it, start proving it and maybe you'll be believed. I'm not out here saying I know more about punk specifically than anyone, nor is Cine, but we've proven we know enough to prove you wrong.

Originally posted by manorastroman
back to the main topic of the thread: the ramones are FACTUALLY one of the mosti influential punk bands. even if for no other reason than this: they are responsible for the beginning of english punk.

So...if The Sex Pistols are manufactured...and The Ramones are responsible for that...2+2.

They are not responsible for English punk. The English punk scene, specifically London, was already growing more than rapidly and The Ramones' most notable contribution as a gig they played at The Roundhouse. They didn't start it nor are they responsible for it.

-AC

do you want a comparison, then? let's each list the punk albums we own, and then the books, interviews, etc. of the era we've read. my statement was a reaction to yours, namely: "start listening to the music."

you've brought up points i haven't touched? like what?

boredom (more accurately, dissatisfaction) leads to rebellion.

side notes: i wasn't proving the core's groundless opinion, his own blaise firing of plainly inaccurate statements did that. also, punk as you define it was a distinctly teenaged movement, so if in fact the ramones made music for kids...

Without The Stooges we wouldn't have had The Sex Pistols. Simple as that.

now that i've had a bit to think about it, you're using popular opinion, AC. essentially, you're saying that more people looked up to the sex pistols as punkers, and more people associate them with punk. that's goofy. philosophically, musically, and stylistically they were nothing new. richard hell had the philosophy and the style YEARS before the pistols. so because a thousand snot nosed english kids didn't look up to richard hell, he can't be considered influential punk? hypocrite.

the only special knowledge you have displayed is referencing the roundhouse. the core has done nothing but spout utter nonsense and reference fashion sense. neither of you have proven you know ANYTHING but how to be untraditional.

The Sex Pistols were ****ing shit. PiL is the nigga's choice Lydonband/

NOFX DUDE LOL

Originally posted by manorastroman
now that i've had a bit to think about it, you're using popular opinion, AC. essentially, you're saying that more people looked up to the sex pistols as punkers, and more people associate them with punk. that's goofy. philosophically, musically, and stylistically they were nothing new. richard hell had the philosophy and the style YEARS before the pistols. so because a thousand snot nosed english kids didn't look up to richard hell, he can't be considered influential punk? hypocrite.

the only special knowledge you have displayed is referencing the roundhouse. the core has done nothing but spout utter nonsense and reference fashion sense. neither of you have proven you know ANYTHING but how to be untraditional.

oh come on, this isn't a "who came first" argument, its a dicussion of the most influential punk bands, and whether you like it or not and dispite how many albums you've heard, books you've read or interveiws you've seen, the Sex Pistols were one of the most influential punk bands ever. It dosn't matter who came first, the Sex Pistols or Ramones, after Never Mind The Bollocks exposed the youth of England we got some of the best and brightest bands that went on to influence another generation.

This isn't some knowledge pissing contest. And i'm curious, if you hate punk so much, why have you "forgotten more punk albums than i'll ever own" and read what sounds like a library of books about it?

[Edit.]

Originally posted by manorastroman
do you want a comparison, then? let's each list the punk albums we own, and then the books, interviews, etc. of the era we've read. my statement was a reaction to yours, namely: "start listening to the music."

Oh please, don't be so juvenile as to start a "I'm more punk than you!" debate. Ok, champ, you're a real punk! Go you! Happy? I never claimed to be anything like that. I know my shit, and that's all I need to know to debate with you.

You can reference all the books you like, but you still haven't proven me, or Cine, wrong. You've just proven that you love The Ramones.

Originally posted by manorastroman
now that i've had a bit to think about it, you're using popular opinion, AC. essentially, you're saying that more people looked up to the sex pistols as punkers, and more people associate them with punk. that's goofy. philosophically, musically, and stylistically they were nothing new. richard hell had the philosophy and the style YEARS before the pistols. so because a thousand snot nosed english kids didn't look up to richard hell, he can't be considered influential punk? hypocrite.

the only special knowledge you have displayed is referencing the roundhouse. the core has done nothing but spout utter nonsense and reference fashion sense. neither of you have proven you know ANYTHING but how to be untraditional.

Who said Richard Hell wasn't influencial? Not me.

I don't care about Cine, his debate with you is his own. I'm a music fan, I don't see the point in dedicating one's self to any one genre inherently. There are punk bands I love, but there are punk bands I can't stand, so it's pointless for me to say I'm an out and out punk fan.

The point, as Tabby said, isn't about who came first, it's about influence. Like it or not, The Sex Pistols changed music, they influenced many people and were viewed by many credible bands, artists and critics as pioneers of punk rock, their album became a standard.

Wait...I'M using popular opinion? Maybe when you're not tonguing The Ramones, we can discuss that.

-AC

you effectively dodged and misunderstood everything i said. first of all, i'm not punk at all, as stated above. it was a large part of my life years ago, but thats about it. this is in no way a punk pissing contest. second of all, i only brought up the "forgotten more punk bands" thing because you insinuated that i hadn't "listened to the music".

i will agree that the sex pistols are a very influential punk band. they made my list, if you recall. but i take issue with your dismissal of the ramones. i don't tongue them. i haven't even listened to them in years. but the fact remains that the ramones are easily as influential as the pistols, something you inexplicably deny.

Originally posted by manorastroman
you effectively dodged and misunderstood everything i said. first of all, i'm not punk at all, as stated above. it was a large part of my life years ago, but thats about it. this is in no way a punk pissing contest. second of all, i only brought up the "forgotten more punk bands" thing because you insinuated that i hadn't "listened to the music".

I insinuated that because you miss the point. If you think punk was about boredom, all's for nought with regards to your research.

Originally posted by manorastroman
i will agree that the sex pistols are a very influential punk band. they made my list, if you recall. but i take issue with your dismissal of the ramones. i don't tongue them. i haven't even listened to them in years. but the fact remains that the ramones are easily as influential as the pistols, something you inexplicably deny.

I'm not denying that they're as influential. I'm against the continual overrating of them. For me, that's as far as it goes.

They were influential, but that doesn't necessarily mean in a good way.

-AC

well i liked to chip in with THE FALL and ADAM AND THE ANTZ first lp DIRK WEARS WHITE SOX being very influential

i agree that PIL were the better band over the Pistols an all

what the **** is an Akon pic doing in a Punk thread
Rn B and Hip Hop is why we need something like 76 to come along and shake things up
im tired of seeing kids listening to the same old shit accepting it