Vanilla Guerrilla
Footballguy
Are we going to have a topic like this for every band that had an album that peaked at like 30 or 40 in the US?
Just the over rated ones.Are we going to have a topic like this for every band that had an album that peaked at like 30 or 40 in the US?
I prefer the Beatles.Just because we can't always define objective criteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or was the Partridge Family as good as the Beatles?
If I answered "yes", you would either need to produce the objective data as evidence to refute my claim, or we are doing nothing more than exchanging opinions. Nothing at all wrong with discussing opinions, but then the OP's original challenge to "name 10 better" will never be satisfied as his opinion is the standard for judging.Just because we can't always define objective criteria doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Or was the Partridge Family as good as the Beatles?
Exactly. This. I kind of like the Ramones, but if you are being honest then strictly as a "band" they aren't really that great (musically/vocals/lyrics).Nigel Tufnel said:"Better" or "more influential?" Because I think I could argue one but not the other.
I assume you're referring to this. DylanDylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, Dylan
There isn't, but there is a standard consensus of critics, fans, influence, and the like, and those should be taken into account.Galileo said:If I answered "yes", you would either need to produce the objective data as evidence to refute my claim, or we are doing nothing more than exchanging opinions. Nothing at all wrong with discussing opinions, but then the OP's original challenge to "name 10 better" will never be satisfied as his opinion is the standard for judging.
2004-8 for me.We can all agree that the FFA stopped listening to new music around 2000 at the latest.
Unlike RoknRole, I've announced it. And it's not life advice where I even pretend I'm listening. These are pretty big distinctions to make.jvdesigns2002 said:I named like 14 off of the top of my head--and could probably come up with more with more thought. I think the key is that music is subjective and you have tunnel vision and have pre-determined that the Ramones are top 10 regardless of whatever answer anybody says. If you aren't going to at least attempt to act objective about a discussion--whats the point of even starting the thread? This reminds me of a Rok n role thread where he asks for advice and argues with anybody gives advice that conflicts with what he has pre-determined that he is going to do.
I listen to it all the time. I'm forced to. Doesn't mean I like it. If my daughter were making this list it would likely include:We can all agree that the FFA stopped listening to new music around 2000 at the latest.
It's no different. The entire point of starting a thread is to start a discussion. You started a thread asking members to state ten US bands that are "better" than the Ramones. Posters here have come up with dozens of bands where solid arguments can be made about them being better that the Ramones--and your response is "uh--no they aren't". Somebody thinking that Metallica are better than the Ramones is not laughable--but your responses make it seem like that opinion carries zero merit. I listed at least 13-14 bands that are arguably better than the Ramones--and you didn't even comment on it. We get it--the Ramones are one of your favorite bands--and you are entitled to that opinion. However--to challenge people to name bands that could be considered greater--and then you randomly call their picks wrong for no good reason is not really a discussion. If your point was to waste a bunch of time and not have a discussion--well done. You and Rok and Role should get an award for that.Unlike RoknRole, I've announced it. And it's not life advice where I even pretend I'm listening. These are pretty big distinctions to make.
Dude, chill. If I was there with you, you'd get it. It was a fun thread meant in fun. If you're that burned up about it, then there are other options.It's no different. The entire point of starting a thread is to start a discussion. You started a thread asking members to state ten US bands that are "better" than the Ramones. Posters here have come up with dozens of bands where solid arguments can be made about them being better that the Ramones--and your response is "uh--no they aren't". Somebody thinking that Metallica are better than the Ramones is not laughable--but your responses make it seem like that opinion carries zero merit. I listed at least 13-14 bands that are arguably better than the Ramones--and you didn't even comment on it. We get it--the Ramones are one of your favorite bands--and you are entitled to that opinion. However--to challenge people to name bands that could be considered greater--and then you randomly call their picks wrong for no good reason is not really a discussion. If your point was to waste a bunch of time and not have a discussion--well done. You and Rok and Role should get an award for that.
You forgot Johnny Cougar.John Cougar
John Mellencamp
John Cougar Mellencamp
That's three right there.
No I didn't. Chestnut Street Incident was terrible.You forgot Johnny Cougar.
I like "Dream Killing Town". Total Springsteen ripoff but hey.No I didn't. Chestnut Street Incident was terrible.
This is brilliant. Exactly what FFAtoday loves.The Ramones are as good as Donald Trump is a good President.
International Silver Screen Submarine Band down?A little more idea of what's in scope would be useful. Otherwise we'd need to be taking about things like the Duke Ellington Orchestra, The Count Basie Orchestra, the Temptations, Chic, the Supremes, all kinds of stuff.
WTF is FFAToday?This is brilliant. Exactly what FFAtoday loves.
Oh, we know it exists in some form, we just ignore it.WTF is FFAToday?
Well, it's a submarine, so I'd say at least part of the time, yes.International Silver Screen Submarine Band down?
*rimshot*Well, it's a submarine, so I'd say at least part of the time, yes.
That is probably a good idea as most of the people that post here wouldn't survive there.Oh, we know it exists in some form, we just ignore it.
:sniffs:
Invader! Invasion! So smart. So IQ 90. Great. You figured out how to use a keyboard. Brilliant!That is probably a good idea as most of the people that post here wouldn't survive there.
Yeah, if you boot the Ramones from the top tier, Nirvana has to go too.The Ramones were never supposed to be "good" as in Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper. They were a dirty punk/protopunk/garage band. They were a deconstruction of popular music. They were a reaction to the over-produced, watered down, wimpy "rock" of the early 70s.
Is the music unrefined and simplistic? Hell yes. But it's done perfectly. That's what made them different.
It reminds me of when we study artists like Rothko or Mondrian or Pollock in my class.
Students will say "Shapes? Splashes? Pfffft...I could do that."
I'll tell them "Yeah, you could. But you didn't."
Rothko is more Ramones than Pollock, though. Shapes, squares, everything.The Ramones were never supposed to be "good" as in Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper. They were a dirty punk/protopunk/garage band. They were a deconstruction of popular music. They were a reaction to the over-produced, watered down, wimpy "rock" of the early 70s.
Is the music unrefined and simplistic? Hell yes. But it's done perfectly. That's what made them different.
It reminds me of when we study artists like Rothko or Mondrian or Pollock in my class.
Students will say "Shapes? Splashes? Pfffft...I could do that."
I'll tell them "Yeah, you could. But you didn't."
The best thing Nirvana ever did was try to rip off Pixies. Actually true.Yeah, if you boot the Ramones from the top tier, Nirvana has to go too.
But a massively influential band.The best thing Nirvana ever did was try to rip off Pixies. Actually true.
The best thing Nirvana ever did was try to rip off Pixies. Actually true.
My favorite story about the Ramones is from the Joe Strummer doc, "The Future is Unwritten". They're talking about the Clash sneaking into a show that the Ramones played in London. They're talking to one another and Strummer says that they're a #### band, no training, etc. Joey - I think - says to them almost incredulously,"Have you heard us? We're TERRIBLE..." That, my friends, is apparently got the Clash going!The Ramones were never supposed to be "good" as in Pet Sounds or Sgt. Pepper. They were a dirty punk/protopunk/garage band. They were a deconstruction of popular music. They were a reaction to the over-produced, watered down, wimpy "rock" of the early 70s.
Is the music unrefined and simplistic? Hell yes. But it's done perfectly. That's what made them different.
It reminds me of when we study artists like Rothko or Mondrian or Pollock in my class.
Students will say "Shapes? Splashes? Pfffft...I could do that."
I'll tell them "Yeah, you could. But you didn't."
Love frying some wings part and The Ramones. Yessssss.Frying some wings, sipping some bourbon and just put on The Ramones - you're welcome rock.
It just seems like it's novel to say you like the Ramones or to wear their shirt.Exactly. This. I kind of like the Ramones, but if you are being honest then strictly as a "band" they aren't really that great (musically/vocals/lyrics).
If we were asked to name the "10 most influential American bands", then they're on that list easy.
Misfits never did this, my friend. But then Glenn has problems too.It just seems like it's novel to say you like the Ramones or to wear their shirt.
Reminds me of people who wear that Misfits shirt.
For the most part, it's just some signification of, "Look at me...I'm hip."
Ramones have like two songs that I even remotely care to listen to...I just don't get it.
Why, what does it say?Hey dummies, read the question in the thread title.
Serious question: why are we supposed to care what critics think?There isn't, but there is a standard consensus of critics, fans, influence, and the like, and those should be taken into account.