The emphasis on the "baser" elements of life, and the de-emphasizing of instrumental prowess, and of course the largely self-righteous attitude of many in the genre (not The Ramones themselves, though) that they were saving rock music from itself, are just some of the aspects that have turned many off to the band and to the genre over the years. They claim the band/genre is inexcusably crude and overly simplistic, completely sacrificing the sophistication that rock had built up for itself in the decade previous. Almost as annoying to me as the people who claim that punk (and, by extension, The Ramones) saved rock from itself are those who claim that punk was a horrific mistake. On the other hand, rejecting the band as something potentially enjoyable doesn't seem wise to me, either. A large percentage of my favorite albums and bands fall squarely in the category of art-rock/prog-rock, and I have an instinctual fondness for a lot of the traits that characterize those genres, so I'm naturally not eager to embrace a band just because they represent a rejection of those characteristics. I've never bought the idea that a lengthy instrumental passage automatically sucks, or that keyboard solos are the worst idea ever, or that songs should be within a certain length, or that writing about mystical/abstract lyrical topics is a sin against nature. The idea of the "true spirit of rock and roll" is one that I find especially offensive I've never liked the idea that rock music should mostly be about getting laid, taking drugs, kicking ass and rocking out. The problem for me is that I kinda sorta really like all of the stuff in rock music that tends to get slagged off in vehemently praising The Ramones. And, of course, it will heap at least some praise upon the band for essentially creating punk rock (bringing it out of the "proto" stage of some 60's bands and firmly into its own genre). It'll praise the band for embodying the "true spirit of rock and roll," and eliminating all of the unnecessary fluff in rock music, and all that rot. Most of the time, any review of the band that's favorable will say something about how the band saved rock from the pompous, overblown kinds of music that had become popular and commonplace in the 70's. The Ramones aren't a band that fit neatly into my music tastes, to say the least. Some stuff is great like "When I Was Young" & "Out Of Time" some of it is pretty weak like "Somebody To Love" and "My Back Pages" IMO.The Ramones Completely confused by the rating system? Go here for an explanation. That album could have been so much better. My only complaint about CJ is that I think he sings too many songs on Acid Eaters, not that it was his fault. It was really the best for everyone involved. I think I would have felt different about the Ramones when Dee Dee left if he wasn't still involved in contributing new music. There were only 2 more studio albums, but they are both solid (IMO) and I think Dee Dee wrote the majority of the songs. It's also great that Dee Dee became sort of a Brian Wilson figure for the rest of the Ramones career. CJ definitely definitely brought some new energy. The band sounds so tight, and I love the sped up versions of many of the songs. I know people have mixed feelings about it, but I love Loco Live. If you look at some of the last footage with Dee Dee live, he obviously isn't really into it. I thought CJ was as good a pick as you could get to replace Dee Dee (not that he could be replaced) and he gave them a kick in the *** when they needed it. It's interesting that about half the songs CJ sang were written by Dee Dee.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |