Talk:Ramones

Punk?

OK, whats the deal with labelling them just punk? That they were punk at all is debatable, they certainly weren't purely that and also owed a lot to garage rock. --130.243.174.67 (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"That they were punk at all is debatable"? They are nearly universally recognized as one of the first punk rock bands (if not the first), and multitudes of reliable sources support this. This claim is utter nonsense. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say "labeling them..." I assume you are referring to the infobox. My opinion on genres in infoboxes is that they should contain the single most identifiable genre associated with a band. As IllaZilla pointed out the references certainly point to punk in this case. If there are reliable sources linking the band to other genres, that information belongs within the text of the article. J04n(talk page) 11:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If we want to be overly technical, the use of the term "punk rock" was merely conversational in the first place. It was just a reference to the 1974 magazine "Punk". Within the context of this period, Ramones wasn't a punk rock band, and of course, no other band in the NY music scene was a punk rock band either. They were all just rock bands with varying styles that were easily grouped together because they all were NYC based, all performed in small venues like CBGB's, and all appeared in Punk magazine. That would be the only reason to debate the "punk rock" label, on the grounds that the label itself is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.244.96 (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bull crap. I have literally stacks of books, including reprints of Punk magazine, that refer to the Ramones and the other NY bands (Television, Blondie, Richard Hell & the Voidoids, etc. etc.) as punk. These are contemporary sources, too, not just latter-day ones. Whether you thing that the label is "ridiculous" or not, multitudes of reliable sources confirm that these bands were indeed called "punk" in their day. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, delete the term punk. Rock and Roll is the preferred nomenclature. Neither Dee Dee, Joey, Johnny, Tommy, Marky ever used this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.32.13 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just gonna go ahead & say it: Anyone who doesn't believe that the Ramones were a punk band has clearly never read anything about either the Ramones or punk rock. There are dozens upon dozens of sources identifying the Ramones as one of the original punk rock bands. That is why they are famous. Your claim that "Neither Dee Dee, Joey, Johnny, Tommy, Marky ever used this term" is utterly false, too. I have at least a dozen books on punk and most of them contain interviews or quotes from the Ramones discussing their role in the punk movement and their connections to punk rock. While they viewed themselves as playing sped-up rock & roll, they clearly accepted that history recognized them as pioneers of the punk subgenre. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Second only to The Beatles

"In 2002, the Ramones were ranked the second-greatest band of all time by Spin magazine, trailing only The Beatles."

I think The Ramones were awesome, but even I find this hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.203 (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It has a citation from a reliable source and the article indicates that Spin magazine named them number 2, which they did. Whether or not one agrees with that assessment, it belongs in the article. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree "The Ramones" were good but second only to The Beatles? This raises serious questions about the credibility of the list published by the "Spin" magazine. I have gone through the list and its preposterous in the very least. It does not include the rock band "Queen", in the top 50, which has not only enjoyed amazing commercial success but is considered to have contributed a lot in shaping the rock genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.60.251 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of the list is inconsequential. The fact remains that the Ramones were ranked second on it. This is a verifiable fact, and since Spin is one of the major music periodicals (second only to Rolling Stone in the States in terms of cirulation & market competition), it is pertinent to the Ramones. Which other artists did or did not make the list is not pertinent to the history of the Ramones. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"It does not include the rock band 'Queen', in the top 50, which has not only enjoyed amazing commercial success but is considered to have contributed a lot in shaping the rock genre" = hilarioius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.160.198 (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Genre discussion... I really hate to do this. but...

Let me just open by saying this.. The Ramones are undoubtedly, irrefutably punk rock. They were one of (if not THE) archetypal punk band. As such, the genre on the article reads "Punk Rock"

However... By todays standards, their sound is much more "pop punk" than anything else... many songs about love... clean vocals, happy 3 chord progression.... its difficult if not impossible to cite a reference for this, because unless you go through and listen to more recent poppunk acts and compare them side-by-side with the Ramones, the only way you know how to describe them is "Punk Rock because Wikipedia said so". Im going to try to find some sort of RELIABLE source citing them as poppunk before I just go ahead and add it to the genre list anyways. Any suggestions/sources/arguments? AKStraightedge (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

also it mentions "recordings going more pop" in the article AKStraightedge (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. There are dozens upon dozens of reliable sources verifying the Ramones as a punk rock band. The term "pop punk" did not come into use until at least 10 years after the Ramones' rise to popularity (well, popularity for them anyway). Punk rock, in its early form, did not have a codified sound: compare the Ramones to the Dead Boys to Television to Blondie to the Sex Pistols to Patti Smith, just to name some examples. It was not until much later that it began to be subidivided into subgenres (hardcore, pop punk, new wave, etc.). "By today's standards" is something that will, of course, always change with time. Did the Ramones inspire many acts that are today classified as "pop punk" (Blink-182, Green Day, etc.). Of course. But were the Ramones themselves pop punk? No, they were punk rock. The term "pop punk" did not exist when the Ramones' career started and their genre was classified by music critics. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying The Ramones arent punk is like saying Robert Johnson isn't the blues. 81.159.180.95 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Many songs about love? They have some, sure (Joey wrote 'em), but many more songs about such traditional "pop" themes as Lobotomies, mental illness, axe murderers, chainsaws, glue sniffing, heroin, war, cretins, pinheads, male prostitution, wart hogs, worm men, etc etc. "Happy chords"? Pretty much all classic punk (70s/80s) uses major chords (barre/power chords), incl you know Minor Threat, DK, Exploited, Agnostic Front, whatever you want. "Clean vocals"? The claim is that the Ramones were punk, not death metal, who says the vocals shoudn't be "clean"? They started the template for pop punk, but didn't play it as exclusively as Buzzcocks, for instance, did. Songs like Glue, Commando, Shock Treatment, and many others are as easy to identify as proto hardcore as Babysitter or Sheena are proto pop punk. As others have matter-of-factly pointed out, Ramones were PUNK ROCK (if anybody ever was)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.142.141 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Ramones → The Ramones – The name of this band is clearly "The Ramones", not "Ramones". Yes, their album covers all just say "Ramones", but that seems like just a stylistic choice. They could have been an article-less band, like Minutemen or Doves, but they're not: they're "The Ramones", or, if you prefer, "the Ramones". Either way, the "the" is in there. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The group clearly did not use the definite article "the" in their musical publications so the correct title of this article is "Ramones" per WP:THE. Piriczki (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I think that guideline makes no sense, but I guess that's something to bring up on the guideline's page, not here. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this in the past. The name of the band is "Ramones", without the article. That is how it appears on every single one of their studio albums, on their logo, and on most biographies and books about them. "The" is needed for grammar purposes when writing about them in a sentence, but it is not part of the proper noun. Thus the article title should not include the article. This is just like the Sex Pistols, the Dead Kennedys, etc. (but not like The Clash, The Damned, etc.). Relevant past discussions here, here, and most recently here. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, per current Wikipedia guidelines, the article's name should be kept at "Ramones", but the rationale you're giving here is flawed. The "The" is not there for grammatical purposes - note the band Doves, which is a true "the"-less plural band name. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the band name is a plural proper noun, "the" is there for grammatical purposes when writing a complete sentence, such as: "The Ramones released Rocket to Russia in 1977" or "In 2002 the Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame". Doves are potentially confusing as they apparently do not use "the" when referring to themselves and neither do the secondary sources, but that's not the case for the Ramones. Another factor here is that "Ramones" refers to a group of people who share the last name Ramone (the band members all used the "Ramone" pseudonym), so the article is needed as it refers to a group of individuals (just like a sports team). --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits of Dec 18th

Hi folks,

Could someome tell me please what exactly is "unproductive" about the edits I made? The edits I have added were intended to:-

• add a greater degree of structure to the article (please compapre before and after)
• some pics have been moved meaning that they are now aligned to the era with which they were associated

I also added an update here to request constructive and consensual support on improving this article.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the image moves, but the "conflicts" section shouldn't go below the members section. The standard structure for band articles is that the list-style content (Members, Discography) goes below the prose-style content (History, Influence, etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Thanks for responding. I have taken the comments above on board and moved the members section to further down the article.

Any comments on some of the other amendmends I've made please? In particular the 'influence' section in my humble opinion is now much more structured compared with what before was something of a ramble. I have also added a section for 'Awards and honours' which again in my humble adds to the article.

Rgds,

Socheid (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Influence section needed some cleanup, but I don't think it needs 6 subsections. Now we've got sections that consist of just 2 sentences or 2 bullet points. The various tributes and cover versions could be split off into separate articles (a la List of Iron Maiden tribute albums and List of cover versions of Misfits songs). For examples of good Influences sections see Nirvana (band)#Legacy, Sex Pistols#Legacy, and Metallica#Legacy and influence. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for your very prompt reply,

I thought similar to you. I'm sure there's a lot more material could go into some of the sections I added. I though don't have that info at my finger tips and for the moment at least, I don't have the time to go chasing it down on the internet. I was hoping someone else may see it and improve what I added, hence why for example I added the comment to:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music#Ramones

Further I was going to add a tag that I have used in the past requesting for help for the section in question to be expanded. However when I added it and hit the save button, a message was published on the article saying the tag in question has been discontinued.

Further again, I concur that some of the sections when they have sufficient material in them would be better moved to a separate page. Whether there is sufficient material there at present I suggest is up for debate. I'm happy to be guided on that by opinion of others.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I just looked at, and swiftly reverted, turned a well-structured, coherent article into something ghastly. There was obviously a complete absence of any understanding of basic design principles, let alone any recognition of the norms found in high-quality articles here on similar topics. The article is not currently broken, and none of the few minor changes that were not damaging were in any way necessary. Quick, wholesale reversion was thus the appropriate, really the only, response. DocKino (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

That's your opinion. As per above there's more than just me who feels the article can be improved.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, I believe the editor responsible for the edits in question has been acting in good faith (if with unwarranted confidence and, it appears, a potential propensity toward edit warring). There is no concern about intentions, in my view. The problem is the work itself, which is incompetent and unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Every single edit we make can be construed as an expression of an opinion. And every article can be improved; unfortunately, the specific edits made by this specific editor made this specific article much worse. DocKino (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi polisher of cobwebs,

In response to your comment, "please do not edit war or try to force through changes over objections by other editors". When I made the edits that I did, I supported that with an immediate request make on the punk project page for a request for input and consensus agreement towards making the article in question better. Since then there has been a response from another editor that appears to be to slam dunk remove all of that work in an instant without seeking input from other editors. That is no different from what you are accusing me in your last revertion. My request is that any perceived short comings on the edits I made are on a 1 by 1 basis. As suggested above there were numerous elements of the article that are improved with the following:-

1. the 'influence' section is little more than a long ramble and lacks structure. At least one other person agrees with me on this.
2. the addition of an 'Awards and honours' section makes the article more user friendly and more encyclopedic
3. Various images in the document were not optimally positioned with regard to the period in history from which they are related to.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PS Just to add to the point above. A comment was made that the article should be structured with the 'members' section further down than where I had it positioned. I accepted that completely as constructive and well intended and amended the article accordingly in the name of consensus agreement. I propose that the slam dunk undoing of edits as has been actioned by others is neither constructive nor consensual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Any response please to the comments I have made above?

Rgds, Socheid (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks,

No response to the comment made above so with twice as many people articulating that the 'influence' section needs improved, I have updated that section.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Socheid, you may have sought input at the punk project page, but the consensus of editors here doesn't seem to be in favor of your edits. So there is a distinction between your behavior and that of the editors who have reverted you (and I'm only one of several). It's no use to try to justify edit warring that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hi polisher of cobwebs,

I have more than sought consensus from the punk project page. I have endeavoured to calmly articlulate my view point on this page with a view to a sensible discussion on how the ramones page can be improved. Those comments have largely been treated with disregard rather than someone articulate the concerns each of the edits I have made. Hence why I have on this occasion reduced the previous holistic edits on this occasion to an edit only on the influences section, a section on which there is someone else who has stated they share my view that the section needs improving. Can you advise your view on the influences section please? Do you not agree that the previous version of that section was only a ramble and lacks structure? Further the sub sections in the edits I made lend themselves as they expand to a separate page being created for such things as a list of Ramones tribute albums, ramones songs that have been covered by other performers?

Your opinion would be appreciated and thank for having responded.

Regards Socheid (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The wrecking of the properly formatted and rigorously sourced "Influence" section, which turned it into a ridiculous mess of stubby subsections and trivia points, has once again been reverted. DocKino (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

Re your comment in reverting edits on the Ramones page as follows:-

'Revert. Sorry, but we are not allowing the Influence section to be turned into a sloppy trivia bank.'

Some comments:-

1) When you say we, could you please clarify who it is that you are speaking for on top of yourself? I don't see on there that anyone has stated that they are giving you authority to speak for them

2) Please bear in mind that wikipedia guidlelines state that wikpedia pages are not owned by individuals. Thus you do not own the Ramones page. Agreement on edits on pages in wikipedia are based on consensus rather than one person looking to steamroller there views when there are others making up a majority alternative opinion. There are others who agree that the influence sections needs a tidy up. The tidied up edit I have added is more structured as opposed to the previous version which has no apparent line of structure and just looks amateur and messy.

3) Please refrain from edit warring. As mentioned above, individuals do not own wikipedia pages. Please work with others in a constructive manner rather than edit warring with abrupt, point of view comments that often give no indication of any wikipedia guidelines supporting the view point.

Thank you for any constructive and consensusly agreed work you can bring to wikipedia.

Socheid (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposed changes are extremely poor in multiple ways, as has been previously described. Please don't try making them again, Socheid, unless you can build a consensus in support of them here on the Talk page--or you are the edit warrior. Thank you. DocKino (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

This is an attempt at humour on your part surely? The only person who has objected to this change is you. As well as me, there is another person if you go through the hist who has agreed that this section of this page needs to be improved.

The reasons you have given for reverting these edits have been only your point of view and there has been no wikepedia guidelines brought to the table to support your view. At the moment this appears that you think that you own this page and have the right do on here as you wish. Wikipedia states that individuals do not own pages. The reasons put forward by you against the edits I made are poor. The reponse you have given above appears aloof, self important and does not demonstrate any sort of desire or inclination to try to work together with others.

Again, please do not edit war.

PS Please see the update above by IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC), stating that the influences section needs a tidy up.

Socheid (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Attemtping to work with others, I've made a couple of changes to the Influences section from what was there before:-

1) I have removed the 2 subsections re tribute albums in response to the comment highighted above by illazilla

2) I have removed the small amount of content that I added to the section when I originally made this edit. Thus all of the content of the Influences section was already there before I made the edit to make this section as it is now. The only changes I have made are to structuring.

Any constructive comment on, please type away.

Hi Illazilla,

Going by your comment above, it looks like you are pretty knowledgable re Influences section. Any chance you could bring your wizardry to bear on the Influences section on this page please to make it even better for everyone?

Thanks to anyone who takes a moment to read this.

Socheid (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And now you are blatantly edit warring. Socheid, your record on Wikipedia in no way suggests that you have the skills to maintain or improve a popular music Good Article. Mine does. I have been accorded 5 barnstars by our fellow editors in the field; you have none. I was one of the editors who brought Elvis Presley to Featured Article status and am largely responsible for keeping Sex Pistols at Featured Article status; you have never brought any article to any peer-reviewed quality status. If you are willing to learn how to build a high-quality music article, I'm ready to teach you, but I am not willing to sit by idly while you tear down this article. What you've done has nothing to do with the cursory comments that IllaZilla made. I believe you mean well, but your actual efforts are almost completely counterproductive. DocKino (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

Interesting reply. So let me get this right. If someone makes an edit, its OK for you to undo it. If someone else undoes your edits, its edit warring?

You may well have some stars added to your history. You also have on there a list of complaints regarding your uncollaborative and dogmatic challenging of other people's work. Further your response above supports the previous comment I added above, namely that your edits are self important and aloof and not geared towards collaborative working. To repeat again, wikipedia guidelines state that no one owns wikipedia pages. You are the only person who has challenged this edit so far despite it being on almost 200 watch lists. Further to repeat again, there has been a comment stating that the influences section needs a tidy up. This means that at present your view is against the consensus so far stated.

I have asked you before and this has been ignored. Please let me ask again. Can you please explain with detail why exactly the edits made are non beneficial? You clearly have a high regard for your abilities, could you please demonstrate how good they are by giving a detailed explanation of why the edit in question is devalueing the section in the article? As stated above, the only change that has been made is to break the content down into three structured sub sections. All of the content and references are exactly as before. However the proposed changes takes away the rambling non structured format, to some degree at least. Regardless of how many stars you have or anything else, you do have any higher authority to allow you to over ride the opinions of others when your view is the minority opinion. Do you honestly believe that you are perfect and nothing you do can be improved upon?

Also could you please explain why my actions have nothing to do with the input of illazilla? Illazilla made a constructive suggestion that one of the sub sections was too small. I have acted upon that and merged a couple of sections together. Its called collaborative working.

Could you please answer the previous question I also asked, namely when you said 'we' in one of your previous talk page updates, who are you speaking for please?

Your repeated undoing of the changes I have attempted to constructively apply with what is currently majority backing represents edit warring on your part.

Socheid (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Socheid, this is a Good Article for a reason: because editors who know what they are doing have brought it to a certain level of quality and maintain it there. When you're ready to acquire the skills to work on a high-quality pop music article, again, I'm ready to help you. In the interim, may I suggest you read our WP:Manual of Style--ALL OF IT. Along the way, I hope you will discover exactly why your edits are not acceptable. DocKino (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So once again some points have been raised in good faith for you and your response is aloof and self righteous and doesn't answer the questions aimed at you. And once again you edit war. Your view remains in the minority until others join the discussing to support your view that no subsections in the influences page of this article is the optimum format. Disappointing.

Changing back to the format supported by the majority of people to have voiced an opinion on this.

Socheid (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think the version by Socheid improves the article. The emphasis on cheap tribute albums is misplaced and the connection to the fanzine Sniffin' Glue seems insignificant. I think it was better the way it was. Piriczki (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in whatever argument is going on here at the moment, but I did make this edit to the Influence section just now to tidy up some issues:

• There definitely shouldn't be 1-sentence paragraphs, with line breaks after each sentence as was the case with the tribute albums. This isn't a list, it's a paragraph. Tie the sentences together in paragraph form.
• There don't need to be a bunch of subsections. The main 4 paragraphs flow into each other rather well: Ramones' influence on popular music as a whole → Impact of their first album & UK shows on the UK punk scene → Influence on the CA scene → Influence on artists from other genres. The subsection for tribute albums is fine, as that's content of a slightly different animal that a reader might want to jump to from the table of contents.

In general it's not a good idea to break down prose sections that aren't overly long into so many sub-sections and 1-sentence lines. It just doesn't look good. That's all I have to say for the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hi Piriczki and Illazilla,

Thank you both for taking time to contribute and for the constructive tone of your replies.

Socheid (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What a shame to see two of my favourite editors arguing like this. I am sad to see Socheid was blocked for edit-warring these well-intentioned changes into the article. I think I tentatively concur with IllaZilla and Piriczki on the content issue but I really don't want to see such heated discourse here please. I am not a particular fan of the changes Socheid was trying to introduce but I think there are lessons to be learned on all sides here. I will recommend the Socheid make his proposals courteously here when unblocked and I would like him to get a fair hearing, even though the long term editors of this article are rightly proud of its high quality and want to maintain that. In my experience Socheid does listen to constructive feedback and it's a shame things here developed the way they did. Could we restart this debate and accept that all want to improve the article, and keep it nice, please? --John (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I was about to troutslap both parties for edit-warring & bickering when they both know darn well better & should obviously be above that kind of thing. It's a shame someone ended up blocked over this. Let's proceed in a constructive manner, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)