Quote:
sebastian_dangerfield
Why is it that being a pioneer is so often confused with being among the best in one's chosen endeavor? Just like your first high school sex, the first is usually not the best. Things tend to get better as you build upon the model.
I didn't say the Ramones were not important or innovative. I said they weren't as talented or as good as the critics claim. It is noteworthy that the Ramones were pioneers, but that fact neither refutes nor addresses my point. They just couldn't hold a candle to the Clash or the Pistols.
I fully recognize that its popular to overstate the Ramones influence at the moment while downplaying the Pistols'. I don't know why that's become religion among the critics lately, but my guess is it has to do with speaking positively of the dead, and the fact that Johnny Rotten routinely calls critics asses and claims to have always wanted to "sell out" anyway. I guess that makes the crityics a bit angry, since it makes them look foolish for all those articles lauding the Pistols as revolutionaries.
Critics are asses. I'm not being a critic here. I just don't like the Ramones and offered some facts about why I don't like them and they're not as good as some of their contemporaries.
|
Jesus. The Pistols were nothing more than a manufactured gimmick band. McClaren was an earlier version of Maurice Starr.
And all you need to do is look at Lydon's years in Public Image Ltd to see what a no talent poseur he really is
