Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now THAT was an overrated band. In their handful of records contasing maybe 150 odd songs, they still never grabbed you by the balls the way the Pistols did in their 12 song history. And they never even got near the Clash. And as to the genius of being a simple three chord band, if that confers genius status, then why not place AC/DC up there as critics' darlings. They punched out perfect three chord three minute classics years before the Ramones did. I guess the Ramones get a load of cred because Phil Spector liked them. Phil liked a lot of things. He liked shooting blonde cokeheads, and he hasn't made a hit single since the 60s. Just because you were peripherally connected to a once famous now infamous producer does not make you a genius. Prince is considered a genius. He produced Sheila E. Anyone got a copy of Sheila E's greatest hits? I guess Dee Dee deserves a lot of credit for playing a stripped down version of guitar. So does MC5, the Stooges and Neil Young. Neil played the one note solo on Cowgirl in the Sand nearly a decade before the Ramones.
The Ramones will always exist in the shadow of London Calling and Never Mind the Bollocks, which is where they belong. They were good, but not nearly as good as the critics claim. They're a prime example of critics championing something mediocre just because its underground. Its a way for critics to protect their jobs by seeming cutting edge.
|
The best thing about the Ramones was they were just fun. All the early punker bands were sooo serious (the Clash's early slogan- "the Only Band That Matters"). The Clash were singing about racial politics and London burning with boredom, meanwhile the Ramones were singing about shock treatment, lobotomies and glue sniffing. You didn't have to think so much with the Ramones, which was often a positive.
