Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
God The Ramones are such a weak band. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
They were reactionary, trying to destroy the pompousness of 70s stadium and prog rock. Fast and simple the way rock and roll began.
That's how I feel about Michael Jackson. Except he wasn't a band. He was just 1 person who whispered like a shy little girl & flailed around onstage like a noodle and he kept grabbing his crotch and nobody asked him to grab his crotch. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
All your personal issues with the man are yours and not in dispute. I think a big difference here is that MJ was a musical virtuoso, not just a singer and showman.
Was he virtuoso though? I feel like his best work was with Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton and without them he was just meh.
Yes, look into the man. He composed a shitload of his music.
I personally don't even like the man's musical output. That said, I can recognize genius. The man was nothing short of a musical genius with very few I could even list next to him, perhaps with the exceptions of Stevie, Herbie, Prince, Eno, and other brilliant minds. The guy was out of his tree, but on a level of musicality most people can't even grasp.
Only two and one co-written on Off the Wall and three and one co-written on Thriller (although they are bangers). He did write most of Bad but anything outside of that is imo sub-par. I'm not denying he had a lot of talent but I think he's far from a virtuoso.
Lol right. Give me a god damned break! You can't be serious, you're trolling, or genuinley know nothing of music.
Not trolling. I don't find his solo work without Quincy Jones that exceptional. Granted the Jones stuff is amazing but Michael wasn't able to replicate that on his own.
That was my fault. I asked him to do it ONCE, and he just wouldn't quit after that!
Hee hee!
^Hee^ Hee!
Mystery solved. The rhinoplasty was the reason MJ couldn't stop grabbing his own crotch onstage.
You ever start trimming something and one side is longer than the other so, you try to even it up, but you go a little too far, so you have cut the other side some more, and it's still not quite right, so you just keep cutting until nothing's left?
Let's just say Michael got that one on the house.
I saw them live twice and they were great shows.
I'm not debating that they bring the hype, people love them and yes they have their influential place in the history of rock.
I'm just saying in this era, I am lost as to why anybody would seek that music out. It had its place and it had its time, but that was like 50+ years ago.
I don't need to hear these boots are made for walkin', and I don't need to hear I wanna be sedated. They're anthems from an ancient time.
Well, firstly, ‘These Boots are Made for Walkin'’ is a great song that sounds gorgeous compared to most of its contemporaries.
Secondly, there are pretty much no other bands that sound like Ramones. If you want that kind of fast and fun sound once in a while, there's no other option. Most other punk sounds like punk, but no punk other than Ramones sounds like them.
The only ones sounding similar to Ramones are those making deliberate effort to emulate their sound: Ramonetures, ‘Gabber Gabber Hey!’, Helen Love.
You're missing my point.
These are dried up, shallow pieces of music that had their place. Once you've heard one of their 2 minutes songs, you've heard their entire discography!
There's actually great music you could spend your time on, which is what I do. There's 20 new albums every day, there's amazing jazz, amazing punk, amazing growth in various forms of music. In a way, listening to primitive music like Ramones is depriving oneself of what's out there now, which makes it sound like children's jingles in comparison.
I realize I may be coming off harsh, but that is my personal perspective, I think it's weak and one dimensional. Then again, that statement could be applied to many popular acts.
Somehow I'm sure just from your comments that I wouldn't consider most anything that you listen to ‘good’, and I've heard lots of musics in my life. And I certainly wouldn't turn down good music just because it's old or simpler than other music.
Krudler is coming at it like music is a zero sum game, which is silly. I love the Ramones. I also love more innovative, complex music, as well as plenty of vapid garbage. I'm happy jumping from Art Pepper to Guatafán. None of it is a waste of time if it's what I'm in the mood for.
The Ramones were a fresh slap in the face back in the day, and without them punk & new wave wouldn't be what they are. In the meantime, other artists have built on the Ramones' foundation. Similarly, Jimi Hendrix revolutionised how people used the electeic guitar as an instrument, but other artists ran with it to the point that his stuff is archaic (I can't listen to Hendrix for the same reason K dismissed the Ramones, but to each their own).
I guess what I'm saying is that even if you personally don't like an influential band, you have to acknowledge that they might be exactly what resonates with someone else. That's why we have so much music in the world. To the original topic though, Ramones music does all sound the same. Why mess with perfection?
In the case of Ramones, it's kinda especially ironic to talk about other music building and improving on their foundation, seeing as they specifically returned to simple, fast and fun approach of early rock-n-roll. The heyday of punk was remarkably short-lived, post-punk swooping in almost immediately, and new-wave shortly after that. Already by '78, the ‘no wave’ scene did another round by steering away from commercialization of new-wave! So indeed, Ramones are a document of this early era, but they also had their own particular approach to music, not quite captured by most other bands, as punk didn't really have a groovy sound to it.
Traces of this can be seen in the fact that there's almost no electronic music that feels like Ramones-style structures, but with electronic instruments: i.e. electronic rock-n-roll. I know of ‘Gabber Gabber Hey’ and Helen Love linked above, and perhaps also Sexy Sushi. This is despite the existence of plenty of electronic punk and post-punk.
Fun fact: since Ramones are pretty much rock-n-roll in punk, their songs actually work well reinterpreted back in rockabilly (it's impossible to find actual rock-n-roll covers because of their two songs with this word in the titles).
Maybe they're sedated?
BamBamBamBam