Talk:Ramones/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

I would like to point out some incorrect information in this article though. Through an incorrect secondhand source, footnote #22 about the Ramones July 4th 1976 show claims that "Their appearance galvanized the burgeoning UK punk rock scene, inspiring future punk stars, including members of The Clash, The Damned, and the Sex Pistols."

While this is a popular story that has been around for years, it is also quite false. Infact, on the same night as that show, July 4th 1976, The Clash were playing in their very first gig at The Black Swan in Sheffield, England, opening for The Sex Pistols. The Damned opened for the Sex Pistols at the 100 Club two days later. None of the bands were in attendance during said show, and all were already fully formed and playing at this time. Sparrowcoach (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Because that's their name. "ramones" without a "the" is only relevant to album covers. 67.172.61.222 02:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So on all of the live shows that I have by the band, when Joey introduces them as "The Ramones" is he mistaken? ROG 19 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The term "punk" comes from the mid-70's New York based fanzine of the same name. Prior to then "punk" was a term for homosexual prisoners. William S. Burroughs, who lived near CBGB's and was friends of many of the performers there, was influential in the usage of the term. The difficulty in defining the style of the Ramones, and the early release of their debut led to them being considered the first "punk" band. It later applied to Blondie, Talking Heads, Television, Patti Smith and many other bands that don't fit the contemporary notion of punk. The British bands, under the guidance of former New York Dolls manager Malcolm Mclaren redefined punk as anthemic, driving, short, fast and political. But the true punks of 1975 New York City were less easily classified. --MaoCorleone 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the term punk came from the late 60s, and was used to describe garage rock bands. The first use of the term "punk rock" was in a review of the Garage Rock band ? and the Mysterians. Another thing to be noted, it cannot be said that the Ramones were the first punk band. While most of the bands mentioned above are "protopunk" such as MC5, the Stooges, The New York Dolls, et. al. Of the bands that are definately considered punk by everyone, the first one to form was Alan Vega's band Suicide, started three years prior to the Ramones, in 1971. Sparrowcoach (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In the "End of the Century" DVD, there is an interview segment with Joe Strummer wherein he describes Johnny boasting to him that the Ramones' set was two minutes shorter because they were playing even faster than they had the previous tour. ROG 19 17:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

the ramones' first show was in march 74. 71.60.151.41 23:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Clem was not a Ramone, get over it

Dude get off your high horse. If you watch End Of The Century you'll see when he joined the band he was intended to be a full-time member, but they quickly kicked him out and brought back Marky because after a few shows they released his drumming style didn't fit with the band.Hoponpop69 18:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the "End of the Century" video as well as "The Story of the Ramones" and neither one do they say that Clem was intended to be a permenant member of the band. They did make the comment that his style did not work well with the Ramones, but he was just a fill-in, nothing more. Show me one Ramones T-shirt with the names "Joey, Johnny, Elvis, Dee-Dee" then I'll believe you. I don't know why you really care anyway since you are also the one who says the Ramones are not a punk band. I was buying Ramones albums in the 70's before you were even born so I don't know why you think your such an expert on the band. Did you ever even see them live? I saw REM when a member of Sonic Youth was playing with them for awhile, does that make him a member of REM? Maybe you should go edit REM with this new found information. Mrhyak 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So are we going to count the original Richie Ramone? the dude who practised with them a couple of times on bass when they first started, and what about the roadie that played the intro We Want the Airwaves live, because Johnny couldn't, and what about all the people that played with for a song at their last show? include them too?

You're right, I rewatched the scene with him and there was no overt mention of it.Hoponpop69 17:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From watching the scene again today I noticed that the band did a photo shoot with him. It seems like you wouldnt spent the money on a photo shoot if he was planned to only be in the band for a few shows. So while there was no t-shirt with his name on it, they did do a promo shoot with him for whatever thats worth.Hoponpop69 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was being a bit sarcastic when talking about the T-Shirt. A "photo shoot" as you call it, would have been done to promote the shows that he played with the group. Obviously they could not use the photo's with Richie since he abruptly left the band, and at that time I don't believe they had a real idea how long Clem would be a fill-in. They got Marky back so it ended up being a 2 gig stint and then another photo shoot to show Marky was back in the band. I don't know all of this as fact, but it makes the most sense. FWIW Mrhyak 02:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way I found the picture in question. It's the fourth photo down on this page.[5]Hoponpop69 07:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Former Members

I don't think there should be a "deceased" next to Joey, Johnny and Dee Dee's name. This is mentioned later in the article, and it makes it seem that they were in the band until they died.XXXtylerXXX 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look at other articles like The Beatles it has the deceased thing. I think we should follow that precident, as thta is a good article.Hoponpop69 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Supporting the Sex Pistols

13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)220.237.23.19It says in the 'Acts influenced' section of the article that: "Coincidentally, all these shows were supporting the Sex Pistols". This is incorrect, The Ramones didn't play support for the Sex Pistols. The concert that this refers to where members of The Clash, The Damned and also the Pistols were in the audience, was in support of the "Flamin' Grooves". Further more this contradicts whats been written earlier in the article , saying how the Ramones were second billed with the Flamin' Grooves, at the Roundhouse in '76.

During an interview on MTV after the band had played (late 80s), the host asked Joey "did you ever meet the Sex Pistols?". Joey answered with "No, the Sex Pistols met us". One of the more memorable statements I've always remembered. Mrhyak 01:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Constant vandalism to infobox

To whomever keeps removing referenced material from the infobox, please stop. There are three references showing that the Ramones are considered early pop punk. More references could probably be added, but that would unnecessarily clutter up the infobox. Removing referenced content such as that may be considered vandalism. Spylab 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• FWIW, there was no such thing as POP PUNK when the Ramones began. That was a label that came about after the hardcore scene began then Punk was described as hardcore punk and pop punk. Similar, there was no such thing called Heavy Metal when Led Zeppelin was playing, but they were relabeled with that style after the fact...... The Ramones were a Punk band, then after different styles of Punk evolved, some started calling them Pop Punk, or even Pop Rock because their style seemed more mainstream then the hardcore/thrash that evolved from it. I often find it funny that the band which invented the Punk movement/sound/style gets re-labeled as something other then that by a bunch of bozo's who don't know what the heck they are talking about. Mrhyak 04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think the term punk rock existed when the Ramones began, but only a few people dispute that they were a punk band (mostly people who say punk rock was invented in the UK). As you have demonstrated, many musicans are retroactively given a genre label that didn't exist when the band or soloist first started playing that style of music. Some other examples are the genres Oi!, northern soul and freakbeat. I'm curious if you have a reference absolutely proving when the term pop punk was used for the first time. In the meantime, there are several references showing that some writers describe the Ramones as pop punk, so it should not be deleted from the infobox. There is no contradiction in describing them as both punk rock and pop punk, since pop punk is a subgenre of punk. Also, it's not really a matter of them being mainstream; it's a matter of their musical style and lyrical themes being influenced by 1950s and 1960s pop music. The pop in pop punk doesn't necessarily mean commercially successful.Spylab 15:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• In order to be able to catagorize bands, you need to have a point of reference, a starting point. Since the Ramones were the ones that started the sound, created a movement and are considered by 90% of those who care as the band that started what was called Punk Rock, then bands which have sprung from this style into other types should then be labeled something other then punk.

An example would be say Grunge. When this term is mentioned the first thing that comes to mind is Nirvana or Pearl Jam. Now what if people started saying "oh, Velvet Revolver is true Grunge and Pearl Jam is Pop-Grunge you think that would be ok? Elvis is suppose to be the king of Rock and Roll, but his music sounds more like country today. Do you then re-label him as Country just because Rock music has changed over the years? You can label away as you like, but music is something that is personal, and adding labels is subjective depending on personal taste. IMO the Ramones are PUNK and anything that has spawned from that should have the added hyphen. Mrhyak 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, to categorize bands, or to write anything for that matter, one needs reliable references, period. I've never heard of anyone refer to Pearl Jam as pop grunge, and I've never even heard of the term pop grunge. There's no point in inventing imaginary scenarios when plenty of real ones exist. If you look at the Elvis Presley infobox, he is listed as Rockabilly, Rock and roll, Gospel, Blues, Country and Country rock; demonstrating my point that it is not a contradiction to put a soloist or band into more than one category. Wkipedia isn't about your opinion or my opinion; it's about what can be backed up by references. Spylab 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

BAND MEMBERS SECTION

• Why does someone keep removing the band members section? Without that, there is no quick, easy, and organized way to find out what members were in Ramones at what time. Please stop removing this, because I will only continue to add it. - Alterego269 07:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a band members section or a discography section, because in the See Also section, there are links to Ramones discography and Ramones band members. Clicking on those links is the quick, easy and organized way of finding that information. The whole point of creating those separate pages is so the main Ramones article won't be cluttered up by list sections. Also, the list of the names of members is in the infobox at the top of the Ramones article anyway (although without the years they were active). Please stop adding those unnecessary list sections. I, and other editors, will continue to remove them if you continue to add them. Spylab 13:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, well go to hell. - Alterego269 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your actions, since discography is a section that is usually marked and simple to find. See others is a bit obtuse, i think it would better to be able to find the discography in the contents box. I hadn't read this message when i made the edit, i wasn't made out of any kind of spite. But i'll not change it back, as that won't help. Chadwholovedme 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and did something with it. I had a hard time finding their discography. I could never think of it being linked to under 'See also'. I found the page by looking at this discussion page under the 'discography and length' heading. Like with the other bands' articles, I expect to find a 'Discography' heading in the article and in the 'Contents' box. --83.108.42.40 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Four

which members are the ones that are always on the cover? they show 4 on the cover but weren't there 9 former memebers? 68.253.54.145 13:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC) \

Short Hair

which member is the one with short hair...as in this picture of the band http://www.blog.lessrain.com/wp-content/upload/ramones.jpg 68.253.54.145 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee.Hoponpop69 06:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

JOHNNY RAMONE - BACKING VOCALS

• FOR STARTERS, I SERIOUSLY HAVE TO SAY WHOEVER KEEPS CREDITING JOHNNY RAMONE AS SINGING BACKING VOCALS IS WITHOUT A DOUBT THE STUPIDEST PERSON IN THE WORLD. I HAVE PLACED MULTIPLE REFERENCES AND EDITIED THE ALBUMS OVER AND OVER, AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW I HAVE SEEN THE CREDITS OF EVERY RAMONES ALBUM EVER MADE AND NOT ONE CREDITS JOHNNY WITH BACKING VOCALS. HE NEVER SANG EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE DUMBASS STOP. - Alterego269 08:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, please refrain from using ALL CAPS to gain people's attention. SirGrotius 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RITCHIE STERN

• JUST TO INFORM SOME OF YOU PEOPLE, RITCHIE STERN WAS A MEMBER OF RAMONES. HE WASN'T THERE LONG, BUT LIKE IT OR NOT HE WAS A MEMBER OF RAMONES.

You've been asked a million times to show a source. Now put up or shut up.Hoponpop69 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• This recently appeared on the Discussion of the now-defunct Ramones Band Members page. He was indeed a member if you count pre-gig rehersals.

"Ritchie" Stern vs. Richie Stern

The Ritchie spelling is incorrect according to just about every source I've ever seen. Dee Dee himself uses the proper "Richie" in Lobodomy:Surviving The Ramones, as does Jim Bessman in Ramones: An American Band and Jim Fields in End of the Century. I've also seen commentary from Joey's brother who interviewed him some years back, using the "Richie" spelling. I believe the earliest reference may have been a 1976 issue of Punk. Whoever insists on using the "t" spelling needs to provide a citation. I have seen others insist that Richie Reinhardt was spelled with a 't'. Here are the current Google results for each spelling;

[[6]] Richie Stern

[[7]] Ritchie Stern (and most are the erronious Wikipedia entries)

• That is true except for the Ramones book Ramones: An American Band in which Joey Ramone discusses Ritchie and the fact he was in the band for two rehearsels. He even goes on saying Ritchie later was a button manufacturer.

But this is just an issue of spelling. I did notice On The Road With The Ramones uses the 'Ritchie' spelling, and what the hell, I don't have Bessman's book with me at the moment so I could be mistaken about the spelling in that, but I maintain that most other sources (including Dee Dee's autobio and the 1976 article) use 'Richie'. BTW, it's likely that what Joey meant by "button manufacturer" was simply that he was making pinbacks and hawking them outside shows. Roz666 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay here is a link in which Tommy Ramone says Richie was never in the band.[8]

"there was also another person who didn't quite make the band -- Richie Stern"

Just because someone rehearses with a band doesn't mean they were a member. Buckethead rehearsed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Les Claypool with Metallica, but they were never considered members.Hoponpop69 04:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• It could be argued those two examples are a little different, because they were merely auditioning for bands already established. Richie/Ritchie was a close friend of Johnny and Dee Dee prior to The Ramones inception. Furthermore, it's at least rumored that he played on an early pre-demo recording. There seem to be conflicting accounts of why he did not make it to the premere gig, either he could not keep up with Joeys drumming, or had some kind of mental breakdown.

Get your facts straight

The influence of the Ramones on the British Punk scene, particularly The Clash and Sex Pistols is GREATLY exagerrated. Members of the Clash and Pistols met the Ramones, but did not watch the show. Both bands were already established.

From John Lydon.com:

" "… the very night The Ramones were at this Roundhouse thing, I was actually playing a live gig at Sheffield, alright, the Sex Pistols were already up and at it mate, so it’s historically incorrect. It’s a lie."

On July 4th 1976 the Sex Pistols (and The Clash) played the Black Swan, Sheffield. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are blatantly re-writing history. How can the Sex Pistols have anything to do with lies like that? Of course, we know better, but thousands of visitors to that museum are being mislead. And it's just not good enough. "

The Ramones were a great band, but these are blatant lies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.52.219 (talk) 02:45:31, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed what the article says. According to Joe Strummer in End of The Century, The Clash and Sex Pistols met with the ramones that day. He makes no mention of attenting the concert, which would make sense, since according to many sources The Clash had their first show that day, opening for the Sex pistols. I've included as a source for this, a link to the video of the Strummer interview.Hoponpop69 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Too Tough To Die: A Tribute to Johnny Ramone

The World Premiere of the Ramones documentary - Too Tough To Die: A Tribute to Johnny Ramone will premiere September 15 at 10 p.m. on Starz Cinema. The concert film was shot 2 1/2 days before Johnny passed away. The event was meticulously produced by career-spanning Ramones creative director Arturo Vega and hosted by musician/director Rob Zombie. Too Tough To Die includes performances by Tommy, Marky & CJ Ramone, as well as performances from the Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Dickies, X, Eddie Vedder, Henry Rollins, Pete Yorn and many others. In addition, there are heart-felt remembrances of Johnny by Lisa Marie Presley, Sonic Youth, Debbie Harry, Nicolas Cage, as well as many of the musicians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.166.5 (talk) 20:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Thats an odd title considering Dee Dee wrote that song.Hoponpop69 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

PUNK ROCK NOT POP PUNK

The ramones are punk rock look them up on NNDB.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.199.143 (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee King

The article says Dee Dee left to persue a rap career. Didn't his rap album come out in '84 way before he left the band? The older Ramones book from the late 90s has this information. Mrhyak or Hoponpop69 can you verify this info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.164.211 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It was released in 1988.[9] Hoponpop69 14:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on September 29, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice

I have worked a lot on references, so I thought you should know that I have fixed the [1] reference so it complies with Wiki - have a look at it. (You should do all the rest as this will help in the GA review). There should be no references in the infobox or the Lead BTW, as this is only an introduction to what is in the main text. "1974-1979" needs more references. Good luck :) --andreasegde 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You say there should be no references in the intro or infobox, what policy is this from? The Green Day article, a GA I was basing my attempt to get tis article on par with, has references in both of these places. Additionally todays featured article William Shakespeare has 5 references in the intro.Hoponpop69 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a few attempts at FACs, and the word from the big guns was always the same. 3 paragraphs in the Lead, no references in the Lead, and make sure everything in the Lead is in the article. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger... :) Good article BTW. --andreasegde 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at the Shakespeare page and you're dead right. Who knows? It beats me... Ignore my previous advice, and have fun. :) andreasegde 11:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

References links are given as a full URL and formatting them within single square brackets with a title (like the first reference) would be usefull. This makes possible a two-or more column list, and an explanation to what the link is about. See Wikipedia:Citation templates and Wikipedia:Embedded citationsYamanbaiia 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Reviewage

In the section 1980-1989, it says Dee Dee went off to try and be a rapper. Wow. I've never heard that before. Could there be a source on that, please? And I know it'll probably be a bitch to do, but how about some references for the stuff about personality clashes, and how Joey ignored Johnny at the autograph signing in '99. Howa0082 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As well, the image in the infobox should have it's watermark text removed, and I'm honestly not too sure about the End of the Century album art, as to whether it's appropriate or not. Howa0082 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It says under the "Conflicts" heading: "It was Johnny who "stole" Joey's girlfriend Linda, whom he later married. Joey and Johnny didn't speak to each other for years afterwards." How is this possible if they were in a band together?

I think this is a good article -- the first half is especially well-written -- but in my opinion it's too long and should be trimmed. Llajwa 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's "CBGB," not "CBGB's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.51.82 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (Oct. 2007)

I do not feel that the article meets GA specifications at this time because of these (and other) concerns:

1. Very few of the references are properly formatted (ie. they don't use citation templates)
2. The image Image:Rosebud.gif has no fair use rationale.
3. There are some sections that have few or no references, including "Breakup and deaths", "1990–1996", "Ramones 'uniform'" and "Musical style"

Once these concerns are met, you can submit the article again. Good luck. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the Rosebud image, and am adding sources to the above mentioned sections. If someone wants to properly format the references I'd appreciate it.Hoponpop69 04:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The image didn't have to be deleted, it just needed a Fair use rationale. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh well feel free to re-add it once it gets that.Hoponpop69 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've adressed 2 and 3, if someone makes the references properly formatted this should became a good article.Hoponpop69 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The cover of the first album

It's become iconic and hailed as one of the great album covers. It deserves a place in the article - preferably near the beginning. I think it would be ok under fair use. SteveRamone 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Stein information incongruous

I generally don't like deleting stuff, but the Linda Stein homicide stuff at the bottom doesn't fit with the rest of this article. SirGrotius 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it belongs on her own page. If she was a member of the band that one be one thing, but she was just one of a number of managers the band had.Hoponpop69 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur there is no reason to cover her murder in this article, but so many of the obits as well as sources about the Ramones generally give her credit to getting the band signed (via her husband at Warner) and particularly arranging the July 4, 1976 concert. This was the band's heyday and much of that seems to be credited to her social networking in the NYC music scene. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ramoneslogo.png

Image:Ramoneslogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No "brief nightclub tour" before breakup

Statement near the top of the article "the band went on a brief nightclub tour and then disbanded" is untrue. Final show of Lollapalooza was Sunday August 4, 1996 at Irvine Meadows Amphitheater and the farewell show was Tuesday August 6, 1996 at The Palace in Hollywood. 216.175.118.167 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RECORDING OF TRACKS:

Recording of JUDY'S IN THE BASEMENT (1975) Released by Hit & Run Records, and made in East Berlin. The liner notes state that the songs were produced by Tommy Erdelyi and recorded September 19, 1975 at 914 Sound Studios, Blauvelt, New York. It includes the songs:

-I Don't Wanna Go Down To The Basement -53rd & 3rd -I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend -Judy Is A Punk -Loudmouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyackhigh (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

pop punk?

the Ramones weren't Pop Punk, plain and simple. the couldn't of been, because there wasn't such a thing at the time. They were about as hard as at least 30% of punk bands that formed around the time of their earlier years.

the Buzzcocks weren't pop punk, the Ramones weren't pop punk, the Lurkers weren't pop punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.103.253 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is for straightforward facts, not for things which need explanation and justification. If something really needs four references, then it is probably too complex for the infobox. See below works fine to direct the reader to text which explains the issue. Gimmetrow 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• The genres are straighforward facts. The only reason one has references is because vandals keep deleting the information for whatever reason. Lots of bands have multiple genres and have footnotes in their infoboxes. The Infoboxes are there so people can get quick information, not so they will be forced to "see below" to read a section lower in the article. Spylab (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already one other sourced genre in the text not in the infobox, and others could be generated. Do you intend to have them all listed with 20 references in the infobox? That would look absurd. I would be fine with no genre listed in the infobox. Gimmetrow 05:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (Apr. 2008)

Hello, I'm your GA reviewer. I can see that this article's been failed a couple of times. Well, I'll take a look at it and tell you what I think.

So here's what I can see are some possible issues.

• Using this tool here, I found two dead links in the article. Those would be the red ones: I checked out the ones of the other colors, and they checked out okay, so don't worry abou those references.
• IMdb references aren't exactly the most reliable. They can stay, but I recommend you find other references to replace them if at all possible.
• There really needs to be a lot of work with reference templates on this article. While it's said that reference templates aren't a necessity, it's become a standard of Good Articles on Wikipedia to be referenced and have full reference templates. A lot of the articles also appear to have incomplete reference templates. Check out WP:CITET for more information on reference templates.
• The second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the 1974-1979 subsection need more sources. Large sections of this area are unreferenced.
• The second half of the 1980-1989 section also needs more sources.
• The 1990-1996 section could use a couple more sources, too.
• A large section of the Breakup and Deaths section is unreferenced. Sources really need to be put down there.
• The Influences section could use more sources.
• The MySpace reference can't stay. What reliability is there in that reference? None.

Now, is it a lot of work? Yes. Can you do it in about a week or so? I bet you can if you really work on this. Therefore, I've decided that the best course of action would be to put this article on hold for a week to let you guys address the problems. If the problems are not addressed in a week's time, I will have to fail the article.

For the reference templates, here's the parts I'd like to see on just about every reference:

{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |accessdate= |publisher= }}

though not necessarily in that order. For the publisher of web site info, you can cite the home page of the web site (so a CNN article could cite CNN as the publisher or www.cnn.com). Access dates can be a pain to go back in the history to get, but the more you can, the better. Granted, some articles won't have author information, but get it from every article you can, because this is a necessity.

You guys have a Good Article on your hands if you can fix these problems. Everything else looks like it's in place pretty well. If you have questions, comments, or you are finished with the revisions and want me to take another look within the hold period, you can contact me on my talk page. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix (Talk)

The references do not need to use templates, but they do need to include at least author/title/publisher/date/accessdate. Gimmetrow 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And personally, I'd say the best way to include all of that is to use a template like {{cite web}}. That's also why I said, "While it's said that reference templates aren't a necessity, it's become a standard of Good Articles on Wikipedia to be referenced and have full reference templates." WP:CITET says that reference templates are neither encouraged nor discouraged. Red Phoenix (Talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The myspace page is justifiable in this case. Gimmetrow 03:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How so? It certainly has no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. The bit about Melnick is certainly citeable, but there's gotta be a better source we can use than some Myspace page. I must have a half dozen books on the Ramones & early punk rock...I'll take a look a bit later to see if I can find a good cite for this. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I swear I remember that myspace linked from one of the official Ramones pages, indicating it's Melnick's. But whatever. Half the citations on this page should be removed. I've removed some of the worst. Gimmetrow 04:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fail

Unfortunately, the hold period is about up and I haven't seen any significant changes to the article's sourcing. I'm glad to see Gimmetrow has been working with cleaning up the references section. The problem, however, is the amount of unsourced content (some of which someone marked with fact tags). Also, there really hasn't been any editing since the first couple of days. Therefore, I'm going to apply the snowball clause to this and fail the article. Contact me on my talk page if you have questions or comments. Thanks. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

POP punk?????

how could wiki possibly call these guys "pop punk". pop punk bands are like green day and fall out boy. the ramones are SOOOO much better and hardcore than those bands. i suggest that wiki please change this is the info box on the far right. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.21.141 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Some sources refer to them as pop punk and power pop. Gimmetrow 15:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.115.113 (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Add the shit for All The Stuff (And More!) Volume 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.190.175 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ramones Greatest Hits 2006

[10] Shouldn't this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.104.26 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoponpop69 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.248.75 (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Better a late answer than no answer. You refer to the Voyager Golden Record. Nope, no Ramones in there. -- DevSolar (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

the genres section

Why not just label them as punk rock and nothing else? Thats what they are labeled as in all the other languages. --Metal of Head 21:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Died within eight years of the breakup

It states that Joey, Johnny, and Dee Dee died within eight years of the breakup. The breakup occurred following their final performance on August 6, 1996, with Johnny dieing on September 15, 2004. Now for the 3 members to be dead within 8 years of the breakup, they would all have had to die on or before August 6, 2004. Johnny died after this, meaning the statement is incorrect. This should be changed. 76.227.110.225 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to address the point you've made.DocKino (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PunkMagazine.jpg

The image Image:PunkMagazine.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Good Article nominations

Why do people keep nominating this as a good article, when the problems pointed out in the original Good Article nomination (two years ago) still haven't been fixed? Kaldari (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ramones/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is being quick-failed for the following reasons:

• Rife with unsourced statements. Just in the first subsection:
  • "They became friends with Douglas Colvin, whose family had recently moved to the area."
  • "Jeffrey Hyman was in the short-lived early 1970s glam rock band Sniper."
  • "The Ramones began taking shape in early 1974 when Cummings and Colvin invited Hyman to join them in a band. The initial lineup featured Colvin on lead vocals and rhythm guitar, Cummings on lead guitar, and Hyman on drums."
  • This entire paragraph: "A friend of the band..."
  • "Around this time, a new music scene was emerging in New York centered around two clubs in downtown Manhattan—Max's Kansas City and, most famously, CBGB (usually referred to as CBGB's)."
  • "The band swiftly became regulars at the club, playing there seventy-four times by the end of the year."
  • "By this time, the Ramones were recognized as leaders of the new scene that was increasingly being referred to as "punk"."
• Too many paragraphs begin with the "In/On [year/date]," construction. (This is minor, but easily corrected.)
• The three music samples exceed the 10% of track length maximum, lack or have insufficient fair use rationales and lack captions.

—Zeagler (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Links

Link section has been bad and really minimal for many years. This only link, to ramones.com, has been offline since July 2008, more than five months now. Most extensive and updated Ramones site has been since 1995 ramones.kauhajoki.fi ramonesworld.com is runned by Arturo Vega. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.193.173.30 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

Hello, if somebody could create a "Further reading" section like the one in the The Clash article, that'd be a great improvement. Thanks! indopug (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much value that has. I mean, Wikipedia isn't a library catalog. If there's a book or other source that has further info that isn't in the article, then that info ought to be added and that source cited. I don't think we ought to have a list of works other than what's in the refs. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The logic for a further reading section is the same as that for external links. Considering that this Wikipedia cannot possibly provide all the info about the band (we just provide an overview of the band), listing out scholarly books are a great way to point readers to reliable sources with more detailed info. Besides, if you look at the end of any scholarly document, you would find a bibliography of related works. So its kinda standard practice to list further sources out... indopug (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Roundhouse gig.

Ok. Give me your thoughts on this.

its been claimed many times, by many people, that on July 4 1976 when the Ramones played the Roundhouse, that the Clash and Pistols were there, and even met the Ramones backstage, thus it is a key moment in punk history... the catch is, The Clash were debuting, on a bill with The Sex Pistols in Sheffield that night.

How could they be in both places at once? Is there a date confusion somewhere? A misunderstanding? Some confusion?

here's some links to info supporting The Clash and Pistols not being there.

http://clash.wikia.com/wiki/Jul_4_Black_Swan,_Sheffield

http://www.johnlydon.com/faction06.html

"Yeah, hello. Somebody just reminded me that the very night The Ramones were at this Roundhouse thing, from that film, I was actually playing a live gig at Sheffield, alright, the Sex Pistols were already up and at it mate, so it’s historically incorrect. It’s a lie. It’s a lie. I wouldn’t normally even bother to deal with it but we’re having a good talk here and it’s important for you to understand what is and isn’t in life. You know, I can’t be bothered to live a lie. And I don’t think anyone should and if you need to propagate a bands mythology around lies there can’t be too much substance there, can there". - John Lydon.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.189.243 (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are ridiculously high numbers of sources that verify that members of The Clash and the Sex Pistols were there to see the Ramones at the Roundhouse. The fact that Lydon can't even remember if he did or didn't see them there is a bit curious. You'd think he wouldn't need someone else to tell him if he'd been there or not. With all respect to Lydon, there have been enough different versions & revisions of history told by him & other parties to fill several volumes. I remember one book I've read (I don't recall specifically which one) that says something to the effect of "if everyone who's said that they were at the Roundhouse had actually been there, the place would have had to be the size of Shea Stadium." But members of both the Sex Pistols & The Clash were certainly present. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true at all. There's no question members of both bands were at the Ramones' Dingwall's club date the following night--that's when Paul Simonon got into his semi-famous rumble with J.J. Burnel of the Stranglers. It's barely possible that the bands came down from Sheffield after their show to hang out at the Roundhouse, but as it's a three-hour drive from Sheffield to London, it's pretty unlikely. In the general (i.e., not directly researched) literature, the Roundhouse gig gets much more mention because it was first and bigger--confusion between that and the no less significant Dingwall's gig is probably the cause of reports that The Clash and Sex Pistols were at the former.—DocKino (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, possibly. I guess I wasn't aware that there was another show the following night. Nevertheless, I would default to the most reliable sources (most of which I think say they were at the Roundhouse). --IllaZilla (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Published sources on the topic seem pretty consistent:

• Marcus Gray, The Clash: Return of the Last Gang in Town, pp. 143-144: Clash and SPs in Sheffield July 4; back in London on July 5, go to Dingwall's.
• Phil Strongman, Pretty Vacant: A History of UK Punk, p. 118: Clash and SPs in Sheffield July 4 (then-fan Sid Vicious handed out Pistols flyers outside the Roundhouse); back in London on July 5, go to Dingwall's.
• Jon Savage, England's Dreaming: Anarchy, Sex Pistols, Punk Rock, and Beyond, p. 179: Clash and SPs in Sheffield July 4.
• Steven Taylor, False Prophet: Fieldnotes from the Punk Underground, p. 56; Ramones played Roundhouse on July 4, "and the following night played a club called Dingwall's. Members of the Sex Pistols and the Clash...were in the club." p. 57: Joey Ramone describes meeting Johnny Rotten and Joe Strummer at Dingwall's.—DocKino (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the sources have it. I think the way the sentence is worded in the article right now is fine: "Their Roundhouse appearance and a club date the following night helped galvanize the burgeoning UK punk rock scene, inspiring members of the Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Damned." Seems to cover both performances just fine, summarizing the impact of both. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, makes much more sense now. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.189.243 (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre

Should they be listed as a Grunge band? The similarities between them and notable grunge bands such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc are many —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.100.211 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a music fan I would say absolutely not, as a Wikipedian I would say show me the references. J04n(talk page) 09:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As both I would say hell no. I would be extremely shocked if you could find a single reliable source calling them grunge. The only similarities between them & grunge bands were that they all played rock music. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla, you are my new friend! I entirely agree that the Ramones are a completely different genre and era and thus should not be considered "grunge" at all! (Ramones maniac) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.244.2 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Grunge? No way... Not even close to grunge, and predates the grunge movement with like two decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.99.31 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian Giver

Which album did "Indian Giver" first appear on? The only place I can find it is on Mania, and I didnt think they had any new releases on Mania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.20.243 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources I consulted say that prior to "Ramones Mania", it's only release had been as the B-side of the U.K. single "A Real Cool Time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tours

I know the Ramones toured a lot, but I can find any information about their tours (dates, locations, years, etc). Could someone get to work on that information? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.20.243 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The book "Ramones: An American Band", by Jim Bessman, in association with the Ramones, has a complete list of their concert dates from 1974 through June 1992, with tentative dates through January 1993. Most of the time just the city is listed, but occasionally it will list another performer from the same night - Iggy Pop, the Runaways, etc. I would gladly upload the entire list, but would this be OK for a new Wiki article? Thoughts, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a great idea, especially considering it is (probably) no where else on the internet. Thank you so much. It would make a great article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.136.56 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would run this past one or more of our plagiarism experts: Awadewit, Elcobbola, Jbmurray, Kablammo, Moonriddengirl, and/or Tony1. It sounds to me from your description that it's OK, the reproduction of a "non-creative lists of basic facts", but let's get a more-informed opinion.DocKino (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

After consulting with some Wiki people more knowledgable about the plagiarism issue, it seems that uploading the list would be OK. It may take a few days to type it up, but in the meantime - would one very long article be OK? Or would readers prefer each year as a separate Wiki entry? Elsquared (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

One article should be fine, just do it in list format. List articles are typically exempt from length concerns, and chances are if it's just dates & locations then even if it's long it still won't add up to much in terms of actual kilobytes. I'd use section headers for the years. It's always better to start as one article, then determine if any splitting is necessary afterwards. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the long delay, but the list of Ramones concert dates has finally been added as a new Wiki page. It is my first attempt at creating a newpage, so I apologize now if any errors have been made. Please see the talk page for a brief explanation of some changes from the original list. Elsquared (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI:Ramones concert dates has been tagged for deletion stating that it is unencyclopedic. J04n(talk page) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod and took the liberty of moving the article to List of Ramones concerts. That's the standard naming convention for list articles ("List of..."). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marked for deletion again; leave your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ramones concerts --J04n(talk page) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lineups table: right vs. left

DocKino recently moved the lineups table from the right of the page to the left, claiming that "all that dead white space it leaves on the left side is a serious problem" and that having it on the left is "the more standard design". I disagree:

1. There is actually more "dead white space" when the table is on the left. The white space is just on the right side now. We're dealing with 2 blocks of content (the list of names & the lineups table), neither of which take up more than half of the page in a normal-sized window. Having them in a 2-column format saves space & actually reduces the amount of "dead white space".
2. There is no "standard design" for this kind of thing, as not many articles use lineups tables. Most of the ones I've worked with have them on the right with no issues whatsoever. See The Aquabats, Reel Big Fish, and Rocket from the Crypt for examples.
3. Whether it's "a serious problem" is totally a matter of opinion, as this is purely an aesthetic issue. IMO having the table below the names, causing the article to be that much longer, is more of a problem.

The only reason the table was on the left for so long is because we didn't have a separate list of the members' names & dates. Now that we do, and neither comes close to taking up half the page, it makes sense to use a 2-column format. The reason the whitespace exists in the first place is because of the <br clear="all"/> code. We could always remove that, which would let the below text move up and justify around the table (the way the lead text justifies around the infobox), but personally I don't care for how that looks. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this debate interesting as a big fan and frequent utilizer of the somewhat unpopular (but in my opinion very useful) lineup table method of listing band member chronologies. As such I'm casting a vote for IllaZilla's proposed right side orientation for the Ramones lineups table. I agree that there is no standardized method due to the infrequency of this listing method; therefore, the debate is on purely aesthetic grounds, as opposed to a question of Wiki orthodoxy. As such, I'll say that my tastes are most pleased by the side-by-side listings, as they reduce white space and seem to simultaneously present two different (and, in my opinion, equally interesting) capitulations of the same information. I think that one can make a case for either presentation regarding aesthetic taste, but I do not think there is a case for adhering to Wiki orthodoxy in presenting the information (although I admit the possibility of a Wiki standard that I am unaware of, although I imagine it would be one infrequently recognized by editors since member chronologies tend to be such a structural free-for-all.) Either way, I'm a fan of both IllaZilla and DocKino's Wiki work that I've followed and I don't want to alienate one by backing the other, but I couldn't resist weighing in on this issue since I'm such a fan of band member tables. Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clem Burke

Should we list Clem Burke, Elvis Ramone, in the infobox with the former members? He only played a handful of gigs with them as a fill-in. He is mentioned in the text which I think is sufficient. J04n(talk page) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that if we take him out, we'll have people dropping by and arguing that he should be included. I don't feel strongly on the matter, but when it comes to these sort of questions, I generally favor the inclusive option as the one more likely to remain stable. If you do feel strongly, though, take him out and let's see what (if anything) happens. DocKino (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Band Name

The band's name is The Ramones, not "Ramones". I would move this but there isn't an option, and it doesn't say the page is move-protected. --Kiraisgod666 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the band name is Ramones. There is not a single album in their entire discography that uses "the" on the cover. However, since the band name is a plural proper noun, we use proper English grammar and put a lower-case "the" in front of it when using it in a sentence (upper-case of course if it's the first word). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I imported the CD into iTunes, and the named popped up as "The Ramones". Kiraisgod666 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

iTunes and other digital media programs frequently have the wrong information input into them (since it is input by numerous people who may not have ever actually seen or heard the physical album). I cannot count how many albums I have imported into iTunes or using Roxio where incorrect, misspelled, or improperly puncuated/capitalized artist names, album titles, and song titles have come up. Just this morning I ripped an album, and the recognition software put all of the titles in all caps for no apparent reason. On Wikipedia we always default to the primary source, which is the band themselves or album itself. Please browse through the releases in the Ramones discography and look at the album covers. You will find that they all just say "Ramones", not "The Ramones". Also look at the band's logo in this article. Just "Ramones". Even books don't use "the", for example I have a book on them entitled Ramones: An American Band. No "the". --IllaZilla (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic lists them as "The Ramones"[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisgod666 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is incorrect in that regard. Whatever Allmusic lists them as does not change the fact that in their 22-year career all of the band's albums, shirts, and other merchandise called them simply "Ramones". "The" is technically not part of the name. The Beatles, The Who, The Clash, and The Who are examples of bands who nearly always printed "The" in front of their names on all of their output. Therefore we include "The" as part of the name in the album title and bold it in the lead sentence. The Descendents, the Dead Kennedys, the Bad Brains, and the Sex Pistols are all examples of bands who almost never printed "the" in front of their name on any of their output, therefore we do not make it part of the article title and do not bold it in the lead sentence, as it is not part of the name. The Ramones fall in that latter category. Note that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted and lists them as "Ramones", not "The Ramones". --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the same page from AllMusic [12] when "the Ramones" isn't opening the sentence "...and speeding up the tempo considerably, the Ramones created something..." the "t" in "the" isn't capitalized. -J04n (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a major fan of the Ramones, and I agree that I have NEVER seen the name as "The Ramones", though people include "the" when speaking, that is just so that it makes grammatical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.244.2 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this rather a silly argument - whether or not to use the word "the"? True, I've never seen it used to promote them on albums. And I have an original concert poster from 1987 that clearly is missing "the". But how are we supposed to address them? "Boy, I really like Ramones"? Of course not, we have to use "the". Seems to me using "the" is just the grammatically correct way to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the name is 'Ramones' - however, on the live album 'It's Alive', Joey introduces the band as "Hey, we're the Ramones..". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.119.153 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Because, again, when you are using the name is a plural proper noun, so when you use it in a sentence the correct grammar is to say "the Ramones". "The" is not actually part of the name, but it is part of a proper sentence. Think of it like a sports team: say, the New York Yankees. "The" isn't part of their name either, but you wouldn't say "Yankees are playing a game tonight" or "The winner of the World Series was Yankees"; you'd say "The Yankees are playing a game tonight" or "The winner of the World Series was the Yankees". It's simply proper English. However, you don't embolden the "the" because it's not technically part of the name. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to try an argument here. This does not mean that I want this suggestion to go through, but only that I would like to see it discussed here. The basis is that I have some issues with the naming of the NSDAP article: I believe the name of that article (Nazi Party) is wrong, but if it is correct by wikipedia standards, it may have implications for the naming of this article since the fact that the Nazi Party did not call themselves anything remotely close to that is given no weight whatsoever when the name is decided. Only what they are called matters. According to the common name principle, articles should be named by "[c]ommon usage in reliable sources". Since there are numerous reliable sources (Allmusic, Itunes, Rolling Stone) that lists the band as The Ramones, I question whether this article should in fact be titled The Ramones since that name is perhaps more common than "technically correct but rarer forms", which includes "the original name or the trademarked name". According to this principle, should there not be sources that shows that Ramones is more common than The Ramones? Does it suffice to show that the name is used by the band or should there be demanded evidence that the name without "The" is actually widely accepted? With this I mean that magazines, encyclopedias or other things use the name extensively. PS: I do not refer to writing "the Ramones", but only "The Ramones" in headers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.179.170 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The fact that iTunes, Allmusic, etc. capitalize "The" as part of the name or call them "The Ramones" in headers or whatever doesn't constitute common usage, nor does it make them correct. For every one of those I could produce several sources from my shelf of books on punk rock that don't capitalize the "the", and call them "Ramones" in titles and headers. The fact remains that on every album cover, every logo, etc. the name is simply "Ramones". "The", although part of proper grammar, is not techincally part of the name. It is the same for the Sex Pistols, the Dead Kennedys, the Circle Jerks, the Descendents, etc. The correct title for this article is "Ramones". --IllaZilla (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that their name is the Ramones, but that's no issue since "common usage" seems to prevail over what is correct. If it does not matter for the titling of the NSDAP article that the party did not call itself anything remotely close to the Nazi Party, then why should it be relevant that the Ramones released albums under the name Ramones and not The Ramones? If common usage should prevail over "scientifically correct terms", like original names, then it should be a matter of whether reliable sources call the name Ramones or The Ramones. Sure, it's impossible to reach consensus for the name "The Ramones" and it would be stupid to change the name of this article to an incorrect form, but when the rules of wikipedia are stupid, the true implications of them should be discussed. And I still can't see that it's irrelevant that MTV, VH1, Allmusic, Rolling Stone, iTunes, Time uses The Ramones, not the Ramones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.179.170 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd sure like to see some of these sources you're naming (MTV, VH1, etc.) that call them "The Ramones", and in what context. I will say, the day that mislabeled stuff on iTunes and Allmusic is considered "common usage" will be a sad one indeed...I could fill a book with the number of mistitled albums and artists I've come across on those sites. Being on the internet doesn't amount to "common usage", especially when the albums, etc. (which all just say "Ramones") have been around for almost 30 years. Heck, I could walk through a mall right now and find 100 t-shirts with the band's logo that just say "Ramones" in big block letters. And like I said, for every one of those sources that title their articles "The Ramones" I could produce a source from my shelves for just "Ramones" (the subject of my masters thesis is punk rock, so I have shelves of books including several about the Ramones). The Nazi Party article has a significantly trickier titling issue than this article, mostly due to the language issue. Language isn't at issue here, and the point is rather moot really since The Ramones redirects to Ramones anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You have good points, and although I'm 100% sure you're right and that the argument I make is as dumb as I can make it, I'm not 100% convinced that you're right by Wikipedia standards. I think the naming in links below represents reliable sources that show common usage but I'm also 100% sure that Ramones will remain the name here because of consensus that that name should be retained. While you're right that the Nazi Party naming is more complicated due to language issues, the essence is pretty similar, with the main difference being that they ended up agreeing that the article should be named what the party did not call themselves. In the Nazi Party question, there is also tons of reliable sources that would dictate another name, as both a translation of the name, the abbreviation and the Nazi Party name is used in English. A translation of the party's long name could be a solution, but self-identification is not given weight - supposedly because it could violate neutrality. T-shirts and albums (or party documents) should therefore not (necessarily) be regarded as reliable sources if other reliable sources says differently.

I linked a few sources below. These are the artist listings at VH1, MTV, Rolling Stone + Time article. Sorry I couldn't link this any better. MTV, VH1, Rolling Stone, Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.179.170 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. For what it's worth, both the MTV and VH1 entries appear to be a straight copies/mirrors of Allmusic, title included. I can see your point about common usage, but as I said common usage in this case is inconsistent at best. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted them as Ramones, there are books about them titled Ramones, and even tribute albums use "Ramones" rather than "The Ramones". From a Wikipedia standpoint, when common usage is unclear we have to fall back on consensus, which we clearly have for "Ramones". And from the standpoint of a music fan, common usage of "The Ramones" is flat-out incorrect and in my opinion Wikipedia doesn't need to be incorrect just because the rest of the internet is. I say that in the friendliest spirit, of course :) --IllaZilla (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say 'Ramones', that is what it says on their albums. Enough for me. J04n(talk page) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazis and MTV notwithstanding, 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) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The Allmusic article as copied by MTV and VH1 uses a lower case the and drops it when it doesn't fit grammatically. The Time and Rolling Stone texts both use a lower case the or no article. But all of them have a the in the heading. It may be an editorial decision that shouldn't affect Wikipedia. It may just look better in a heading with a word in plural. It may convey perceived importance of the topic. Wikipedia's actual article naming varies and doesn't always follow the official guidelines. What usually matters most is consensus. Wipe (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Good Article review?

This article was nominated (again) for a good article review by Hoponpop69 (talk · contribs) on 4 October. I was going to review the article but noticed that the nomination wasn't completed. The nominator did not place the template on this talk page. At this point I'm not sure if the nomination was a mistake, rescinded, or a joke etc? Some clarity here would help. --Brad (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take a crack of getting into shape for assessment. I just copy-edited up to the "shuffling members" subsection and will continue on tomorrow (or tonight if I can't sleep). If anyone else wants to pitch in I would be obliged. Also, if anyone has a reference showing that they were the first band interviewed on MTV it would be a big help. J04n(talk page) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

pronounce

Hi! Could you help me, how to pronounce this name? --A1 (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• /rəˡmonz/ --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Ramone's guitar technique

The Jimmy Page article and discussion page appears to be claiming/implying that Ramone got his rapid stroke technique from Page, despite Ramone clearly stating he came up with it on his own and stopped listening to others to come up with his very own style. He also stated he didn't want to emulate the guy, and a vague documentary claim is used as a reference. If this could be fixed on that article/discussion or if someone could explain to them why its breaching Wikipedia Politics/making misleading false claims to further Page's status, that would be helpful. --Karrabona (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite these statements of Johnny's that you mention above? That would go a long way towards reinforcing your argument. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No need for a citation here. The person who needs to find evidence is the one who claims Johnny based is tecnique on Page

Oh hi, if u look, yes people seem to have already mentioned them numerous times/reasons throughout that discussion talk page, of Page but they don't seem to listen. Some people real e love musicians they like i guess and try to claim any e thing about them. Lol,

If some 1 would clear that up on that disciussion talk page that would b nice. -Karrabona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karrabona (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever the Ramones say, take a listen to Led Zeps communications breakdown live at the albert hall 1970. I dont know any other band who played like this before that song. So maybe it was a subconcious influence, but the rhythm chords of the guitar in the live version of the song certainly sounds like something the ramones might have done. look it up on youtube and then comment. Also there is a guitar part in The Ramones song 'Now I wanna sniff some glue' which is exactly the same riff as the bass riff in the fast part of Zeps 'Daezed and confused' --81.159.180.95 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

, as usual. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:47, 10 February 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)

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)

I defiantly agree. Just Because the Ramones may not have referred to themselves as a punk band means nothing. They formed before the label "punk" existed. Why would they call themselves something someone labeled them, that wouldn't be very punk. The Stooges don't go around calling themselves "protopunks" and I don't think Nirvana ever used the word Grunge to describe their sound. Also I've herd interviews with Joey stating he didn't think today's(90's) punks really appreciated all that they had done for them, clearly relating himself to the genre. I believe, if anything, the Ramones not labeling themselves as "punks" makes them all the more punk. 97.125.100.48 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with labelling The Ramones "punk" because they owed a lot to garage rock. Garage rock was the original form of punk rock (a sadly-forgotten truth). In the early 70's (long before the Ramones or even the New York Dolls), rock critics specifically designated what we now call garage rock (of the mid 60's) as a genre (or subgenre) called "punk rock." Lenny Kaye, later a member of The Patti Smith Group and New York punk scene), used the term to designate garage rock in his original liner notes to the Nuggets compilation Lp in 1972. Dave Marsh had used the term to describe Question Mark & The Mysterions in a review (Creem, May 1971). Other influential critics used the term "punk rock" to specifically designate garage rock as a genre, such as Greg Shaw (in his review of Nuggets, Rolling Stone Jan. 4, 1973 ), Metal Mike Saunders in Shakin' Street Gazette (November, 1974) and Mick Houghton in Let It Rock (Dec. 1975). There can be no doubt about how the term came to be used in the New York scene of the mid-70's: the people in the New York scene were well aware of how the term had been previously used. I agree with the writer above that The Ramones did not have to classify themselves "punk" in order to be punk. Neither did the garage rock bands of the 60's who were the first to have the term used to describe their genre. Yes, The Ramones are punk: true punk. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you label any thing.125.187.15.146 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (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.