Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Who's with me?
The revolution starts here. GABBA GABBA HEY!
I like the Beatles but for me the Ramones have the better pop hooks. In fact fuck The Beatles, Ramones mean more to me - period.
thats like saying 'would peace in europe exist without hitler'
but does that make anything you say irrelivant?
this they came first argument comes up all the time in beatles threads and most of the time that really dosen't matter when your just comparing the music.
I think I enjoy the ramones more but to be honest I'm not that fussed about either band.
Or trying to be cool. Or trying to argue against something which is impossible to argue against. You should try harder. The Ramones are stupid.
following 'you should try harder' with 'the Ramones are stupid' :)
which makes them clever, and therefore great.
Don't try and argue, my logic is irrefutable.
everyone's accusing me!" That's what I should've posted up there. That would've been a better response. Cos it's one of their lyrics and everything.
But all three of them were better than The Beatles.
(and Blitzkrieg Bop may be the greatest single ever made)
It therefore follows:
Ramones -> Punk
Punk -> Rubbish
Hence: Ramones -> Rubbish.
Normally I would only use that flippantly but when I think about it, I'm being quite serious. It's not a defense of the Beatles either. The Ramones are rubbish simply by virtue of the style of music they created.
(everyone's accusing me!)
It therefore follows
People who dont like punk-> boring fucking idiots
boring fucking idiots-> should shut up
Hence: You-> Should shut up
come on fucktherave this is bushleague
Might like to account for the subjectivity in the content of that simple logical reasoning.
But I would question the opinion of someone who states that ridiculous, overly instrumentally minimalistic, shouty bollocks is the adverse to "boring".
I will state it clearly - there was a time for punk and it was a very short period of time, when music needed to undergo a drastic change. Punk allowed for that change and paved the way for more interesting stuff to follow.
Now punk is only celebrated by people who still believe that ostensibly antagonistic, aggressive sounding, politically simplistic music is the bottom line in all things masculine - oh and white-supremacists of course. Punk is dreadful, dreary and unimaginably outdated sounding stuff. It's the sort of stuff only plebs think is anti-establishment and people who look and dress a bit like Shane Maguire from Shameless.
The Ramones are hailed as the founding fathers of all this awfulness so they carry the responsibility for it. I cannot pin any similar crime to the Beatles.
I think the opinion thing is a given here. And that 'bands carrying responsibility' thing is a load of old balls. How on earth can they be responsible?
Good paragraph above that though. Implying people who like punk are racists, excellent trolling!
... and given I don't like the scene/ the genre (which frankly is all I'm saying here), I'm quite obviously going to finger them for the blame. Then again, we needed punk so that reactions like post-punk could evolve and given that, it's not all bleak.
If you look again and utilize the accuracy of the English language you will notice that I indicated (rather flippantly) that punk has been embraced by white-supremacists NOT that punk is ONLY liked by white supremacists.
Saying that, I cannot say I've ever met a single person who was into punk who I actually liked as a person, which is a big thing really because I don't tend to get the same reaction from people with other types of musical tastes.
Do you really think music taste dictates personality (or vice versa)?
I mean obviously all metallers are vacant loners, all emos are self-obsessed attention seekers and all beatles fans are dead, but apart from that.
Normally I'd say that generally you can tell a lot about a person by the type of music they listen to - though of course there will always be wonderful exceptions.
Still I've never had an experience where I couldn't get on with someone who liked their post-rock or electro. Punk seems to attract or (alternatively) mold a certain character. There were two people I knew at uni who liked punk (and I mean really liked their punk) and I couldn't stand either one. They weren't stupid but they were totally obnoxious and since then, that impression hasn't been challenged greatly.
you have a vendetta against the genre? your loss
Do you have a problem reading English that isn't pubescently hostile and limited to one or two lines. I think the loss would be yours in that case.
but its a waste of time. every few weeks theres some bellend on here trying to insult the entire genre of punk based on a knowledge of punk that spans from the ramones to the sex pistols and its a waste of time arguing with then about it. and you are a cunt as well.
Which is more than I can say for your penchant to unleash personal insults. People who are certain of their 'defense' have no need to resort to simple minded play ground rhetoric.
Although I could just be projecting the 'tude?
and anyone who has looked into punk beyond the sex pistols would know 'Now punk is only celebrated by people who still believe that ostensibly antagonistic, aggressive sounding, politically simplistic music is the bottom line in all things masculine - oh and white-supremacists of course. Punk is dreadful, dreary and unimaginably outdated sounding stuff. It's the sort of stuff only plebs think is anti-establishment and people who look and dress a bit like Shane Maguire from Shameless' is just utter bollocks.
i cant be arsed to repeat myself, so like i said, its your loss.
That's the best impression of a modern day punk advocate I've ever heard.
I can't be arsed with that. Influencing the scene to follow hardly = responsibility really as far as I can see.
Frankly there are better arguments against my position such as:
"Could you hold Pink Floyd responsible for the joke that was 70s prog-rock?" I probably couldn't.
There I've defeated my own position.
it was a good one, but the beatles wrote far more.
i can listen to about 10 ramones songs before getting bored. they are good for those 10 songs, but theres nothing beyond that.
ur doin it rong
(which is a fair bit). Where as every beatles song kicks the shit out 99% of pop songs written since. The Ramones just seem like a boring version of the stooges.
and they stuck to it,the beatles didnt stick to any formula.And the beatles are more musical but thats due the limitations of punk,the beatles evolved and the ramones kinda stayed the same,the ramones are not meant to be taken seriously,the ramones = lots and lots of fun.
i can spell honestly!
definately buckets of fun. I'd say I enjoy their songs more than the beatles. But I've never been very big on the beatles.
If I'd have the choice between which act to see in a live setting the ramones circa late 70s would piss all over any of the beatles shows though I think.