Talk:Ramones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramones article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Wikiproject_Punk This article is part of WikiProject Punk music, an attempt to improve articles related to Punk rock. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Ramones was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 13 October 2006

Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Descendents?Offspring?

Ok this is a bizarre question, but it is just based on a hunch. Did any of The Ramones (but more specifically DD, J, J, &T) ever have any children? I know Joey had a brother, but did any of them father any children. I am guessing no. But I could be way wrong. Maybe Tommy did? Did Johnny? Ok. this is just a curiosity. Thanks. Xsxex 13:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Joey was born sterile, and thus never fathered any children. I don't know about the others.70.65.190.175 00:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Johnny and Dee Dee had no kids, as in their obituaries it only said they let behind wives. I thought this was gonna about the bands the descendents and the offspring.Hoponpop69 03:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CJ had 2 children with Marky's niece whom he is now divorced from. --GBVrallyCI 14:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, get it.. Descendents.. Offspring.. yeah, DUH! Well it looks like my first curiosity might have been correct that (J,J, DD & T) never fathered any children. Its great to because it contrast them entirely with the whole history of freakin' "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll." The case is not closed on this though. Anyone else have any comments about this? Xsxex 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! at first i thought you were referring to the 2 punk rock bands The Descendants and The Offspring. Itachi1452 03:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization, editing and sourcing needed

This is a very poorly written article. It is very jumbled and repetitive. Basic information is repeated and disorganized. I think we can do better. There is a lot here that should be edited and arranged in a more coherent way. Volunteers? Ee60640 10:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally re-arranged and heavily updated "Trivia" section last days, and goin' to continue this work. However the basic sections seems good enough for me, and I see no need to reconstruct it. The only thing might be useful, is to create the more specific widespread "influences" and "followers" section. There are many names to be mentioned, and it's a very interesting to trace the pre-Ramones punk-rock influences and the total impact, made by the Ramones for the next generations of rock music. Bocharoff 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Wow! this article has come a long way. It looks pretty good. Keep up the good work. Xsxex 18:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "The" topic

Ok people, for once and for all: is it "The Ramones" or "Ramones"? Judging by their album covers, including their debut, I say "Ramones". -- Face 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Any Ramones fan knows it's "Ramones", not "The Ramones"
Ramones - Ee60640 10:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
say "my favorite band is ramones" out loud and tell me it sounds right. 67.172.61.222 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong: "my favorite band is The Ramones"
Wrong: "my favorite band is Ramones"
Right: "my favorite band is the Ramones"
Nareek 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do the articles still list them as The Ramones though? -- Face 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Writers don't know better.

[edit] Is this right?

Or is it vandalism? [1] - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask user 71.87.54.116 himself. He seems like a cool guy: [2]. No anonymous vandal I guess. -- Face 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Punk Rock Group

The Ramones are not "widely considered to be one of the first punk rock groups." They are obviously that--everyone agrees on that. What is "widely considered" by many critics and fans alike--even Allmusic: "The Ramones are the first punk rock band"--is that they are the first punk rock group. Every band before them--the Stooges, Dolls, MC5, ad infinitum--are proto punk bands and not wholly punk rock, that is, contemporaneous with the cultural moment of '76-'77. The Ramones hold an esteemed place in pop culture history and should be noted boldly as such. Willerror 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the dominance of the US in, well, everything, and the UK in punk rock obscure the first punk rock group - not noted as punk until years after their formation, but still identified as such and never classified as protopunk - the Australian band, The Saints. However, the article was changed at some point - it should indeed reflect that the Ramones are one of the first, and are considered the first. --Switch 15:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you remembered The Saints. It's a really great band, but its first album (I'm) Stranded was released in 1977 - three years after The Ramones formed. There's no band in the world, that might be called the absolutely true first punk band. Punk rock was born as a result of series of happenigs, its roots lies in Little Richard, Eddie Cochran or Jerry Lee Lewis power rock'n'roll, The Kinks garage invention, the sonic attacks of The Who, The Troggs and The Sonics, in the Velvet Underground anti-hippy protest, The Stooges noise blasts and New York Dolls drunk'n'drugs experience. But... but... but... when someone ask me "What's the new Ramones brought to proto-punk?" I always answer: "They brought nothing new in proto punk. It's vice versa. They removed all the excessive from proto-punk. And that was the genius step in the creating real modern days punk". The Ramones was the first band, created absolutely white-sounding, blues-less rock. Straight punk rock with no unnecessary note. Bocharoff 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The saints formed in 1972. --Switch 08:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It is The Saints' own personal history. To the history of punk rock The Saints entered only in 1977. Bocharoff 09:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
They were playing punk rock for years before the Ramones, and because they didn't get found by the scene until 1977, despite the fact they hadn't changed their musical style, they were a punk band after the Ramones? --Switch 11:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair to call them the first punk band ever. I agree that they are "widely considered to be one of the first punk rock groups." -- User:Anonymous November 27, 2006 11:54 PM US CENTRAL TIME

Lets call them the first notable punk group. Or the group which was later called punk, around which the label most fit. The embodiment of punk rock? I'm sorry but to the users on here who are trying to give some props to The Saints... it think its pretty ridiculous. Even The Saints THEMSELVES played a tribute show for the Ramones. (Go the photo & info is on their myspace & website). The Saints are definetly one of the first punk groups and they even developed their style around the same time as the Ramones, but they are not even close to as notable as the Ramones in regards to the genesis of what was to become "punk" & "punk rock." However being that punk IS! the very thing that is excluded and elusive, this, in turn, makes them even more punk than they would have been otherwise. Yet, the only reason we can even discuss the qualitative (notice i did not use "quantitative") aspects of The Saints is only because of the impact of the Ramones (which, being from NYC, situated them in the one of the main concentrated nexis of american pop culture.) But the point is that we can't discuss punk without first understanding the Ramones and then The Saints. Sweet. Im a geek. Xsxex 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The Ramones were the first punk band to get a record deal. This is by far the #1 reason why they are considered to be the first punk band. Some of the other bands like the NY Dolls and the such may have had some punk attitude, but they still looked and sounded like a 70s band (IMO). The Ramones made popular the simple 3 cord songs with no guitar leads, and 2 min or less in duration. They gave everyone who listened to their music the idea that you didn't have to be a life-long musician, you just needed to have the want and drive to do it. The first album, with bass on one side and guitar on the other (balance) was perfect for learning for those who learned by ear, and not by book. Mrhyak 04:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The Ramones have more in common with the rock bands of the 50's and 60's in terms of their musical style than they do with punk rock. Their image and sound is alternately closer to being Garage Rock. I admit they were influential to punk music - they were in the right place at the right time - but they have little in common with true punk bands like Iggy and the Stooges, Black Flag and others that came later. Its my choice, but I will be putting their genre into iTunes as Garage Rock for my personal music collection, they are barely related to Punk Rock - Some of the themes maybe, but I dont see the Ramones as having a punk rock sound or feel. Octothorn 09:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you just confuse the difference between Punk and Hardcore (or Hardcore Punk as some would call it). Mrhyak 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but The Ramones do fit very well in the Garage Rock category, and from my point of view that is where they belong. I am amused by the suggestion that "soft" punk is punk at all, and not a form of punk-glamorised pop music. For my money, if it isn't hardcore punk, it simply isn't punk, it's something else - a pretender cashing in with their pop, or cult-oriented spin on the punk feel. Punk was born out of a time and a place, a political environment and economic conditions, so in honesty they just don't make it any more - the time has passed. Soft punk is a sham. The Ramones are Garage Rock. Octothorn 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Political punk was a british thing. It is a different brand, not the only one. The music style was created in the USA/NY clubs and copied by the british bands so it is somewhat amusing that you would then call the Ramones pretenders because you prefer the political style. All of the bands you mention consider the Ramones as their influence, and the band that started it all. Read the history from Black Flag[3], in their own words they said they were fueled by the first album of the Ramones. Mrhyak 03:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 2

some one needs to creat a page for All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 2 beacuse All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 1 has one so why not number 2?

Add the shit for All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 2

[edit] AFDeletion on Gabba, tribute band to ABBA and Ramones

The tribute band to ABBA and The Ramones, Gabba (band), has been marked for deletion. You may want to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabba (band) -- 62.147.112.67 00:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD closed, the result was Keep -- 62.147.112.7 10:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ramones Greatest Hits 2006

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EXZI0A/sr=1-4/qid=1153454940/ref=sr_1_4/102-7025284-2147345?ie=UTF8&s=music Shouldn't this be added.

I added it along with a bunch of other comilation and live cd's. If anyone feels like further editing these please do so, as right now they are mostly just tracklistings.

Also a few of the albums I added still needed articles, including the greatest hits one you mentioned.- Hoponpop69

[edit] Shirt

Could someone explain the amazing popularity of the Ramones shirts, particularly of females who have clearly never heard of the group

  • Retro is all the rage these days, and young females jump on the bandwagon. --Spartacusprime 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive Length

The trivia section is creeping up again... I deleted it before. It's useless. Also, do we need an entire section for Singles? Come on, most of their singles charted nowhere. It's unnecessary. Also, the section on "Ramones-punk"--a bit much. "Intra band tensions" and "Ramones break up" could probably be worked into the general article. Willerror 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

why is the trivia section "useless"? i don't see why we should leave it out. you are the only one who has tried to remove it, and others obviously think otherwise, so i really think it should be put back up for now. it seems that less than half of this articles is actual content, so no, the size is not as drastic a problem as you seem to think. anyway, this is one of the most influential and important bands of the rock idiom, so i think they deserve i nice informative article. Joeyramoney 05:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem with it is that it invites random illiterate entries that do not adhere to Wikipedia guidelines: "on a cellphon commercal you can hear the ramoens song blitzkrig Bop playing in teh bkacground, and aslo in a video game i plyed once the song on it goes 1,2 ,34 & that is b/c ramones siad that." It also quickly gets out of hand with everyone and their brother adding stuff in, without ever bothering to really correct & improve the *main* article. Maybe it could be a separate article with some folks really policing the endless grammatical and factual errors that are sure to ensue. Willerror 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the trivia section was out of control--it's still quite long, even after I distributed much of it to other sections and/or articles. An encyclopedia is organized information. If anyone wants to take a crack at sorting some of the remaining trivia, be my guest. Nareek 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discography and length

as per our friend willerror and the "41k too long" notice at the top of the page, i decided to cut down on the length by moving the discography (like the beatles) to a seperate article. Joeyramoney 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Members

In the info-box it has the members as;
Joey Ramone
Johnny Ramone
Marky Ramone
C.J. Ramone

And then, as "former members"....
Dee Dee Ramone
Tommy Ramone
Richie Ramone
Elvis Ramone

Technically Joey and Johnny are former members too because they've died.. should it just have the most recognisable line-up of the band in the info-box?...

As in Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee & Tommy? - Deathrocker 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the band broke up, so they're all former members. so most-recognizable line-up it is. WesleyDodds 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright well I've put the original line-up in the info box now. - Deathrocker 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to rename the members lists, but it made the members disappear--apparently only certain labels work. So I put it back the way it was, but it's wrong--there are no "current members", and the non-original members are no more "past members" than the original ones are. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of how infoboxes work can fix this. Nareek 13:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The article states members 1989-1996 it has richie ramone as the drummer , i believe this is incorrect that it was marky ramone who was the drummer So this should be changed. - November 27, 2006. User:anonymous 11:50 pm US CENTRAL TIME

[edit] Linda Stein

Just found this near-orphan, former Ramones manager (with Danny Fields). Any place for her in this article? Seems to pass WP:BIO or I'd prod. --Dhartung | Talk 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

This article fails Good Article criteria 2b: the citation of its sources using inline citations is required. Kaldari 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some examples of passages that need inline citations:

  1. "Joey was also reported to have drug problems, and later admitted drinking heavily for much of the '80s."
  2. "...the Ramones disbanded, reportedly due to ongoing personality clashes and frustration at not achieving success commensurate with their influence."
  3. "According to Joey, he became a button manufacturer."
  4. "...the Ramones' names genesis offered by the band members is that New York was overloaded with teenage latin street gangs, and the name Ramone was an epithome for disorder and violence."
  5. "Dee Dee later said, "We didn't write a positive song until 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue'."
  6. "During the recording sessions, Spector reportedly pulled a gun on Dee Dee, and forced Johnny to play the opening chord to "Rock 'n' Roll High School" hundreds of times."
  7. "Marky Ramone was fired in early 1983 because of his alcoholism..."
  8. "This is sometimes described as the biggest development in rock'n'roll since Chuck Berry."

If you can add inline citations for most of those, I think it will be up to GA standards. Kaldari 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you do find sources for most of those, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll be happy to rereview the article for GA (so you don't have to go through the whole process again). Kaldari 22:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Joey's claim that Richie Stern "...became a button manufacturer" appears in the interview on page 32 of "On The Road With The Ramones". The problem is, knowing Joey, that may have simply meant he was hawking homemade pinbacks on the street outside the shows! Roz666 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a proper picture

the copyright nazis seem to be going at this page fiercely. would someone please upload a photo for this page? 67.172.61.222 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramones 'uniform' and Dee Dee wanting to look more "punk"

What could be more punk than the Ramones Uniform? I'm curious as to what he wanted to wear instead. --Havermayer 23:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the impression (from End of the Century) that he wanted a more UK punk, Sex Pistols-style look: dyed spiky hair, provocative torn shirts, that kind of thing. Long dark hair isn't really very "punk" I guess. --Switch 08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demise of Sex Pistols connection to the Ramones

This is a sentence at the end of the History-1970s section, that the Pistols' 1978 demise "seemed to signal the end of punk as a viable commercial force and branded the Ramones as forever outsiders."

Two problems here:

One, The Clash went on to their greatest success after that. Yes they diversified their style around that time, but it at least raises major doubts about the assertion "seemed to signal the end of punk as a viable commercial force."

Two, I can't see how the end of one band can "brand" another one anything; the connection is hazy at best. Meanwhile the Pistols were never much of a commercial force in the US either, nor was any other band that stuck closely to the basic punk formula of loud-aggressive-fast-short-simple.

Probably the line should just be deleted. The alternative would be a discussion of how by the late '70s the Pistols had broken up, and the only punk-scene bands that would go on to make a big commercial impact were those that diversified their style, something the Ramones were never fully prepared to do... something like that.

Idmarsh 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Sharona? Not Their Sharona!

Many, many people believe that the Ramones wrote, sang or covered The Knack's My Sharona; Wikipedia states the latter [4] without source or citation. Search for 'Ramones "My Sharona" mp3' on the web and you'll get pages of hits, but all of the mp3's I've listened to were really the original by The Knack.

But the rumor/belief persists. Is this apocryphal or real? Does anyone know if, when, and where it really happened? Is there a recording somewhere? Is it on a Ramones album not known to me, Wikipedia or iTunes?

Does anyone know? Gabba gabba hey!
--Reverend Ron 03:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


I've never heard of such a thing in all my years as a Ramones fan, nor read it in any article, review or book. I think I can definitely say it never happened. It's just kids mislabeling their MP3 files, which happens a lot. --Willerror 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] songs

how come so damn many Siouxsie and the Banshees songs have their own pages, while only a few of the mighty ramones do? more of their songs need their own articles. 67.172.61.222 23:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then write some yourself.Hoponpop69 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] is this right?

"(Coincidentally, all these shows were supporting the Sex Pistols, whose bassist Sid Vicious considered the Ramones his favorite band; his rendition of "My Way" was intended as a "Ramonized" version.)"

the ramones opened for the pistols? how is this true? Joeyramoney 23:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, what that means is that the Clash, Buzzcocks, Damned, who were influenced by the Ramones, all got *their* start by supporting the Pistols in 1976. The Ramones and Pistols never performed together. Willerror 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious did they ever share a bill with The Damned or Clash?Hoponpop69 03:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about The Clash, but the Ramones shared the bill with The Damned at the London Brixton Academy on 7 and 8 December 1991. They also shared the bill at the following UK dates the same year Birmingham Hummingbird 2 December, University of Reading 3 December and Leeds Polytechnic 9 December. Joey appeared with The Damned at the UK's Milton Keynes Bowl on 19 June 1988.Damnedfroggy 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramones in Space

about 10 years ago I read in the newspaper that the USA shot a rocket in space with informations of the earth for aliens. In the chapter culture/music/modern there were also the Ramones represented. I didn`t find any infos in Google about this. Did anybody hear about this??? I`m quite sure. Pius

[edit] Ramones lineup history

I'm inclined to cut that section--all the info there is in the members section just above, and it's not hard to figure out the lineups from that--the bass player changed once, and aside from that it's just a question of figuring out who the drummer was. Is anyone strongly attached to this part? Nareek 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image

The idea that using an album cover is only fair use to illustrate an article about the album itself is not grounded in actual fair use law. The album cover illustrates the kind of image the band tried to project through their work, a subject discussed in this article. More importantly, the use of a low-res image of a cover in no way competes with the intellectual property rights of the copyright holder, which is what copyright is designed to protect. No commercial publication would think twice about reproducing this image to illustrate an article about the Ramones--or about any other subject that the publication thought that the image illustrated. Nareek 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You may very well be right about its not being grounded in actual fair use law; however, that issue is irrelevant. Criterion 6 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy states, "The material must meet the media-specific policy requirements." In the case of album covers, part of the media-specific policy is it be used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". As you yourself said, "the album cover illustrates the kind of image the band tried to project through their work". It's being used to illustrate the band and its image, not the album itself. As such, it violates Criterion 6, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. So regardless of whether or not it is legal, Wikipedia policy states that it is to be removed or used elsewhere where it may be used within the criteria for fair use. Plus, the Ramones aren't exactly an underground band; it should be incredibly easy to find a promotional image that will meet the fair use criteria. —ShadowHalo 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Promotional images are being driven off Wikipedia by the same sort of pseudo-lawyers that crafted that policy.
Ask yourself--have you really improved Wikipedia by implementing a nonsensical directive? Nareek 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
So far as I've seen, it's been Wikipedia editors that craft policy here. As far as the "nonsensical directive", if you don't like it, you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. The talk page for the Ramones page is not the best place to implement or change policies. —ShadowHalo 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If I seem snippy, it's because of my frustration at the endlessly circular discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It's true that discussing policy among a million volunteers will always be taxing. But still, I ask you: Among the many policies that Wikipedia has, are you really doing your best to improve the encyclopedia by spending your time enforcing this one? Nareek 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think so. It's easier for me and more efficient to go through many articles at once to make sure they meet a certain guideline. It's not as if I've only spent my time on Wikipedia removing fair use violations. —ShadowHalo 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, what you've accomplished here is that an article that used to show people what the subject of the article is no longer does so. Keep up the good work. Nareek 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't the only article to which I contribute. Since I'd rather this not escalate any further and this discussion really isn't relevant to this article anymore, I won't be commenting any further on this page unless it has to do with the image or the article itself. If you have an issue with my contributions to Wikipedia, feel free to comment on my talk page. —ShadowHalo 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Dee pic

Does anyone else think that picture of Dee Dee is a bit random? Why not a pic of the band performing live? Willerror 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a fair use image of the band playing from that era than you can replace it with that. I put the Dee Dee image there because it was the only one I found on wikipedia of any show between 74 and 79.Hoponpop69 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I have 12 photo's that I took from the 1983 show in Seattle. They were not of the best quality, but better then nothing (and I couldn't sneak a 35mm camera in my pants through the front door). Anyway, I added 1 of the photo's to the page, with the other 2 attached to the main one. I thought it was a shame not to see any live pic's on the wiki page. Mrhyak 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me.

or is the top of the article messed up? 151.199.193.101 13:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How so? I've noticed a lot of people adding musicians to the band who either were session musicians for one track or were only rumored to be in the band, but it seems when the article is void of this, as it is now, it is fine.Hoponpop69 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Rock Genre

So many of their songs can be considered Pop Rock, I wanna be your boyfriend, I remember you, Swallow my pride, Babysitter, Sheena is a punk rocker, Touring, Rockaway Beach, Lifes a Gas, She talks to rainbows, Rock n roll radio, are a bunch of the top of my head.

Please consider this to the people who are deleting this genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I'd really like to add bubblegum pop - it's even what they described themselves as - but I guess some of the punks an't handle that. Even the references to the Ramones being the genesis of pop punk keep getting removed. That's how it goes though. ~Switch t 15:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not what you consider their music to be that determines their genre, it's what credible sources declare it to be. WesleyDodds 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studio VS Live recordings.

After getting bored with the "Hey Ho, Lets Go! Anthology" i found several live recordings on the internet. These where atleast 3 times faster than the Studio version, pretty much what the Ramones was described. So... anyone knows why theres such a difference between Studio and Live recordings? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.229.68.97 (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I know Dee Dee wanted the band to play with a more punk stlye even on their pop songs, also the fact that they weren't very talented musicians to begin with could explain this.

how can anyone get bored with "Hey Ho, Lets Go! Anthology"?! Played fast live cos it's punk, innit.Spute 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere online--it's been a few years--there's a page that charted how, over the course of their career, the Ramones played their songs faster and faster. It details how a particular song went from, say, 2:30 on an album, to 2:05 when performing it in 1979, then 1:58 in 1986, and then 1:47 in 1994. Pretty cool.--Willerror 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First wave of English Punk bands?

If my memory serves me correctly, The Adicts formed in '75, which was before The Ramones' first show. Are The Adicts not considered first wave? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.172.73 (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I edited the page so to say they influenced MANY of the first wave bands.Hoponpop69 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about their logo

My classmate and I were having a conversation the other day about their logo, or emblem, if you like. What we were wondering was why the eagle holds a baseball bat and something of a bush in his claws. Anyone willing to comment on that? --80.127.185.210 09:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody of the Seal of the President of the United States.Hoponpop69 05:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling the baseball bat may reference "Beat on the Brat". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SwitChar (talk • contribs) 10:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ongoing ELVIS RAMONE battle

Why don't you guys that keep adding and deleting Elvis discuss the issue here, get your differences resolved and lets be done with this. All this editing and revising is rediculous. 65.161.188.11 18:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I say include.Hoponpop69 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. What is the argument not to? ~Switch t c g 10:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include I'm about to revert another edit.--JUDE talk 17:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Include - Although I'm not sure the vote will accomplish much as "the deleter" is a dynamic IP who doesn't appear to care about Wiki-policy. 156.34.211.206 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Clem was a "fill-in", but was really not an actual "member" of the band. It is not uncommon for musicians from other bands to fill-in during emergencies. Its worthy of notation, but IMO he was never an actual member of the Ramones. Clem played with numerous bands during the 80's and 90's such as Dramamrama, Nancy Sinatra, Bob Dylan, and many more. Just an opinion.Mrhyak 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in a sense, but I think it's a pretty big deal that he was invited back almost 20 years later to play with them in concert. It just seems like he had a bigger roll than "fill-in". He seems more like what the theatre people would call an understudy. It can seem like splitting hairs, but it's just my opinion.--JUDE talk 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/Talk%7ERamones_2db8.html"