Fringey's taut-abbed painter

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What have the Brits brought us other than the Beatles and Stones?

The Sex Pistols, the Jam, the Clash and Gang of Four; but I agree with the rest of what you said.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by spookyfish
I got 7 also. I would not consider this a badge of honor, considering I somehow missed the fact that Dee Dee Ramone died. Of course, I missed a lot of things that happened during my lost years. So there you go.

Now THAT was an overrated band. In their handful of records containing maybe 150 odd songs, they still never grabbed you by the balls the way the Pistols did in their 12 song history. And they never even got near the Clash. And as to the genius of being a simple three chord band, if that confers genius status, then why not place AC/DC up there as critics' darlings. They punched out perfect three chord three minute classics years before the Ramones did. I guess the Ramones get a load of cred because Phil Spector liked them. Phil liked a lot of things. He liked shooting blonde cokeheads, and he hasn't made a hit single since the 60s. Just because you were peripherally connected to a once famous now infamous producer does not make you a genius. Prince is considered a genius. He produced Sheila E. Anyone got a copy of Sheila E's greatest hits? I guess Dee Dee deserves a lot of credit for playing a stripped down version of guitar. So does MC5, the Stooges and Neil Young. Neil played the one note solo on Cowgirl in the Sand nearly a decade before the Ramones.

The Ramones will always exist in the shadow of London Calling and Never Mind the Bollocks, which is where they belong. They were good, but not nearly as good as the critics claim. They're a prime example of critics championing something mediocre just because its underground. Its a way for critics to protect their jobs by seeming cutting edge.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now THAT was an overrated band. In their handful of records contasing maybe 150 odd songs, they still never grabbed you by the balls the way the Pistols did in their 12 song history. And they never even got near the Clash. And as to the genius of being a simple three chord band, if that confers genius status, then why not place AC/DC up there as critics' darlings. They punched out perfect three chord three minute classics years before the Ramones did. I guess the Ramones get a load of cred because Phil Spector liked them. Phil liked a lot of things. He liked shooting blonde cokeheads, and he hasn't made a hit single since the 60s. Just because you were peripherally connected to a once famous now infamous producer does not make you a genius. Prince is considered a genius. He produced Sheila E. Anyone got a copy of Sheila E's greatest hits? I guess Dee Dee deserves a lot of credit for playing a stripped down version of guitar. So does MC5, the Stooges and Neil Young. Neil played the one note solo on Cowgirl in the Sand nearly a decade before the Ramones.

The Ramones will always exist in the shadow of London Calling and Never Mind the Bollocks, which is where they belong. They were good, but not nearly as good as the critics claim. They're a prime example of critics championing something mediocre just because its underground. Its a way for critics to protect their jobs by seeming cutting edge.

The best thing about the Ramones was they were just fun. All the early punker bands were sooo serious (the Clash's early slogan- "the Only Band That Matters"). The Clash were singing about racial politics and London burning with boredom, meanwhile the Ramones were singing about shock treatment, lobotomies and glue sniffing. You didn't have to think so much with the Ramones, which was often a positive.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now THAT was an overrated band. In their handful of records containing maybe 150 odd songs, they still never grabbed you by the balls the way the Pistols did in their 12 song history. And they never even got near the Clash. And as to the genius of being a simple three chord band, if that confers genius status, then why not place AC/DC up there as critics' darlings. They punched out perfect three chord three minute classics years before the Ramones did. I guess the Ramones get a load of cred because Phil Spector liked them. Phil liked a lot of things. He liked shooting blonde cokeheads, and he hasn't made a hit single since the 60s. Just because you were peripherally connected to a once famous now infamous producer does not make you a genius. Prince is considered a genius. He produced Sheila E. Anyone got a copy of Sheila E's greatest hits? I guess Dee Dee deserves a lot of credit for playing a stripped down version of guitar. So does MC5, the Stooges and Neil Young. Neil played the one note solo on Cowgirl in the Sand nearly a decade before the Ramones.

The Ramones will always exist in the shadow of London Calling and Never Mind the Bollocks, which is where they belong. They were good, but not nearly as good as the critics claim. They're a prime example of critics championing something mediocre just because its underground. Its a way for critics to protect their jobs by seeming cutting edge.

You fail to understand one thing about the Ramones that makes them important. The Pistols and the Clash would not have existed without them. Johnny Rotten has said as much.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
This is a link to the short version of a Ghetto IQ test. Ghetto individuals average 8 correct items. College students average 2 correct items. According to ghetto norms, a person who does not get at least 5 items correct is mentally retarded.

I got 8 answers correct.

I got 6, but I didn't read past the first response on one of them, and the answer was all of the above, so maybe I could have gotten 7, but still just barely out of the "mentally retarded" zone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by spookyfish
You fail to understand one thing about the Ramones that makes them important. The Pistols and the Clash would not have existed without them. Johnny Rotten has said as much.

Why is it that being a pioneer is so often confused with being among the best in one's chosen endeavor? Just like your first high school sex, the first is usually not the best. Things tend to get better as you build upon the model.

I didn't say the Ramones were not important or innovative. I said they weren't as talented or as good as the critics claim. It is noteworthy that the Ramones were pioneers, but that fact neither refutes nor addresses my point. They just couldn't hold a candle to the Clash or the Pistols.

I fully recognize that its popular to overstate the Ramones influence at the moment while downplaying the Pistols'. I don't know why that's become religion among the critics lately, but my guess is it has to do with speaking positively of the dead, and the fact that Johnny Rotten routinely calls critics asses and claims to have always wanted to "sell out" anyway. I guess that makes the crityics a bit angry, since it makes them look foolish for all those articles lauding the Pistols as revolutionaries.

Critics are asses. I'm not being a critic here. I just don't like the Ramones and offered some facts about why I don't like them and they're not as good as some of their contemporaries.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The best thing about the Ramones was they were just fun. All the early punker bands were sooo serious (the Clash's early slogan- "the Only Band That Matters"). The Clash were singing about racial politics and London burning with boredom, meanwhile the Ramones were singing about shock treatment, lobotomies and glue sniffing. You didn't have to think so much with the Ramones, which was often a positive.

While I'm ripping one area of culture, I might as well rip two. Comic books blow. Yes, they suck. I never got the fascination with reading the damn things. Part of the comic book culture seems to be these folks who love campy old horror flicks. They suck as well. Sorry, I just don't think there's anything entertaining about a b grade flick about zombies, lobotomies, etc... The only thing I can think of worse than that dark corner of culture would be singing about it. Thats why I always disliked the Misfits.

And I don't care for huffing either. My folks had a liquor cabinet. Why on earth would I sniff glue or gas or paint fumes or industrial solvents? I enjoyed a nitrous hit as much as the next guy, but glue? Why? Do these people not know a single soul with a fake ID? I watched a kid pass out from glue in a hot tub once, at a party with several kegs. I think that did it for me. Just didn't look like something I'd dig. Perhaps thats why I don't like the Ramones. And it might explain a lot about your posts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
While I'm ripping one area of culture, I might as well rip two. Comic books blow. Yes, they suck. I never got the fascination with reading the damn things. Part of the comic book culture seems to be these folks who love campy old horror flicks. They suck as well. Sorry, I just don't think there's anything entertaining about a b grade flick about zombies, lobotomies, etc... The only thing I can think of worse than that dark corner of culture would be singing about it. Thats why I always disliked the Misfits.

And I don't care for huffing either. My folks had a liquor cabinet. Why on earth would I sniff glue or gas or paint fumes or industrial solvents? I enjoyed a nitrous hit as much as the next guy, but glue? Why? Do these people not know a single soul with a fake ID? I watched a kid pass out from glue in a hot tub once, at a party with several kegs. I think that did it for me. Just didn't look like something I'd dig. Perhaps thats why I don't like the Ramones. And it might explain a lot about your posts.

The Ramones music wasn't really something people who sniffed glue would write or like. I sniffed gas a few times but never glue. It isn't a good "high", and I really wouldn't have liked fast music on it.

But I don't understand why you wouldn't like the Ramones - they didn't use horns, and they weren't English.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is it that being a pioneer is so often confused with being among the best in one's chosen endeavor? Just like your first high school sex, the first is usually not the best. Things tend to get better as you build upon the model.

I didn't say the Ramones were not important or innovative. I said they weren't as talented or as good as the critics claim. It is noteworthy that the Ramones were pioneers, but that fact neither refutes nor addresses my point. They just couldn't hold a candle to the Clash or the Pistols.

I fully recognize that its popular to overstate the Ramones influence at the moment while downplaying the Pistols'. I don't know why that's become religion among the critics lately, but my guess is it has to do with speaking positively of the dead, and the fact that Johnny Rotten routinely calls critics asses and claims to have always wanted to "sell out" anyway. I guess that makes the crityics a bit angry, since it makes them look foolish for all those articles lauding the Pistols as revolutionaries.

Critics are asses. I'm not being a critic here. I just don't like the Ramones and offered some facts about why I don't like them and they're not as good as some of their contemporaries.

I wasn't confusing the issue, but when you frame the argument this way, you might as well argue about which ice cream is better, chocolate or vanilla, because you are simply arguing matters of taste.

I offered one reason why the band means something. They basically created a fucking idiom. Someone needed to build the model before it could be "improved" upon.

And maybe you need to define "talented" and "good" then, because none of the bands that you mentioned are going to ever be considered models of musicianship. You want to get into a discussion over the relative merits of Joey Ramone, Johnny Rotten and Strummer and/or Jones as singers? Or maybe your complaint is about "message," if that's important to you. One band was better at conveying the alienation of young people than the others? You're nuts.

I was neither overstating the importance of the Ramones or downplaying the importance of the Pistols. Each was important in their own way.

This is your argument. You don't like them and offered your opinion as to why you don't. Anybody who disagrees with you must be wrong. Chocolate/Vanilla.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by spookyfish
This is your argument...Chocolate/Vanilla.

I think the majority of us mainly agree that he's mostly correct on this one.



Deeelicious.

TM

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Ramones music wasn't really something people who sniffed glue would write or like. I sniffed gas a few times but never glue. It isn't a good "high", and I really wouldn't have liked fast music on it.

But I don't understand why you wouldn't like the Ramones - they didn't use horns, and they weren't English.

Carbona not glue.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think the majority of us mainly agree that he's mostly correct on this one.



Deeelicious.

TM

Who knew such a miracle was possible?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by spookyfish
You want to get into a discussion over the relative merits of Joey Ramone, Johnny Rotten and Strummer and/or Jones as singers?

I'ts all relative. Remember 1 post before he started praising the Pistols and the Clash he said the last English band that meant ANYTHING was the Rolling Stones. So he wasn't saying the Ramones are way below the SP and Clash. In fact he feels they are all quite valueless, it's just the Ramones are a slight bit lower. I understand what he means.

He claims my posts are glue driven, 2 posts after copping my list of important bands. I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but sometimes he overstates things.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Carbona not glue.

Who knew such a miracle was possible?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think the majority of us mainly agree that he's mostly correct on this one.



Deeelicious.

TM

The thing about eating the Black and White ice cream cone, Thurgreed, is you want to get some black and some white in each bite. Nothing mixes better than vanilla and chocolate and yet somehow racial harmony eludes us. If people would only look to the ice cream cone all our problems would be solved.