Post Your unpopular opinions (1 Viewer)

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

Driving age should be 21 and the drinking age 18.

Money wasted on space exploration needs to be spent on developing a male birth control pill.

Women on welfare need to be shot up with birth control before they collect their checks.

Child molestors and rapists should be eligible for the death penalty.

Baseball fans are much smarter than football fans.

The US Mint should stop producing pennies and all products should round up to the nearest whole number.

People riding on Segways should be eligible targets for rock throwing.

Gladiator, Fight Club and The Departed were all incredibly overrated movies.

Tom Brady fumbled that football and the Raiders were absolutely screwed out of that game.

This guy knows stuff, especially the bolded.

 

[NCCommish]

I do not think the Ramones were more innovative then the Beatles. I have said repeatedly they are more revolutionary then the Beatles... as in they started the revolution that was punk music. As far as innovation with music goes... as in playing different styles and trying different things... I could never argue the Ramones were better then the Beatles in that respect. I don't even think I could argue the Ramones were good musicians. All I am saying is that the Ramones revolutionized music by starting a new genere... the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

You have heard of Elvis right?

 

[NCCommish]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

Actually it is very true. Sorry your experience isn't a good sample size. Oh and she sees the Moms? What does she do make house calls?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

Actually it is very true. Sorry your experience isn't a good sample size. Oh and she sees the Moms? What does she do make house calls?

She visits with the kids, two of whom are named lemonjello an oranjello. Swear to god.

 

[NCCommish]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

Actually it is very true. Sorry your experience isn't a good sample size. Oh and she sees the Moms? What does she do make house calls?

She visits with the kids, two of whom are named lemonjello an oranjello. Swear to god.

Never fails to get a chuckle

 

[Frostillicus]

Nobody actually likes sushi. They just like telling people they like sushi.

 

[saintsfan]

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

Again, I don't deny that the Beatles had a major influence, but you're wrong on this one:1954. I don't know if there's anything earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVsNlchp0GE

And the statement about George Harrison and world music should be re-considered. Although I did chuckle.

I should have said, the first time feedback was used on a record on purpose. As far as the world music thing, I'm not sure what to say. It is very well known that Harrison had a tremendous influence in the melding of Eastern music with pop music.

 

[saintsfan]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music

3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.

4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.

5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.

6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.

7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.

8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of

9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine

10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.

Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

Methinks you doth protest too much. I'm more convinced than ever that the Beatles are over-rated.

Nice comment.Can you refute these or do you just make comments?

 

[Socrates11]

Human beings make way too many decisions based on emotion. It permeates our political discourse and prevents many decent ideas from getting a fair hearing. If we continue done this emotion-based reasoning path we will doom our species. Our only hope would be to move towards something like the Vulcan logic-based philosophy, but it will never happen.

 

[shut it down]

I think innovation, in music, is overrated.

Just write some decent tunes.

 

[Jutz]

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

1. I don't see how writing your own songs revolutionized pop music. A listener of music usually doesn't know who wrote the song. I don't believe who writes the song matters much when considering how revolutionary music is. Besides if it were so amazingly revolutionary... why do most pop artists today NOT write their own songs. Hardly any major pop stars do.2. Who really cares??? I also got a chuckle. If they did invent world music I think we are all worse off for it.3. So the Beatles revolutionized song structure... they still didn't create a whole new genere of music. As stated earlier, revolutionizing how songs are created and written has nothing to do with how revolutionary the music itself is.4. I would argue there was a ton of complex harmonizing in the 50's doo-whop era. In fact, those songs were mostly like 4 dudes singing harmonies over a tambourine, a triangle, and a wood block. Vocals was like 90% of what they did then. Besides... who cares... they were awesome at harmonies... yay...5. Multi-track recording... again a technical revolution... not related to creating revolutionary music...6. So they experimented with strange instruments... again... yay...7. Are you serious??? They made the first techno song? OK... they made like 1 techno song... and your going to tell me they started the whole genere? Even if they did get credit for that... again who cares. The techno genere is hardly important in music history.8. Not even close... the Ramones played so loud in their day it would hurt peoples ears. Maybe the Beatles had that revolutionary new multi track recording instrument and made a loud and raw RECORDING... but as far as being loud and raw... the Ramones win that battle hands down... 9. Somebody else disputed that one for me... even so... to say they were the first to do something doesn't mean they took it and made it significant. Say they were the first... they were not known for it... they just did it once... then someone else like Jimi Hendrix took that to a whole new level that the Beatles couldn't achieve because they were so average... and Jimi revolutionized modern guitar rock10. Playing different musical styles again doesn't make you revolutionary. The local cover band at the bar at the beach playes every music style... doesn't mean they are important. Besides... did the beatles play rap?What you have come up with to me is a list of things the Beatles invented in music. They were the first to harmonize, they were the first to use indian instruments, they were the first to multi track record, they were the first to use feedback. As I stated in an earlier post... they were more innovative then the Ramones in this respect. They were tinkerers, and discovered some new tricks. But the Beatles did not take these new innovations and make any revolutions in music. There were no game changers with the Beatles... but many innovative enhancements.The Ramones changed the landscape of music... they did change the game. Name all the different major generes of music... what genere did the Beatles start? None. What genere did the Ramones start. Punk. How many times does anyone actaully start a new genere of music. Hardly ever. Doing that alone is more REVOLUTIONARY then any enhancements in instrumentation, or recording.The starting of a new genere is so rare it trumps any lenth of list the Beatles has in musical enhancements.

 

[shut it down]

George: People of the world, I have invented "World Music."

World: THANK YOU GEORGE!!!!!!!

 

[Jutz]

Horrible post.

Again, this isn't unpopular. This is wrong. Perhaps you giggled at your "boy band" analogy. Excellent. But when you say there's nothing original or revolutionary about The Beatles, you're either uniformed or on a fishing trip

And I love The Ramones, so that isn't affecting this post.

I have held my 'boy band' analogy for many years. This unpopular opinion is not new to me. I would estimate it to be approximately 15 years old with me. I did not 'giggle' when I wrote it because I have believed it for many years now.I still don't see what was revolutionary about the MUSIC of the Beatles. Take away everything... then listen to the music ONLY of both bands. Then consider the context of the time this music was released. What did the Beatles Revolutionize??? Musically... I just don't see it.

The innovations The Beatles and George Martin came up with are myriad, and that is an established fact. I'm going to remind myself that you actually think The Ramones are more innovative than The Beatles and just drop this argument as a pointless endeavor.

I do not think the Ramones were more innovative then the Beatles. I have said repeatedly they are more revolutionary then the Beatles... as in they started the revolution that was punk music. As far as innovation with music goes... as in playing different styles and trying different things... I could never argue the Ramones were better then the Beatles in that respect. I don't even think I could argue the Ramones were good musicians. All I am saying is that the Ramones revolutionized music by starting a new genere... the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

But you just conceded that the Beatles started the revolution that was boy band music. In which case, they are not less revolutionary than the Ramones, they are on equal revolutionary footing.

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

 

[Abrantes]

 

[Jutz]

I do not think the Ramones were more innovative then the Beatles. I have said repeatedly they are more revolutionary then the Beatles... as in they started the revolution that was punk music. As far as innovation with music goes... as in playing different styles and trying different things... I could never argue the Ramones were better then the Beatles in that respect. I don't even think I could argue the Ramones were good musicians. All I am saying is that the Ramones revolutionized music by starting a new genere... the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

You have heard of Elvis right?

Elvis did cross my mind when I was writing that... I may be wrong on that... but judging by any old footage I have seen... it appears to me the Beatles may have 1 upped Elvis in this category... maybe only slightly... but I think they did get him. I have no factual basis for this though. Even if they didn't, it's not that significant to the arguement I am attempting to put forth.

 

[saintsfan]

1. They wrote their own songs. If you can't see how that revolutionized pop music, then you're fishing.2. The entire world music scene can be traced back to George Harrison's experimentation with Indian Music3. Music structure. Before the Beatles, rock and roll was little more than major chord progressions, usually 3 chords. The Beatles wrote songs in minor keys, yes even the "boy band" early music. If I Fell has an opening that is in a minor key and not repeated in any other part of the song. Songs also switched from major to minor keys in the same song. Unheard of in pop music at the time and far beyond anything the Ramones ever dreamed of.4. Harmonies. Even an untrained ear can hear the harmonies of the Beatles. What they might not be aware of is how INTRICATE and complex some of these harmonies are. Uncommonly complex for rock and roll.5. Multi track recordings. The complexity of something like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road set the scene for the 70's Prog music scene. I would argue that the Beatles practically invented this genre.6. Instrumentation. The Beatles added instrumentation to the rock and roll vocabulary that hadn't been done. Indian instruments, classical instruments, mellotron, ect.7. Tommorrow Never Knows is practically the first techno song.8. Helter Skelter predated the Ramones by a decade and is louder and rawer than anything the Ramones ever dreamed of9. First feedback on any record = I Feel Fine10. Every musical style you can think of, the Beatles did it.Anything else?? I can probably keep going.

1. I don't see how writing your own songs revolutionized pop music. A listener of music usually doesn't know who wrote the song. I don't believe who writes the song matters much when considering how revolutionary music is. Besides if it were so amazingly revolutionary... why do most pop artists today NOT write their own songs. Hardly any major pop stars do.2. Who really cares??? I also got a chuckle. If they did invent world music I think we are all worse off for it.3. So the Beatles revolutionized song structure... they still didn't create a whole new genere of music. As stated earlier, revolutionizing how songs are created and written has nothing to do with how revolutionary the music itself is.4. I would argue there was a ton of complex harmonizing in the 50's doo-whop era. In fact, those songs were mostly like 4 dudes singing harmonies over a tambourine, a triangle, and a wood block. Vocals was like 90% of what they did then. Besides... who cares... they were awesome at harmonies... yay...5. Multi-track recording... again a technical revolution... not related to creating revolutionary music...6. So they experimented with strange instruments... again... yay...7. Are you serious??? They made the first techno song? OK... they made like 1 techno song... and your going to tell me they started the whole genere? Even if they did get credit for that... again who cares. The techno genere is hardly important in music history.8. Not even close... the Ramones played so loud in their day it would hurt peoples ears. Maybe the Beatles had that revolutionary new multi track recording instrument and made a loud and raw RECORDING... but as far as being loud and raw... the Ramones win that battle hands down... 9. Somebody else disputed that one for me... even so... to say they were the first to do something doesn't mean they took it and made it significant. Say they were the first... they were not known for it... they just did it once... then someone else like Jimi Hendrix took that to a whole new level that the Beatles couldn't achieve because they were so average... and Jimi revolutionized modern guitar rock10. Playing different musical styles again doesn't make you revolutionary. The local cover band at the bar at the beach playes every music style... doesn't mean they are important. Besides... did the beatles play rap?What you have come up with to me is a list of things the Beatles invented in music. They were the first to harmonize, they were the first to use indian instruments, they were the first to multi track record, they were the first to use feedback. As I stated in an earlier post... they were more innovative then the Ramones in this respect. They were tinkerers, and discovered some new tricks. But the Beatles did not take these new innovations and make any revolutions in music. There were no game changers with the Beatles... but many innovative enhancements.The Ramones changed the landscape of music... they did change the game. Name all the different major generes of music... what genere did the Beatles start? None. What genere did the Ramones start. Punk. How many times does anyone actaully start a new genere of music. Hardly ever. Doing that alone is more REVOLUTIONARY then any enhancements in instrumentation, or recording.The starting of a new genere is so rare it trumps any lenth of list the Beatles has in musical enhancements.

You're right. The Ramones made it cool to barely be able to play an instrument.Are you serious??Just because it wasn't called punk, doesn't mean the Who wasn't playing it a decade earlier. And, get this, the Who could actually play their instruments.Actually though, your posts DO belong in this thread, however, because NOBODY would argue that the Ramones were more revolutionary/influential/ANYTHING except bad musicians, than the Beatles.

 

[adonis]

I don't like Dave Mathews, Pink Floyd, or The Who.

I think most womens dresses these days makes them look pregnant and I much prefer more form fitting pants and normal shirts.

I'd rather end up with a 7/10 girl than anything higher because I think that has the best potential for a long-term meaningful relationship.

 

[SKribbles]

This once great thread has been ruined by one mans fishing trip and a bunch of fools taking the bait.

 

[bentley]

All musical opinions of a guy that thinks Big & Rich, Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney are "good" country music should be dismissed, regardless of genre.

This fits into my earlier comment about most people having bad taste.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

Now you're making value judgments and value has no bearing upon degree of revolutionary-ness.

 

[Jutz]

You're right. The Ramones made it cool to barely be able to play an instrument.Are you serious??Just because it wasn't called punk, doesn't mean the Who wasn't playing it a decade earlier. And, get this, the Who could actually play their instruments.Actually though, your posts DO belong in this thread, however, because NOBODY would argue that the Ramones were more revolutionary/influential/ANYTHING except bad musicians, than the Beatles.

They didn't really make it cool to barely be able to play an instrument. They made it cool to be able to play the very basics, and have fun, even if you can't do anything flashy. They did show kids who saw them all across America that it is OK to start a band, and play locally, and have fun with music... even if you don't have a lot of skill. They convinced a lot of kids, who otherwise would not have, to pickup a guitar, bass, or set of drum sticks and give it a try because the music was so basic. Kids that listened to the Who and Pete Townsend, or Jimi that thought... man I'll never be able to play something like that... went on to hear the Ramones and thought... maybe I'll give that a try. Then bands like the Circle Jerks, and Green Day formed. Very positive... very significant.Yes I am serious.The Who didn't play punk. There are many reasons why they did not play punk... but here is one... solos. One of the things the Ramones hated about the music of their time (early 70s) was the flashy narcissistic solo. Their music was a protest against it. They felt the solo was nothing more then musical masterbation. A way to say 'look at me, I can solo'. The punk movement was very much against the lengthy solo... and the Ramones led the way in that respect.You say NOBODY would argue my side??? I don't think many do... but I think there are a few on this board that agree with me... and I think there are others out there. Maybe not a lot... but your claim of NOBODY is pretty much wrong.

 

[Jutz]

This once great thread has been ruined by one mans fishing trip and a bunch of fools taking the bait.

Not a fishing trip... not one bit...

 

[shut it down]

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

Now you're making value judgments and value has no bearing upon degree of revolutionary-ness.

I don't like Kenny Chesney because he doesn't use sitars or feedback.

 

[Jutz]

All musical opinions of a guy that thinks Big & Rich, Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney are "good" country music should be dismissed, regardless of genre.This fits into my earlier comment about most people having bad taste.

Has nothing to do with what I feel about the Ramones. You may think I have bad taste when it comes to country... but I don't think anyone thinks it's bad taste to like the Ramones.

 

[Jutz]

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

Now you're making value judgments and value has no bearing upon degree of revolutionary-ness.

I will concede this point... you got me... I guess...

 

[Abrantes]

Liking the Ramones is straight-up bad taste.

 

[Jutz]

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

Now you're making value judgments and value has no bearing upon degree of revolutionary-ness.

I don't like Kenny Chesney because he doesn't use sitars or feedback.

I think modern country would be much further enhanced with the use of more complicated harmonizing...

 

[Jutz]

Liking the Ramones is straight-up bad taste.

That opinion is very appropriate for this thread...

 

[Abrantes]

Liking the Ramones is straight-up bad taste.

That opinion is very appropriate for this thread...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This is the best arguement against me... you are right. The only thing I can reply is that I think it is completely shameful to revolutionize the 'boy band'. It's something that all but female teenage women like, and it's pretty pathetic. For that reason I still give the nod to the Ramones for revolutionizing something more significant then female boy candy.

Now you're making value judgments and value has no bearing upon degree of revolutionary-ness.

I don't like Kenny Chesney because he doesn't use sitars or feedback.

I think modern country would be much further enhanced with the use of more complicated harmonizing...

Such as used by:a) The Beatlesb) The Ramones

 

[Jutz]

Liking the Ramones is straight-up bad taste.

Your profile says you're from Rio De Jenero Brazil. If I recall correclty... towards the end of the Ramones career, they were planning to play their last concert in Rio De Jenero because they were so incredibly huge in Brazil. I think they did play their last 'non US' concert in Rio.Your opinion, considering where you are from, must be extremely un-popular...

 

[Tom Servo]

Methinks you doth protest too much. I'm more convinced than ever that the Beatles are over-rated.

Nice comment.Can you refute these or do you just make comments?

I'm just throwing chum into the water. Mission accomplished.

 

[NCCommish]

This once great thread has been ruined by one mans fishing trip and a bunch of fools taking the bait.

Not a fishing trip... not one bit...

Well I hate to be rude but if it isn't fishing trip you are seriously misinformed about the history of music and should refrain from commenting on it. I have nothing against the Ramones but IIRC they didn't even refer to themselves as punk. Nor were they the only ones around with a simple sound, Slade would fit that description pretty well. Further I have heard Neil Young given credit for pushing punk to the forefront:

In an interview with Elliot Roberts, Neil's manager, Roberts was asked about a comment Nils Lofgren made about Young inventing punk rock:

Elliot Roberts: "Well, I think that came from the first Sex Pistols interviews when Sid Vicious was interviewed in America and was asked what his big influences were and he said that one of them was Neil's Tonight's The Night tour, which he'd seen in Manchester, because it was so dark and raw and anti-pop and he had done none of his old songs. The fans booed it after they thought he was gonna do another half of the show when in fact the show was over, and on some level it was that anti-pop attitude that people interpret as the start of the Punk movement which was an aggression and hostility.

So I think you are giving the Ramones way more credit than they truly deserve. And the Beatles far less. And I think your Rock history knowledge is spotty at best.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The Stooges invented punk rock.

 

[Abrantes]

Liking the Ramones is straight-up bad taste.

Your profile says you're from Rio De Jenero Brazil. If I recall correclty... towards the end of the Ramones career, they were planning to play their last concert in Rio De Jenero because they were so incredibly huge in Brazil. I think they did play their last 'non US' concert in Rio.Your opinion, considering where you are from, must be extremely un-popular...

I'm sorry I led you to believe I was actually serious. I was simply taking my cue from your comment that no one would claim liking the Ramones is bad taste - in a Post Your Unpopular Opinion thread. Seemed too easy.For the record, I have nothing at all against the Ramones, and they are indeed very dear to the Rio crowd, from my experience.

 

[Postradamus]

You and your favorite music is a ####.

by you I mean everyone

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

The Stooges invented punk rock.

Shemp lineup or Curly lineup?

 

[jdoggydogg]

the Beatles started getting girls to scream at them in masses never seen before but the music didn't do much at all...

And there goes any shred of credibility you really didn't have to begin with.

 

[Jutz]

This once great thread has been ruined by one mans fishing trip and a bunch of fools taking the bait.

Not a fishing trip... not one bit...

Well I hate to be rude but if it isn't fishing trip you are seriously misinformed about the history of music and should refrain from commenting on it. I have nothing against the Ramones but IIRC they didn't even refer to themselves as punk. Nor were they the only ones around with a simple sound, Slade would fit that description pretty well. Further I have heard Neil Young given credit for pushing punk to the forefront:

In an interview with Elliot Roberts, Neil's manager, Roberts was asked about a comment Nils Lofgren made about Young inventing punk rock:

Elliot Roberts: "Well, I think that came from the first Sex Pistols interviews when Sid Vicious was interviewed in America and was asked what his big influences were and he said that one of them was Neil's Tonight's The Night tour, which he'd seen in Manchester, because it was so dark and raw and anti-pop and he had done none of his old songs. The fans booed it after they thought he was gonna do another half of the show when in fact the show was over, and on some level it was that anti-pop attitude that people interpret as the start of the Punk movement which was an aggression and hostility.

So I think you are giving the Ramones way more credit than they truly deserve. And the Beatles far less. And I think your Rock history knowledge is spotty at best.

Look... the 'anti-pop' vibe that Young used was very much instrumental in the punk movement. However... it doesn't take a genius to realize Neil Young did not make punk music. See my earlier comments about The Who, and solos. I can come up with endless articles that say punk started in the mid 70s in America and the Ramones led the way. You don't have to go any further then Wiki to find that. But... the best way I can refute the claim that Young started punk... go to your stereo... play any Neil Youn song, or CD, or whatever. Is it punk rock? No. Now go back and play any Ramones song, or CD, or whatever. Is it punk rock? Yes.

I agree that the dark and raw and anti-pop attitude that Neil Young brought to the table was very punk. I absolutely do not agree that Neil Youngs music was punk.

I think the caption under the picture of the Ramones debut album on the Wiki punk rock page says it best... "The bands first 4 albums set the blueprint for punk, especially American punk and Hardcore, for the next two decades."

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The Stooges invented punk rock.

Shemp lineup or Curly lineup?

Iggy was the black sheep of the family.

 

[Fennis]

Subtle humor is wasted on the masses, who would rather be sworn at or told to get er done.

I don't get it.

 

[Jutz]

The Stooges invented punk rock.

I think the Stooges are probably the best arguement that anyone can come up with to refute the claim that the Ramones started punk rock. The Ramones were heavily influenced by what bands like the Stooges, the MC5s, and the New York Dolls were doing.The only thing I can say is that the Ramones were influenced by a lot of music. They tried imitate that music when they played... but they couldn't because they were not good musicians. And what resulted from their experiment was something completely new... even different from the Stooges, the MC5s, and the New York Dolls. The short song.... the extremely fast pace... the complete absence of solos. The Stooges were a major player in what led to punk rock... but the Ramones were the first punk rock band.

 

[Jutz]

I have nothing against the Ramones but IIRC they didn't even refer to themselves as punk.

You are correct... they did not refer to themselves as Punk. They had that label cast upon them. They referred to themselves as a pop band pretty much. The label of 'punk' was created in the mid 70's and the Ramones were the first band to have that label attached to them. So... regardless of the fact that they did not refer to themselves as punk... it doesn't change the fact that they were punk... and were the first band to have that label.

 

[Copeman]

This thread went from very interesting to a stupid Beatles-Ramones bs thread. Start a different thread to argue about that meaningless topic guys.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

Actually it is very true. Sorry your experience isn't a good sample size. Oh and she sees the Moms? What does she do make house calls?

She sure does, twice a year to be exact. Just got finished with round 1 for this year about a week ago. The sample size in her experience is over a 14 year period. Sorry to burst your bubble but you don't have to get your panties in a wad.

 

[Weapon of Mass Instruction]

There should be no welfare without work. Unless you are paralyzed, all welfare should require a work component.

You can do something. Pick up trash. Restock library books. Sweep the sidewalk. Paint over graffitti. Dig ditches. Fill potholes. Make PB&J sammiches for the homeless. Wash the fleet of cars at city hall. Trim bushes. Mow grass.

We get something for our money, you get money.

You just took away most of the jobs we have people do on community service. And it should be pointed out that the welfare rolls have been trimmed quite a lot, you are mostly down to those who can't work. The welfare queen is long dead if she ever existed in any numbers to start with.

Bolded part is not true at all, not even close. My wife teaches 1st grade. The problem is as bad as ever as she sees these moms with 6 kids on welfare sitting around eating cheetohs all day.Part 2: If you are receiving unemployment you should do some sort of work, too.

Actually it is very true. Sorry your experience isn't a good sample size. Oh and she sees the Moms? What does she do make house calls?

She visits with the kids, two of whom are named lemonjello an oranjello. Swear to god.

Sorry to go off topic, but you have no idea how close to reality you are. I have met, over the years, kids in her class named Keyshawn Johnson, Gregory Gregory, KeyLexus, S'Latina (whose siblings where Willatina, Jeffatina, and Tina), and...well, you wouldn't believe the last one so I won't even say it. Hand to God that this is all true.

 

[shut it down]

Onions are for proles.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Sorry to go off topic, but you have no idea how close to reality you are. I have met, over the years, kids in her class named Keyshawn Johnson, Gregory Gregory, KeyLexus, S'Latina (whose siblings where Willatina, Jeffatina, and Tina), and...well, you wouldn't believe the last one so I won't even say it. Hand to God that this is all true.

Ovaltina?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Sorry to go off topic, but you have no idea how close to reality you are. I have met, over the years, kids in her class named Keyshawn Johnson, Gregory Gregory, KeyLexus, S'Latina (whose siblings where Willatina, Jeffatina, and Tina), and...well, you wouldn't believe the last one so I won't even say it. Hand to God that this is all true.

Ovaltina?

Re'Tina?

 

[bostonfred]

Vatina?