|
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 |
![]() |
#194 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 27
|
![]()
I also prefer The Clash. They included many other music genres in their sound, London Calling is just perfect and their lyrics were really amazing. But I agree that maybe if Ramones didn't exist, The Clash wouldn't exist either.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#199 (permalink) |
/
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Conn
Posts: 1,338
|
![]()
What are you talking about, Story? Do you know what "Punk Ideals" are? It's that "just don't give a ****" feeling that's been so bastardized in recent years. The Clash gave a ****. They had opinions. I mean, they wrote songs about the Sandinista's for god's sake. That's not Punk. That's politics. Now the Ramones... they didn't give a ****! That's punk at its purest. It's that simple, black and white.
edit: by the way, I'm by no means bashing the Clash, they're one of my favorite bands. I just thought he was misled in his belief. |
![]() |
![]() |
#200 (permalink) |
Mate, Spawn & Die
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
|
![]()
Worse? Rickenbacker is right on the money. The Ramones were a bunch of unskilled, lower class schmucks from Queens just throwing it all out there. Some of it was great, some of it sucked, but they didn't really seem to give a shit. If the point of punk was anyone can get up on stage and play then the Ramones were it's most shining example. I find that really inspiring.
|
![]() |
![]() |
|