Talk:Ramones/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Possible copyvio

copyright alert -- this article looks like a cut-and paste job from various web sources such as

• http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-0119.txt
• http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/singerUnid/FAE7A27A2D587F4848256A0D00260E76
• http://venus.spaceports.com/~ivo/history.html

etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 April 2002 (UTC)

Photo size

This photo is much too large. It spans more than the width of a page, and covers up text. --RickK (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2003 (UTC)

Orphaned quotation mark

There is an orphaned quotation mark at the end of the "influences" section but it is not evident where the opening quote should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editdroid (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 April 2005 (UTC)

"Hugely influential" POV

Re: today's edit - The Ramones *were* a "hugely" influential punk band. This isn't "point of view", it's documented fact, from testimony of the countless musicians who claim to have been influenced by them. --feline1 (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

Rhapsody link

Added a link to rhapsody, I suggest people get the service if they want the LP experience, I know it kinda devalues our CD collections, but I had 200 CD's before I got on rhapsody. Its the best experience if you are really into music. --Rofthorax (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

"In 2002, the band was introduced to the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame. At the ceremony, Johnny, Tommy, Marky and Dee Dee spoke on behalf of the band. Johnny blessed George Bush and its Presidency. Dee Dee congratulated and thanked himself. He died two months later of a heroin overdose."

Shouldn't it be : "At the ceremony, Joey, Tommy, Marky and Dee Dee spoke on behalf of the band"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.132.45 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's correct as stated. oey was already deceased when the band was inducted into the RNR Hall of Fame. --Myles Long/cDc (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Ramones" vs. "The Ramones"

The band name was actually "Ramones", not "The Ramones". When used in a sentence, the word "the" is added for sentence flow. But there is no "the" in the title. It is the same with the Pixies and the Eagles. The article title should be switched to "Ramones". --Kevinsnow (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and move it; that's the beauty of wiki. --Myles Long/cDc (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

i was about to say the same thing, i'll move it --[[User:Spute|Spute] (talk)] 13:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has actually done it, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.254.143 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Muscial activists?

Why are they listed as musical activists? Aside from Bonzo goes to Germany, they really didn't have any "political" songs. As a band, they didn't have a political stance and as far as I know, they never played benefits, or donated band money to any activist organization. I would suggest removing them from the Musical Activist category. --BTChicago (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In the End of the Century documentary, it seemed like they were doing a benerfit concert of some kind, don't remember for what and how common it was, but still... --惑乱 分からん (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That was Joey doing a benefit for the Democratic Party, not the Ramones. They never did politics, because Joey and Johnny disagreed so much. I'd feel better if Johnny and Joey were seperately listed as activists than the group as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.71.144 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with 203.208.71.144's suggestion that Joey and Johnny each be listed as musical activists, as opposed to the band. --BTChicago (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some template

To my opinion this {{Ramones}} template or whatever it is called needs some clean-up time. Maybe the "Discography" section should be split up into seperate categories like "singles", "albums"... If I would know how to do that I would, but I don't. And Editing stuff like that is a bit ahead of me. --MrDeBeuker (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interview with a dead man

"According to Joey, in an interview prior to his death". Prior to Joey's or Ritchies' death? If Joey's death is meant here "prior to his death" should obviously be removed, otherwise the sentence should be reworded. --MrDeBeuker (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Second punk rock band?

I think this is a matter of opinion and should not be included in the opening section of the article. The article also doesn't clarify who the first punk band was if it wasn't the Ramones (The Stooges, perhaps?). Personally, I think they were the first. --A.M. Thomas (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will change the first sentence to "The Ramones are widely considered to be a seminal punk rock band;" I think this is more ambiguous and less one-sided. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. --A.M. Thomas (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase implies that there are some who do not think the Ramones are "a seminal punk rock band," which is absurd. Perhaps change "a seminal punk rock band" to "the seminal punk rock band." Then again, I'd have no problem with stating that they are "the first punk rock band," as that's how allmusic.com refers to them. Why not "widely considered to be the first punk rock band"? --Willerror (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They're definitely one of the first but not necessarily the first. The New York Dolls formed a few years earlier, and The Stooges laid the foundation for punk rock before punk rock existed. --keepsleeping slack off! 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what about "one of the first punk bands and are widely considered to be the most influential" or "most important"? I think it needs to be stated right off that the Ramones occupy a special place in rock history, something different from the Dolls and the Stooges--great though those bands are, the Ramones captured something they did not. I think that should be reflected by acknowledging that right off. --Willerror (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What you guys forget is that they never called themselves a "Punk" band. The Stooges and the Dolls were influences for punk, but especially in the case of the Dolls they were more glam rock. --195.92.168.175 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much what someone considers himself to be. War criminals generally don't consider themselves to be war criminals either. --MrDeBeuker (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

the ramones are so often considered the first simply because they were probably the purest punk there was, and no one would dispute it, while the stooges (who came before the term 'punk rock') were more diverse and glammy. anyone who could write a song like 'we will fall' really isn't punk. they are generally considered hard rock. --Joeyramoney (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template fix

Can someone fix the Ramones template? All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 1 appears as a dead link in the template. But the article is under a different name. --MrDeBeuker (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Post- 'Century' decline in quality

this article describes eotc as one of the 'not so great' albums, which doesn't necesarily alude to the metallic crap that they had churned out consistently afterwards. say what you will about 'too tough to die', but that isn't the stuff we remember them for. few bands are as good as their first few albums, but the difference is pretty well marked for the ramones, and that's why i think someone should mention the post-eotc decline in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyramoney (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, alternately, the "First Albums" section should be expanded to highlight how highly acclaimed their '70s output is, rather than simply talking about other punk bands and how Tommy cooked potatoes. Talk of the lackluster albums should be tempered by their never-ending tour schedule and inability to break into the mainstream. --Willerror (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock?

Johnny Ramone stated in an interview that he did not think that the Ramones were any more punk than the Beatles and that they did not play punk rock, but rock n' roll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikrieg (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that in several interviews that Everett True had with the bandmembers, they often said they were hust an underground Rock N Roll band and felt that Punk was a label tagged to them which stopped them getting Radio play. There's no doubt in my mind however that they will be remembered as a punk band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.173 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve Brickman

In addition, though alleged by his family to be the primary drummer for The Ramones, Steve Brickman, in fact, never played with the band. What is that about? A citation or reference link would be nice. --BlueGlowGuardian (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't find any references on this, or references to who Steve Brickman could be, leading to the conclusion that some kid decided to write himself or a friend into the article. Bah! and delete. --Ziggurat (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Brickman was an original figure in the New York Underground Rock and Roll music scene. Never has he been considered a primary drummer for the Ramones but has been credited to perform with them as many other drummers have during the shaping and formation of the Ramones in the late '70's. This is not Steve's only collaboration with the many bands he has written and performed with during his career. Besides, who cares? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foofoo212 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My word, how did you get even here. Steve was NEVER a drummer for the Ramones. That was left to the extremely talented Mister Bell. Steve did though have the honor to drum, befriend and associate with many great musicians of that era, certainly to many to mention here under such poor conditions during the 1970's. Though Steve has had the privelage to play and associate with these talented artists, please believe this should not be mistaken for receiving any false credit. Whom Steve knew and he cherished honors and those who perished always will be dear to certainly his heart. Call Steve a fake, call him a fraud, or how about guilty by association, but the plain truth is Steve was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.70.196 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonzo Goes to Bitburg

The article states that Johnny refused to play the song when he figured out what it was about. Is there confirmation of this? Johnny would have to be pretty dense; I figured it out in high school. It was released in 1986, and I have a DVD of them playing BGTB in 1992 in Cologne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.77.240 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, if there's no cite made for this claim by Dec 18 '05, I'm going to delete that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.88.12 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The song was written by Dee Dee not Joey. The dispute was over the title,which Johnny didn't like. They comprimised on the album it was called 'Howling at the Moon (Sha-la-la)' and on the single 'Bonzo Goes to Bitburg'. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenbrazil (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My Brain Is Hangin Upside Down was written by BOTH Joey and Dee Dee. Jean Beavoir also contributed. Johnny did play that song live even though it was against his values and opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikrieg (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think BGTB was actually renamed 'My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down' - My copy of 'BTBG' Beggars Banquet 1985, my copy of 'Animal Boy' Sire 1986. Also 'Poison Heart:Surviving The Ramones' Dee DeeRamone, pp 118 - 119. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanTilley (talk • contribs) 18:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I Saw them in '93 and they played it. Johnny played it like he loved it. He was always my favourite Ramoone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.168 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Duncan is right, it was renamed "My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down"-"Howling At The Moon (Sha-la-la)" is a completely different song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.137 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It was played at every show (or at least most of them) from early '87 to some time in '95. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.1.17.105 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Singles listing messed up

What the HELL is that thing at the bottom listing their singles? It looks like it was once a table of somes sort but the monsters of bad Wiki markup ate it. This article is just messed up. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 04:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the cleanup tag on the singles section. It looks like our friend 84.183.173.191 fixed that mess. Also Jakiša Tomić fixed the members section. Let us give them both a big round of applause! --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 08:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, some vandal from 83.233.7.69 have deleted large part of the article. I don't know what profit he have with that... --Jakiša Tomić (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that deletion may have been an accident. Like you said, there really was no profit in it. Oh well...it is fixed now. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 00:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I think the Ramones references are getting out of hand... citing every instance of a musician uttering "1-2-3-4", or a video game featuring a snippet of a song, etc., is ridiculous. I'm still waiting for someone to note that the cardboard cutout of Shania Twain in "I Heart Huckabees" was wearing a Ramones t-shirt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willerror (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So... every time a band says "1-2-3-4" that's counted as a Ramones reference? WTF? --Willerror (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is getting way out of hang. Nearly every punk band or modern rock band can list the Ramones as a influence. It needs to be edited. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 00:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Edited? At this point, I say just delete the whole f-ing thing. --Willerror (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Source of "Gabba Gabba Hey!"

I found this in the Famous Fans section: "a pinhead that held up a sign that read, "Gabba Gabba Hey" when they would play the song Pinhead. The pinhead was named Gabby Hey. This name was given to him by either Uncle Floyd or a member of The Uncle Floyd Show cast (The Ramones appeared on The Uncle Floyd Show at least 15 times)." Can someone please validate this claim or at least make it grammatically correct. I have no idea where it came from. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's from the 1930s horror film Freaks--it's a chant the freaks sing to initiate a new "member." --Willerror (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it has been a while since I have seen that movie so I'm not familiar with it. Could you find some way to incorporate it into the main article? Thanks! --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 18:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Okay, who messed with the layout? It looks horrendous now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.202.108 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i fixed it should be fine now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.183.173.191 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this vandalism has been missed, it seriously messed things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs) 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Songs with Ramones references

There is a song by some band and it is called DEADRAMONES. But I really cannot remember the name of the band and can't add it to Ramones References until I do. Has anyone ever heard the song or know who sings it? --TearAwayTheFunerealDress (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's D.E.A.D.R.A.M.O.N.E.S. by Modern Life Is War. Check Google, the top listing has an MP3. --CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks much. --TearAwayTheFunerealDress (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This entire section is getting ridiculous. I vote for deletion of the section. --Willerror (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans

I think this section is getting a little overgrown. Seriously, EVERY punk group can list the Ramones as an influenece. I think we should shave it down to the ones that are entirely neseccary and/or are interesting. There also appears to be a bit of vandalism or just bad editing. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 04:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is ridiculous, don't you think? Other bands don't have "Famous Fans" sections. --Willerror (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Add Brain Drain photo

Can someone add the Brain Drain cover image to the studio discography? For the life of me I can't figure out how to do it. Thanks. --Willerror (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

References and Tributes

After look at the pages for the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, which have no section for Ref's and Trib's, I'm of the mind that the entire section should be *deleted*. It looks sloppy, a lot of it is poorly written, and it's obvious it's only going to get worse since now (alas) the Ramones are more popular than ever. I vote for complete deletion of this section. --Willerror (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we make a seperate article *specifically* for refs and tributes? I agree that it is growing out of hand and I have a few ideas to reorganize it, should it be kept, but I can easily apply the same ideas to the list on another article. --Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 18:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the more I read this article, the more disappointed I am in it. From its terrible run-on opening sentence, "The Ramones were an influential early punk rock band, believed by many to have been the first and also seen as the fathers of pop-punk and are said to have kick started the British punk movement" to its endless list of inconsequential references and links that go nowhere, I daresay an entire revamp is in order. --Willerror (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the whole Ref's and Trib's section has got to go. No other band seems to have one; why do the Ramones? Is every little snippet of a Ramones song in a TV show or movie going to be catalogued? Every TV appearance? Leave that for the fan sites. Anybody wanna weigh in? --Willerror (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section. No other band really has one, it was getting too long and unwieldy, no sources, grammatically poor entries, pointless entries, etc., etc. I think it cleans up the whole article. --Willerror (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, The Beatles have something similar, but in a seperate article - The Beatles' influence on popular culture. In The KLF article (also up as a FAC) we have a section on influence, but it's prose and short. Definitely the list you had was overkill, but you probably ought to have something on their legacy. --kingboyk (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete track listings

I’ve noticed how only the first four Ramones albums contain the Rhino re-release bonus tracks however all the albums from Ramones to Too Tough To Die have been re-released with bonus so cold some one please add the bonus tracks to the fallowing albums; End of the Century, Pleasant Dreams, Subterranean Jungle, Too Tough to Die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KChuck27 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Done but without track lengths. --Jakiša Tomić (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The first punk rock band

I would suggest the following change: Instead of "The Ramones were a punk rock band," it ought to read "The Ramones were the FIRST punk rock band." I think that most music historians and enthusiasts would agree that they were the first band to meld all of the requisite elements of punk rock music into an identifiable genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.125.16 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is often rightly said that the Ramones created punk, the Sex Pistols made it famous, and The Clash made it mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.125.16 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It could also be "rightly" said that the Ramones made rock and roll fun again, the Sux Pistols ruined the chance to make them popular by turning "punk" into some stupid fashion show, and Malcolm McLaren, John Lydon, et al. should be imprisoned for their crimes. But maybe that's just me... --Dujang Prang (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ramones "was"?

Ugh. The Ramones "were" or the Ramones "are", but not the Ramones "was". I know "the Ramones" as a band is a single entity, but still, leading off this page with grammar that I think sets off alarms in most people's heads is simply a bad idea. --Willerror (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A plural as a band name is common and it is correct in that case to refer to the band as the composite of their members; a plural. I will also change the sentence: "The Ramones were a very influential early punk rock band, believed by many to be the first and also seen as the fathers of pop-punk". --Switch (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Band names are collective proper noun. "The Ramones was" is correct. All the members make up one band. The Ramones is a single entity (they are one band). Since the noun as a collective is singular, the proper verbs to use are "is" and "was," not "are" and "were." For example, "The United States is a country" not "The United States are a country." This has been discussed at several band articles. See the discussion on "is" and "are" here for band names ending with "s". Just because there are more hits does not make "are" right. Most people do not know how to use collective proper noun correctly. --RJN (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where a plural noun refers to a single entity comprised of several unique entities, either is acceptable. But when it vreates a grammatical contradiction, common sense should be applied. "Minor Threat were a band" and "Minor Threat was a band" are both grammatically correct. Technically, "The Ramones were" and "The Ramones was" are both acceptable, but the logical contradiction created by the latter makes it poor English. Perhaps we should change all instances of "impossible" to "unpossible", as that is technically a correct form? No. Language is not set in stone; correct use is defined by use. See the article on irony; using "irony" in place of incongruity is correct English, even if not "actually" correct. --Switch (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an especially obvious case, due to the fact that the band members adopted the names and identities of "Ramones". Due to this they were frequently referred to as "a Ramone", "former Ramone", etc. The band name is a plural, not a singular collective noun. So, it is correct to write "The Ramones were..." --Rhobite (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An unknown user changed the first line again from "were" to "was"--I switched it back. Again, "The Ramones were" is absolutely fine and acceptable. --Willerror (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ramones/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article has a lot of information and media, but might need better formatting. Also article failed both a FA review and GA review. - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)