Badmovies.org Forum

Other Topics => Entertainment => Topic started by: RCMerchant on March 31, 2009, 07:40:01 PM



Title: the RAMONES
Post by: RCMerchant on March 31, 2009, 07:40:01 PM
The Ramones! HEY HO-LETS GO!

The Ramones are the only band that trancends all genres.
I can be really bummed out,and I listen to the Ramones,I'm as happy as a dog rolling in his own sh!t!
 This thread is for Ramones Memories!

ROCK AND ROLL HIGH SCHOOL is the best musical ever made. Better than the WIZARXD OF OZ and YELLOW SUBMARINE.

GABBA GABBA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL1OA2oIgtU


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: zombie no.one on March 31, 2009, 07:55:12 PM
Im a bit of a Ramones newb, only albums Ive heard are Rocket to Russia, Brain Drain, and Mondo Bizzaro.

but they are good yeah, thumbs up from me. ( :thumbup:)


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on March 31, 2009, 08:17:12 PM
Pinhead- The Ramones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBfybCPkjA

Quite possibly, the Ramones are at the top of my 'all time' favorite list as far as music goes. 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: the ghoul on March 31, 2009, 09:52:19 PM
Truly one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time and arguably the first real punk band.  I remember how so many people thought (and probably still do) that punk started in England, when in actuality bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash were inspired to play punk rock by seeing the Ramones during their first tour of Britain.  I'm lucky enough to have seen them play live a few times.  I'll never forget the first time.  They played for about an hour and a half non-stop, only pausing between songs long enough to shout 1-2-3-4 into the microphone.  As good as most of their studio recordings were, I remember thinking that they were one of the few bands that actually sounded better to me live.  In the early 80's they came out with three albums in a row that were real clunkers (relatively speaking) and I was all but ready to write them off, then they came roaring back with "Too Tough to Die" and I was blown away all over again.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on March 31, 2009, 10:33:54 PM
THE RAMONES are probably the third most important act in the ROCK era; take your pick for #1 and #2.  THE RAMONES are not the first Rock band to do what they did, but they were the first to toil in relative obscurity yet with enormous influence, adhering to faith for three brilliantly productive years, and through the rest of their career, redirecting Rock and Pop music forever, though they themselves made nary a nickel. 

This track is off of their End Of The Century album, the one that PHIL SPECTOR produced; a real mixed bag, not the breakthrough they'd hoped for, but certainly one of their best remembered, and I think their best-selling album:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s16hSlULxZI
THE RAMONES do look kind of silly lipsynching and thwacking their guitars, when what you hear is JOEY's overdubbed vocal, and the Farfisa organ and brass you don't see...  :lookingup: :tongueout:
SPECTOR supposedly pulled a gun on DeeDee during recording sessions (PHIL's been known to do that). 
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff259/allhallowsday/RAMONESendofthecentury.jpg)


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Sister Grace on April 01, 2009, 07:34:22 AM
I've been a Ramones fan since gradeschool. My favorite song is We're a Happy Family. I listen to it everytime I have to attend some sort of family dinner or reunion; it makes me feel a little better about my own family... :thumbup:


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: asimpson2006 on April 01, 2009, 08:01:05 AM
I am a fan of the Ramones myself, but only for a few years now.  I used to get mocked all the time at my job for liking them, which I didn't care if my co-workers made comments about me like the Ramones, I didn't like some of the music my co workers listened to but I didn't make any comments about that to them.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on April 01, 2009, 08:41:52 AM
THE RAMONES are probably the third most important act in the ROCK era; take your pick for #1 and #2.  THE RAMONES are not the first Rock band to do what they did, but they were the first to toil in relative obscurity yet with enormous influence, adhering to faith for three brilliantly productive years, and through the rest of their career, redirecting Rock and Pop music forever, though they themselves made nary a nickel. 

This track is off of their End Of The Century album, the one that PHIL SPECTOR produced; a real mixed bag, not the breakthrough they'd hoped for, but certainly one of their best remembered, and I think their best-selling album:

 
([url]http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff259/allhallowsday/RAMONESendofthecentury.jpg[/url])

Sadly, Spector didn't really "enhance" their talent on that record, save for a few songs.  But, like you said, it apparently is their best selling album, so I guess he helped in some capacity. 

Sadly, I never did get to see them live.  They stopped touring in '96 (I was twelve then), and now it's not gonna happen, with a bunch of them being deceased and all.  They were one of the few bands/acts I'd have paid money to see, and I don't say that about anyone.  Did they have some clunkers? Yes.  But so does almost every other musical act. 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: WilliamWeird1313 on April 01, 2009, 09:41:16 AM


I actually really liked the Spector album. It has more of that bubblegum rock, 50's/60's greaser/surf vibe than most of the other albums, and I dig that a lot.

I can't tell ya how sad I was when Joey passed.

Speaking of The Ramones, by the way, anyone see End Of The Century, a documentary about The Ramones (it airs on IFC a lot). Pretty good doc.

On a related note, I just picked up Rock N' Roll High School Forever on DVD for a song the other day. Now, I knew it didn't have any Ramones-y goodness, and I know it starred Corey Feldman and it was supposed to suck, but ho... lee... kuh... rap... I did NOT expect what I actually ended up seeing. Best parts are when Corey Feldman, though he's supposed to be a "rocker" guy, keeps imitating Michael Jackson's dance moves (badly) because, well, he's Corey Feldman. Ugh.



Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: zombie no.one on April 01, 2009, 10:03:40 AM
many people thought (and probably still do) that punk started in England, when in actuality bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash were inspired to play punk rock by seeing the Ramones during their first tour of Britain. 

no doubt they were an original influence on punk, but I've read in a few places Malcolm McClaren saying he formed the Sex Pistols as a direct result of seeing New York Dolls...


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Psycho Circus on April 01, 2009, 10:07:18 AM
I always thought the proto punk movement started with bands like Television, The Dictators and The Stooges?


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: the ghoul on April 02, 2009, 08:21:41 AM
I always thought the proto punk movement started with bands like Television, The Dictators and The Stooges?

"Proto-punk" may be a good way to describe those bands.  They had an influence on The Ramones for sure.  There will always be many different opinions regarding when "proto-punk" as you call it actually evolved into punk.  Some people trace it back all the way to the 60's.  I've even seen the term "50's punk" used a couple of times in reference to some of the lesser known 1950's rockabilly bands!   


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 02, 2009, 08:29:02 AM
I always thought the proto punk movement started with bands like Television, The Dictators and The Stooges?

"Proto-punk" may be a good way to describe those bands.  They had an influence on The Ramones for sure.  There will always be many different opinions regarding when "proto-punk" as you call it actually evolved into punk.  Some people trace it back all the way to the 60's.  I've even seen the term "50's punk" used a couple of times in reference to some of the lesser known 1950's rockabilly bands!   
I don't know that I'd lump TELEVISION in with THE STOOGES or THE DICTATORS.  "Proto-Punk" is a post facto term, and MC5 would need to be included with any first or second "Proto-Punks". 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: WilliamWeird1313 on April 02, 2009, 08:31:34 AM
many people thought (and probably still do) that punk started in England, when in actuality bands like the Sex Pistols and The Clash were inspired to play punk rock by seeing the Ramones during their first tour of Britain. 

no doubt they were an original influence on punk, but I've read in a few places Malcolm McClaren saying he formed the Sex Pistols as a direct result of seeing New York Dolls...

Malcom McClaren's story changes every time he opens his mouth. I've heard him say that he started the Sex Pistols because of the Dolls, Ramones, Richard Hell.

Personally, as for the whole "who started punk?" debate, I've always taken my cue from Steve-O, from SLC Punk, when he says "Who cares who started it? It's music."

As much as I love "punk," I also gotta say that too often, too many people spend too much time debating just what is, technically, punk, as well as what isn't. Less focus should be placed on labeling this stuff, and more focus should be placed on just... enjoying it.

That's my philosophy, at least.



Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: the ghoul on April 02, 2009, 08:34:48 AM
I don't know that I'd lump TELEVISION in with THE STOOGES or THE DICTATORS.

You're definitely right about that!


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: voltron on April 02, 2009, 05:53:42 PM
Who could forget Motorhead paying tribute to The Ramones in song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyKlvVPpxo8


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on April 02, 2009, 07:50:41 PM



Personally, as for the whole "who started punk?" debate, I've always taken my cue from Steve-O, from SLC Punk, when he says "Who cares who started it? It's music."


I was gonna post the same thing.  Great movie, by the way.

I don't know that I'd lump TELEVISION in with THE STOOGES or THE DICTATORS.  "Proto-Punk" is post facto term, and MC5 would need to be included with any first or second "Proto-Punks". 
[/quote]
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 02, 2009, 08:42:34 PM
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.
? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on April 03, 2009, 08:45:27 AM

? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 
[/quote]
I'd agree with that, mostly.  I've heard people generalize them into the proto punk movement, so to speak.  And I definitely agree with not every punk band being 'garage-like'.  I hate that term and when people get thrown into that category.  Don't get me mistaken, I quite like the 'garage-rocky' feel, but also feel there's a definite separation between the two.

And, I quite like MC5 and The Stooges.  I've never been too much of a Dolls fan, but can appreciate their place in history.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Psycho Circus on April 03, 2009, 01:39:25 PM
OOPS!  :tongueout:

I appear to have started an in-depth "proto-punk" debate.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Rev. Powell on April 03, 2009, 05:20:39 PM
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.
? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Psycho Circus on April 03, 2009, 05:24:25 PM
Okay, to get this back on track, I have to say that I do really have alot of respect for the Ramones. I don't own squat by them or really listen to them, but I did really enjoy:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oKEAgVG2Vik/Rrf0Acs7WzI/AAAAAAAAAGs/HEV30K0ipO8/s320/Ramones-Pleasant_Dreams-Frontal.jpg)

I know it's part of their early 80's pop dabbling, but I like that album the most.  :smile:


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Wag on April 03, 2009, 05:25:40 PM
Don't know about proto-punk and stuff, but I do know that none of my friends would sing I Wanna Be Sedated with me on Singstar earlier tonight. I'm thinking of getting new friends.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 03, 2009, 11:07:06 PM
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.
? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 
No argument.  Current music criticism is baloney.  Talk about posers.  However, I do not care for being suggested as a genre-izer, labeler, categorizer, etc.  Uhm, "obsessive".  I find most modern music boring, so forgive me if I seem married to my terminology... I wasn't the one who brought up "Proto-Punk" nor the RAMONES but I still think that was an important time in music but "important" influence is not necessarily a good one. 

ps. RAVEL, my favorite, has been described as "Expressionistic" so I guess he missed the Romantic boat.   


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Rev. Powell on April 04, 2009, 04:17:47 PM
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.
? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 

Not naysaying musical criticism, but I think there's too much obsessive genre-izing/labeling/categorization going on today.  I can't tell techno from drum n' bass from house music, or sludge metal from stoner metal, and I don't care to; the differences are too subtle to be meaningful to me.  In classical music, critics only notice meaningful stylistic shifts about once every hundred years (the baroque, classical and romantic categories cover only 300 years between them).  In popular music, there seems to be a new style popping up every week.

Ideally, each band forms it's own unique genre, based on whatever it's particular influences are, and what it brings to the table that's new. 
No argument.  Current music criticism is baloney.  Talk about posers.  However, I do not care for being suggested as a genre-izer, labeler, categorizer, etc.  Uhm, "obsessive".  I find most modern music boring, so forgive me if I seem married to my terminology... I wasn't the one who brought up "Proto-Punk" nor the RAMONES but I still think that was an important time in music but "important" influence is not necessarily a good one. 

ps. RAVEL, my favorite, has been described as "Expressionistic" so I guess he missed the Romantic boat.   

Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: zombie no.one on April 04, 2009, 05:16:30 PM

Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   

nail on the head, agreed with all of that...


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: JaseSF on April 04, 2009, 05:38:40 PM
The Ramones flat out rocked. Love that surfer vibe they have going in many of their songs too.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Hammock Rider on April 06, 2009, 12:02:16 PM
The Ramones are great. Their music rocks and they appeared on the Simpsons back in the day. They sang at Mr. Burns' birthday party and so offended him that he ordered them killed. Luckily, he thought they were the Rolling Stones.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 07, 2009, 10:57:50 PM
...Not aimed at you in particular, but at what sometimes passes for music criticism in general.  And it's been a pet peeve of mine that had been simmering for a while.  Of course, there are a few other terms to describe classical styles, and maybe it's only with the benefit of time that we're able to look back and condense the styles down to some reasonable broad differences.  To me, Beethoven is his own genre, Bach is his own genre, Ravel is his own genre, and so on.  In reality contemporary bands are, or should, each be their own genre as well.  I think if they're deliberately trying to fit into a pigeonhole--to be a "death metal" band, or to be a "west coast rapper"--they're probably pretty boring as artists.   
Well, as implied, all of the terms I used are post facto and not about any artist trying to fit a "pigeonhole".  There are a sickeningly awful lot of categories and labels and have been for at least 20 years (ever growing and more and more cynical and self conscious).  However, trends are apparent in all art forms through all of human history.  Any band being at least 30 years old makes me tend to feel comfortable categorizing it. 

I think we all agree THE RAMONES rock; here's JOEY with THE DICTATORS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKk6JXPFec&feature=related


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: StatCat on April 07, 2009, 11:57:40 PM
Couldn't ? and The Mysterians also be included with any of the "Proto-Punks"?  They also had a garage/punk feel as well.
? AND THE MYSTRIANS are really too early an act to be called "Proto-Punk"... timing is important with how all music is categorized.  They are "Garage Rock" (think of it as '60s Punk, rough Rock not always well produced, or flamboyantly cheesey, and what I myself would probably call "First Wave" but I don't know anybody who uses such a term).  You Kind of answered your own question: Garage Rock is not "Punk"; rather, Punk was emulating many aspects of Garage Rock, particularly the focus on short, fast, 45rpm type songs (though 45s is a mixed topic, as far as who wanted, aimed for, failed at, emulated or repelled...)  Nor is "Proto-Punk" "Punk"(THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES...)  The majorly influential Proto-Punk artists were VELVET UNDERGROUND, THE MC5, THE STOOGES, NEW YORK DOLLS, there are other "fringe" acts often associated with that term, but I'm not sure I agree.  Plus, not all Punk bands were "garage-like," usually had some nostalgic factor, and out of that grew the broader term "New Wave". 

Despite naysayers of music criticism, it's knowledge of music that enriches our lives in more ways than one. 


ok my first post in close to 3 years, wow  :bouncegiggle:

I think garage rock was EXTREMELY influential to what punk evolved into, it's just nowhere near as mainstream and known as 70s-later punk. Of course "garage rock" was a term made up in the 70s, these bands just called it rock n roll for the most part I'm sure. It's really under-acknowledged unfortunately. Maybe that's a good thing though, it's kind of a very small collector community.

Frankly a lot of 60s garage (way more than you'd think) is more extreme, faster, and angrier than 70's punk ever was. Stuff like the MC5 and Stooges is a whole different thing that I'm personally not a fan of. The Velvet Underground were much more of an art rock band.

Anyway if you want to really experience 60s garage you have to search out compilations- that's where the best stuff resides. It was a singles genre really, there are few albums that stand out from the pack and are solid the whole way through. Compilations like back from the grave, teenage shutdown, pebbles, etc etc (it's really an endless pit when you start getting into it) Nuggets is a mix of 60s styles with mostly only more professional kind of garage acts being included (by that I mean standells, blues magoos, etc- ones on major labels with albums)

If I had to pick between 60s garage and 70s-80s punks, it's definitely a no contest win for the 60s stuff. It's more consistent with better musicianship, memorable hooks and lyrics, not to mention better influences (British Invasion bands)

Here's some examples of 60s garage that out snarls and is more edgy than lots of bands in the 70s deemed punk. It really brings the whole labeling thing into question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLU8lfy0slw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItKwJYBoWL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghil469LHFE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfvAVlFoRmg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-mnUw26ifA

All recorded around 1966-67, those are just the tip of the iceberg. Hard to deny that any of these aren't punk sounding at all.



Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 09, 2009, 10:29:52 PM
ok my first post in close to 3 years, wow  :bouncegiggle:

I think garage rock was EXTREMELY influential to what punk evolved into, it's just nowhere near as mainstream and known as 70s-later punk. Of course "garage rock" was a term made up in the 70s, these bands just called it rock n roll for the most part I'm sure. It's really under-acknowledged unfortunately. Maybe that's a good thing though, it's kind of a very small collector community.
Not anymore. 
Frankly a lot of 60s garage (way more than you'd think) is more extreme, faster, and angrier than 70's punk ever was. Stuff like the MC5 and Stooges is a whole different thing that I'm personally not a fan of. The Velvet Underground were much more of an art rock band.
Anyway if you want to really experience 60s garage you have to search out compilations- that's where the best stuff resides. It was a singles genre really, there are few albums that stand out from the pack and are solid the whole way through. Compilations like back from the grave, teenage shutdown, pebbles, etc etc (it's really an endless pit when you start getting into it) Nuggets is a mix of 60s styles with mostly only more professional kind of garage acts being included (by that I mean standells, blues magoos, etc- ones on major labels with albums)

If I had to pick between 60s garage and 70s-80s punks, it's definitely a no contest win for the 60s stuff. It's more consistent with better musicianship, memorable hooks and lyrics, not to mention better influences (British Invasion bands)

Here's some examples of 60s garage that out snarls and is more edgy than lots of bands in the 70s deemed punk. It really brings the whole labeling thing into question...

Gee "singles..." yup that was the whole point of 1970s Punk; didn't I say that?  It's true it's so often overlooked. Uhm 70s Punk "emulating" 60s Garage, I'm quoting myself but don't we agree?  Everyone who ever joined, founded, or listened to a Punk band found some "Proto-Punk" or "Garage Rock Band" to listen to, emulate, aspire towards... welcome back, you certainly precede me, if not echo.   :thumbup: 
I don't understand your dismissal of bands like THE MC5, THE STOOGES or the "Art Rock" of VELVET UNDERGROUND.  There is a lot of anger and noise in those bands which bridge the gap between the brilliant, but even you admit, obscure influence of most Garage bands, and the 70s Punks, not so highly regarded then, but certainly today, not to mention the music you mentioned, y'know: "...extreme, faster, and angrier..." on these bands' records more than most. 

Agreed: NUGGETS collection which includes semi-known acts like THE ELECTRIC PRUNES, BALLOON FARM, HARBINGER COMPLEX, MOUSE & THE TRAPS, THE AMBOY DUKES, THE BEES... is essential.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff259/allhallowsday/NUGGETS.jpg)


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: RCMerchant on April 10, 2009, 02:11:45 AM
Don't forget The Lord...Screaming Lord Sutch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7TPf1qW3LI


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: StatCat on April 10, 2009, 11:52:42 AM
I wasn't trying to dismiss what you were saying at all. I think garage music is very misunderstood and if I could jump in and add a post explaining why I love it why not? It rarely even gets a mention when "punk" music is brought up.

One thing kind of left out in this discussion is the garage revival bands- thee headcoats, miracle workers, creatures of the golden dawn, cynics, stems, etc. that came out in the early 80s. I'm not a big fan of a lot of these bands but they're worth checking into in some cases. These bands were more aware of 60s garage than most punk bands for sure. The late 70s/early 80s punks were influenced by bands who were influenced by garage rock like say the ramones or saints, more like a chain reaction down the line. I don't think lots of them were even aware of garage rock, not everybody had nuggets when it came out in '72 or pebbles when it was out in '79.

The stooges and MC5 aren't my cup of tea. It's just my personal opinion really, they're more like extremely overrated heavy rock. Influential and all but why do I have to love them? The stuff the MC5 did when they first started (singles) are OK with me but not much else. There's other bands that were pretty similar to them about the same time that don't get any mention anymore, one being The Up.

The only reason 60s garage was often a singles scene was out of necessity mostly. These were mostly teenage bands with little money to spend. They couldn't record a full album of songs and much more radio focus was on singles, so they would pay the fee, press some singles on a small label and sell them at their shows. With the 70s punks I still think it was more about albums even. They were in an era after progressive rock and it was rebellion from that but even still albums were much more common place and accepted at that time than the mid 60s.

I wouldn't class the electric prunes or amboy dukes as semi-known (at least on the nuggets scale). Prunes had close to a US top ten hit (it made 11), dukes had a hit as well as Ted Nugent who went on to be huge. Amboy Dukes might be the only band I'm not a fan of on the nuggets set. The most obscure ones on there are the bees, third bardo, dovers, groupies, and a few others, the ones only limited to really obscure singles. I recommend back from the grave and teenage shutdown if you want to dig deeper (nuggets without the pop and psych flavor so much, harder edged punkier tracks) and then there's about 1,000 other compilations out there.

some of the most brilliant cover art ever I think
(http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8606/compilationgaragebackfraa2.jpg)

ok my first post in close to 3 years, wow  :bouncegiggle:

I think garage rock was EXTREMELY influential to what punk evolved into, it's just nowhere near as mainstream and known as 70s-later punk. Of course "garage rock" was a term made up in the 70s, these bands just called it rock n roll for the most part I'm sure. It's really under-acknowledged unfortunately. Maybe that's a good thing though, it's kind of a very small collector community.
Not anymore. 
Frankly a lot of 60s garage (way more than you'd think) is more extreme, faster, and angrier than 70's punk ever was. Stuff like the MC5 and Stooges is a whole different thing that I'm personally not a fan of. The Velvet Underground were much more of an art rock band.
Anyway if you want to really experience 60s garage you have to search out compilations- that's where the best stuff resides. It was a singles genre really, there are few albums that stand out from the pack and are solid the whole way through. Compilations like back from the grave, teenage shutdown, pebbles, etc etc (it's really an endless pit when you start getting into it) Nuggets is a mix of 60s styles with mostly only more professional kind of garage acts being included (by that I mean standells, blues magoos, etc- ones on major labels with albums)

If I had to pick between 60s garage and 70s-80s punks, it's definitely a no contest win for the 60s stuff. It's more consistent with better musicianship, memorable hooks and lyrics, not to mention better influences (British Invasion bands)

Here's some examples of 60s garage that out snarls and is more edgy than lots of bands in the 70s deemed punk. It really brings the whole labeling thing into question...

Gee "singles..." yup that was the whole point of 1970s Punk; didn't I say that?  It's true it's so often overlooked. Uhm 70s Punk "emulating" 60s Garage, I'm quoting myself but don't we agree?  Everyone who ever joined, founded, or listened to a Punk band found some "Proto-Punk" or "Garage Rock Band" to listen to, emulate, aspire towards... welcome back, you certainly precede me, if not echo.   :thumbup: 
I don't understand your dismissal of bands like THE MC5, THE STOOGES or the "Art Rock" of VELVET UNDERGROUND.  There is a lot of anger and noise in those bands which bridge the gap between the brilliant, but even you admit, obscure influence of most Garage bands, and the 70s Punks, not so highly regarded then, but certainly today, not to mention the music you mentioned, y'know: "...extreme, faster, and angrier..." on these bands' records more than most. 

Agreed: NUGGETS collection which includes semi-known acts like THE ELECTRIC PRUNES, BALLOON FARM, HARBINGER COMPLEX, MOUSE & THE TRAPS, THE AMBOY DUKES, THE BEES... is essential.
([url]http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff259/allhallowsday/NUGGETS.jpg[/url])


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 10, 2009, 09:25:12 PM
I wasn't trying to dismiss what you were saying at all. I think garage music is very misunderstood and if I could jump in and add a post explaining why I love it why not? It rarely even gets a mention when "punk" music is brought up.
One thing kind of left out in this discussion is the garage revival bands- thee headcoats, miracle workers, creatures of the golden dawn, cynics, stems, etc. that came out in the early 80s. I'm not a big fan of a lot of these bands but they're worth checking into in some cases. These bands were more aware of 60s garage than most punk bands for sure. The late 70s/early 80s punks were influenced by bands who were influenced by garage rock like say the ramones or saints, more like a chain reaction down the line. I don't think lots of them were even aware of garage rock, not everybody had nuggets when it came out in '72 or pebbles when it was out in '79.
Let's clarify, Potatah, THE RAMONES emulated THE BEATLES, STONES, BUDDY HOLLY, and perhaps knew many of those bands we honor as "Garage" by having bought the 45s when they were new.  "Garage" is a label, and that which might be so labeled I love

The stooges and MC5 aren't my cup of tea. It's just my personal opinion really, they're more like extremely overrated heavy rock. Influential and all but why do I have to love them? The stuff the MC5 did when they first started (singles) are OK with me but not much else. There's other bands that were pretty similar to them about the same time that don't get any mention anymore, one being The Up.
Hoo boy, you gotta book... don't you?  If bands that aren't your "cup of tea" are "extremely overrated heavy rock..."  could it be possible you just don't listen to them?  :lookingup: What MC5 singles are you referring to? They had no charters...

MC5's album Back In The USA is a "Punk" primer. If you listen to it, you'd be surprised how they'd adapted from their successful debut.  Thin, really, by comparison with Kick Out The Jams. Have you listened to THE STOOGES, VELVET UNDERGROUND or MC5?


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: StatCat on April 10, 2009, 09:54:13 PM
besides those, the ramones were very aware of 60s garage rock, there was their covers album acid eaters, there was also the vagrants,

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Limo/3942/vagrants.html

I've listened to albums by both the stooges and MC5, could do without both of them, the mc5 moreso. I think they're both overrated.

I was referring to this, a early singles, demos, live compilation with songs recorded long before their first album came out. Do you know it?  I don't love everything on it but it might be the only mc5 I do like because some of it sounds like a different band.
(http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/43128/2006324643622164096_rs.jpg)

I never said anywhere I don't dislike the velvet underground but to me it's kind of like saying silver apples, fifty foot hose, united states of america were proto-punk or something.

Have you listened to back from the grave? Nuggets is a kind of a simplified rock journalists kind of view of 60s garage, just like I think just pinpointing the mc5 or stooges as the end all of influences to punk falls into the same trap a bit. I'm not saying you're doing it but many people just say they were the bands that created punk.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 10, 2009, 10:13:19 PM
I listen to this collection most often, but have their albums, and had them on vinyl.  I really love the MC5:
The Big Bang! Best of the MC5
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff259/allhallowsday/MC5BIGBANG.jpg) 
I really appreciate your comments regarding SILVER APPLES and FIFTY FOOT HOSE.  I really admire the NY and SFO bands.   :smile: Created Punk?  Who knows... PATTI SMITH... or was it DAVE "BABY" CORTEZ?
 
What do you think of BLUE CHEER...?  :smile:


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on April 11, 2009, 08:40:44 AM
.
Let's clarify, Potatah, THE RAMONES emulated THE BEATLES, STONES, BUDDY HOLLY, and perhaps knew many of those bands we honor as "Garage" by having bought the 45s when they were new.  "Garage" is a label, and that which might be so labeled I love

Hoo boy, you gotta book... don't you?  If bands that aren't your "cup of tea" are "extremely overrated heavy rock..."  could it be possible you just don't listen to them?  :lookingup: What MC5 singles are you referring to? They had no charters...

MC5's album Back In The USA is a "Punk" primer. If you listen to it, you'd be surprised how they'd adapted from their successful debut.  Thin, really, by comparison with Kick Out The Jams. Have you listened to THE STOOGES, VELVET UNDERGROUND or MC5?
[/quote]
That's one thing I love about the Ramones, too.  The fact that they would openly emulate, and express their love for, mid '50s- '60s Pop/rock.  I'd even argue some of their songs have a similar feel to the Beach Boys at times.  Probably intentional, but fun as hell. 

Both The Stooges and MC5 are decent, but I can see how they may 'turn off' audiences, to a degree.  The Sex Pistols are the same way.  There's a hell of a lot of people that do not like the Pistols (I'm a fan), but most everyone agrees, to a degree, that they have a place in 'history.'  When it comes down to it, I think I'd prefer the Stooges to MC5, though.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Psycho Circus on April 11, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
MC5 were a fabulous band!  :thumbup:


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on April 11, 2009, 07:23:23 PM
MC5 were a fabulous band!  :thumbup:
I'm not saying they're bad.  I just prefer the Stooges.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 12, 2009, 01:24:19 AM
besides those, the ramones were very aware of 60s garage rock, there was their covers album acid eaters, there was also the vagrants,

[url]http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Limo/3942/vagrants.html[/url]

I've listened to albums by both the stooges and MC5, could do without both of them, the mc5 moreso. I think they're both overrated.
I was referring to this, a early singles, demos, live compilation with songs recorded long before their first album came out. Do you know it?  I don't love everything on it but it might be the only mc5 I do like because some of it sounds like a different band.
([url]http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/43128/2006324643622164096_rs.jpg[/url])
The Rhino collection I displayed has several early tracks, which are quite "garage" including 3 from that collection.  I like all MC5. My love of THE STOOGES and MC5 and admiration for VELVET UNDERGROUND has almost nothing to do with Punk - to me.  They're now admired decades after they could have used a cash infusion, but nonetheless, I like all of the records by all of those bands, and at least 2 or 3 rank as all time favorites.  I like some Punk, and grew up on it, but even earlier was listening to BEATLES, ANIMALS, LOU CHRISTIE, PET CLARK, STONES, BEACH BOYS, RICKY NELSON, and many more '50s and obscure '60s artists we now love.  40+ years ago, us younger ones inherited an enormous number of 45s and some key LPs (my brother's and cousin's, both much older, all played on a portable plug in record player). 

I never said anywhere I don't dislike the velvet underground but to me it's kind of like saying silver apples, fifty foot hose, united states of america were proto-punk or something.
I don't think VELVET UNDERGROUND were as off center as the bands you mention, which in many ways were ahead of their time. 

Have you listened to back from the grave? Nuggets is a kind of a simplified rock journalists kind of view of 60s garage, just like I think just pinpointing the mc5 or stooges as the end all of influences to punk falls into the same trap a bit. I'm not saying you're doing it but many people just say they were the bands that created punk.
Nuggets was there before any other compilation, and the CD release adds even more great singles.  Pebbles diligently covered all the more obscure and overlooked gems.  Back From The Grave has just been added to my Amazon (enemy of the people) cart - thanks to you!   :teddyr:

I wouldn't say that THE STOOGES or MC5 "created" Punk - not by a longshot.  I did point out THE STOOGES original name was THE PSYCHEDELIC STOOGES.  The label "Punk" is for those '70s bands; "'60s Punk" is now called "Garage" but I think we'd agree.  I'd rather listen to "'60s Punk" than "'70s Punk". 


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 15, 2009, 09:55:50 PM
Getting back on track and in honor of all my April birthdays, here's the way we like our RAMONES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FdJajqxmU 



Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: Nightowl on May 20, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
The Ramones without a doubt is my favorite punk band. Definitly the band to start with if your interested in punk music.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: The Burgomaster on October 28, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
I saw the Ramones live in concert 3 times (all in Boston).  What an experience.  The first time I saw them was at Boston University.  Someone in the audience spit on Joey Ramone's shirt.  Joey just looked down at the spit, left it there, and kept singing without missing a beat.


Title: Re: the RAMONES
Post by: HappyGilmore on October 28, 2009, 10:21:00 PM
I listen to this collection most often, but have their albums, and had them on vinyl.  I really love the MC5:
The Big Bang! Best of the MC5

 
What do you think of BLUE CHEER...?  :smile:
I've since changed my original opinion of MC5.  Always preferred the Stooges, but have since heard a bit of MC5 and I gotta say, they get a  :thumbup: in my book.

Can't say I'm an EXPERT on them, as I only know a little bit of their stuff, but this weekend, I'm going to a store to see if they have any.  This past week, I've had ZERO luck in about 4 different stores trying to find ANY MC5.