|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Who was better? | |||
The Ramones | 64,000 | 99.81% | |
The Clash | 121 | 0.19% | |
The Sex Pistols suck (aka, never listened to either) | 3 | 0.00% | |
Voters: 64124. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
08-19-2009, 06:34 PM | #171 (permalink) | |
king of sex
Join Date: May 2009
Location: canada
Posts: 331
|
Quote:
....I didn't call them financial geniuses. |
|
08-19-2009, 07:11 PM | #175 (permalink) |
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
No The Clash just toured non stop until they were sick of the sight of each other.
__________________
Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave. |
08-20-2009, 03:30 AM | #179 (permalink) |
Music Addict
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 182
|
I am going to have to go for the Ramones. I am not saying they were the most original of bands but I prefer them (and I saw them perform live as a kid in the 90s so I am a bit biased I guess) and they knew how to pack alot of sound into three minutes.
I think the two bands in their own way were unique and it is overall hard to say which was better. If I had seen the Clash live as well, perhaps I might think differently. How a band performs/sounds live is usually the clincher. |
08-20-2009, 04:35 AM | #180 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 35
|
Neither group was especially great, but The Clash managed to get it together long enough to produce one classic album, something that remained beyond the Ramones for their entire career. The Ramones were better at playing punk than the Clash, but the Clash were better at being interesting.
__________________
http://rateyourmusic.com/~paddypiano |
|