T1B

Revisionist history much?

You made a fool of yourself last time, and Mr. Chan is making a fool of you now. Clowning you is like a party game around here.

Not that Wikipedia is the end-all, be-all, but if you care to look up "Punk Rock," they're the first fucking band mentioned, asshat.

Wiki? Really? It says Elvis Costello is a punk. Care to defend that?
As far as last time, you said the term was coined for them. I showed it wasn't and you crept away like a scalded cat.

Proving Fail wrote:The Ramones are not punk.

You lamely attempted to defend your assertion by assigning your own definition of what punk is, or rather, is not. This is known in your line of work as uncorroborated testimony, since you produced nothing by any recognized authority on the subject reinforcing that definition, and futilely tried to dismiss the corroboration I produced from multiple sources indicating that your feeble assertion was wrong. Has this tack served you well in court?

Prosecutor: Your Honor, the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming. DNA, fingerprints, eyewitnesses, and expert corroborating testimony clearly prove that the defendant did indeed commit the heinous acts with which he's been charged, and the State seeks the maximum penalty.

Proving Fail: I move to have all charges against my client dismissed. Just because State law defines the actions my client committed as being criminal doesn't make it true. I have my own definition of what constitutes guilt in this matter, and my client's actions clearly do not meet that definition. And as you know, or should know, Your Honor, all that really matters is what I think. Therefore, the only reasonable course of action is to acquit my client.

Judge: I find the defendant guilty as charged. Furthermore, I find his counsel to be severely lacking in logic, reason, knowledge of the law, argumentative skills, and elevation. Next case.

You later wrote:you admit they are not a quintessential punk band so even you admit they are on the margin.

Moving the goalpost much? I never said or implied they were the quintessential punk band, and never claimed they were the first punk band. Others may have made that claim, but I didn't. Nor is what is inferred by what you claim I admitted true. Not being quintessential does not necessarily place one on the margin. While you are certainly not the quintessential defense attorney and at best are marginally qualified to practice law, others lawyers who are not quintessential fall squarely in the middle of the pack, far from the margin. While the Ramones may not have been G.G. Allin, they were more punk than, say, The Clash, and fall somewhere in the middle, far removed from the margin, of punk rock bands.

You wrote:Can you tell me why you think they are other than because people say they are?

Yes, I can. One must consider the nature of rock music when The Ramones hit the scene. It was largely blues-based and characterized by polished production, overdubs, textural layers, guitar solos, complex arrangements, and often long songs, with acoustic guitars, love songs, and ballads mixed in. The Ramones, by contrast, produced insistent, fast-paced, three-chord, short songs (2-3 minutes) with virtually no guitar solos, raw, unpolished production, and no sappy love songs or ballads. Their song titles and lyrics were angst-ridden, violent, and self-destructive; e.g., Beat on the Brat (With a Baseball Bat), I Wanna Be Sedated, Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue, Teenage Lobotomy, Poison Heart, Chain Saw, You're Gonna Kill That Girl, Psycho Therapy, etc. The band members were no choirboys, and while perhaps falling short of assault-and-battery on their audiences, their behavior was often bad. A prime example would be Johnny Ramone stealing Joey's girlfriend and later marrying her, memorialized by the tune Joey wrote about it in which he, in most punk fashion, compared Johnny's act to the most well-known racial hate group - The KKK Took My Baby Away. Even Dee Dee Ramone's signature rapid-fire "1-2-3-4" count-off before many of their songs helped define their punk sound. Their audiences were comprised of punks, the most well-known venue with which they're associated (CBGB) was known for new wave and punk performers, and the mosh pits formed at their concerts all helped define the punk movement.

The Ramones were punk rockers, and only a cunt sandwich like you would idiotically claim otherwise.

You wrote:You think they are punks?

Yes, for the reasons I stated.

Proving Fail wrote:prove me wrong.

Done. Easily. Now toddle off and eat a sack of various colored dicks.

Smackie Chan wrote:Now toddle off and eat a sack of various colored dicks.

Was punk treated (condemned) the way rap is now, and rhythm and blues was before?

If you can't agree on what it was, can you agree on when it ended? or did it?

Why were they angry?

Top to bottom, Smackie, moving fail.

If you are going to step to SC on the topic of music, you really had better bring your A game. The midget doesn't have a C game, never mind an A.

Of course he will be back here claiming victory anyway. Even Bahgdad Bob is embarassed by him.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I can understand these lyrics quite easily... ergo (Latin), not punk.

Well, duh. The Misfits aren't punk. They're emo.

Sin,

Rooster

On this topic I can add a bit of heretofore unknown background. I work with the former bassist from Black Flag, an original band member who left the group just before they made it big. He says they didn't seem to be going anywhere, so he told them he was leaving and joined the Navy. Subsequently he went through their helicopter school and made a career of it. He laughs about it to this day and says never to take a stock tip or bet on a sure thing at the track if he advises it.

Mea culpa: The Misfits aren't an emo band, but horror punk according to those who keep track of these things. I made the connection since you see these poor lost souls hanging around Starbucks spending Daddy's money on a triple soy, carmelized, nonfat, gluten free, frothy fair trade, non-exploitive, feminist friendly latte using civet shat coffee beans dragged about by a free range donkey led by a Juan Valdez lookalike who has been caught and deported by ICE eight times wear the distinctive ghost skull design on black t-shirts. These benighted children led me to believe that they were an emo band.

I guess I'm just getting old.

Rooster wrote:I made the connection since you see these poor lost souls hanging around Starbucks spending Daddy's money on a triple soy, carmelized, nonfat, gluten free, frothy fair trade, non-exploitive, feminist friendly latte using civet shat coffee beans dragged about by a free range donkey led by a Juan Valdez lookalike who has been caught and deported by ICE eight times wear the distinctive ghost skull design on black t-shirts. These benighted children led me to believe that they were an emo band.

Oh, I see you've been to Portland -- should have looked me up.

Innocent Bystander wrote: Why were they angry?

They would tell us, but lack of enunciation was so critical to the genre.......

The Sonics

I thought punk started because a bunch of dudes didn't want to learn how to play their instruments but still wanted all the cool stuff of being in a band.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I thought punk started because a bunch of dudes didn't want to learn how to play their instruments but still wanted all the cool stuff of being in a band.

Is this another shot at Screwey's flip-phone playlists?

:?

But seriously, no.

Papa Willie wrote:Punk started here:

We have a winnah!

The Who were doing punk 10 years before someone else allegedly invented it in the mid 70s.

If Pete had busted that guitar over the head of some bloke in the first row, rather than skewering a perfectly innocent amp with it.....it would have been punk.

Sin-
grooving fail

The Kinks would like a word with both of you.

Notice the silence from Hillary. She was born and raised in Chicago and was allegedly a Cub fan, as were all the rich kids in Chicago, I guess. Of course, that was before she had to be a Yankee fan to win NY. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that she has IL in the bag and is doing everything possible to pander to OH, particularly the Cleveland area where every last bit of her support there is?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:The Kinks would like a word with both of you.

Good point. I think maybe even the midget would vouch for their punkness.

smackaholic wrote:Notice the silence from Hillary. She was born and raised in Chicago and was allegedly a Cub fan, as were all the rich kids in Chicago, I guess. Of course, that was before she had to be a Yankee fan to win NY. Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that she has IL in the bag and is doing everything possible to pander to OH, particularly the Cleveland area where every last bit of her support there is?

Nah, that couldn't be it.

Please, whackjob, find a conspiracy into how she ties her shoes...or velcros them.

Smackie has a point. She wore a Cubs hat in 2008.

Cubs winning is a big deal because of the mystique. She was born there. Why wouldn't she have anything to say after pandering in the past?

It'd be different if she never wore the hat, let alone her birthplace. Did she at least congratulate both teams?

It"s an off thing. Slightly askew. But pointing to something else. Maybe she's already done it this morning.

It's not a conspiracy, douchebag. It is just another example of her being a pandering POS. She is from Chicago. She has claimed in the past that she was a Cubs fan. She is about as genuine as Barry, who, when asked who was his favorite White Sox, stuttered and stammered and was outted for the fraud he is. He couldn't name a single member of the team he allegedly followed.

smackaholic wrote:It's not a conspiracy, douchebag. It is just another example of her being a pandering POS. She is from Chicago. She has claimed in the past that she was a Cubs fan. She is about as genuine as Barry, who, when asked who was his favorite White Sox, stuttered and stammered and was outted for the fraud he is. He couldn't name a single member of the team he allegedly followed.

Seriously, dude, you really need to get your mind off of Hillary. Do your realize how fucking stupid this looks?

I wonder if she puts both socks on first, or if it's sock-shoe, sock-shoe. Which one would disqualify her as a Presidential candidate in your opinion?

In fact, I'll bet Trump doesn't even like baseball. I think he'd rather watch a half naked huuuugely masculine short guy ride a horse across a mountain stream, and imagine participating.

Mikey wrote:
Seriously, dude, you really need to get your mind off of Hillary. Do your realize how fucking stupid this looks?

I wonder if she puts both socks on first, or if it's sock-shoe, sock-shoe. Which one would disqualify her as a Presidential candidate in your opinion?

Don't really care about her footwear.

But that whole deal where she used influence to get an American phosphorous mine shut down, then got $28 million to allow a Moroccan mine to business in the US is cause for concern.

Trump (who is an absolute POS, full fucking stop) hasn't proven he will use high office for personal gain (although I'm about 98% sure that would be the case). Mrs. Bill has CLEARLY proven she will.

So, I'm writing in one of my drunken buddies for Prez. Can't vote for either, in good conscience.

And to anyone who supports Hillary... way to go, fucking morons. You fell for the "false dilemma," hook, line, and sinker. "Trump sucks = Hillary good" is so fucking moronic, I don't even know where to start.

As a NAV (Non-Affiliated Voter... since the genius that is the Oregon Elections Office allowed a new party... and no, I'm not making this up... to call themselves the Independent Party*... seriously), I guess it's easier to see through the BS. At least GOPers are willing to call out their party honks... Dems follow their overlords blindly, and eat up every word of bullshit they spew. And I still won't register/vote GOP.



* -- The Oregon Republican Party was such a disaster, they were filing for bankruptcy, but got bailed out by the GOP. There was an offshoot that named themselves the "Independent Party," which is so deceiving, I'll never cast a vote for them. In Oregon, independents are now "NAV's." And illegals can register pretty easily here (and they do by the zillions).

Dinsdale wrote:In Oregon, independents are now "NAV's."

In New York we call voters without a party "blanks."

SC,
Someone has to define punk rock. Why does it get to be you but not me?
As to the meat of your argument. Yes they were downstroke based. Yes it was barre-cored driven, short and Sheena was not a song dripping in sugar. The qualities you mentioned are (mostly) true of many bands of the time from EC to the Clash. That doesn't make them punk rockers. They dressed like the Fonz for GoDs sake. How many bands played rock type music that were not rock bands?
There is a reason why GG and Dee Dee only played together for a week. One wasn't a punk rocker. Sure they could count to 4 and recorded a mild diss record but in the totally of the circumstances they were not punk rockers. Absolutely they were close. Absolutely they rocked out. They played CBGBs before it was a punk rock haven with two notable exceptions. Those exceptions, as great a gigs as they were, don't put them over the top.

I await your lemmingesque response.

smackaholic wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:The Kinks would like a word with both of you.

Good point. I think maybe even the midget would vouch for their punkness.

Mmmmm no. They are not even as close as the Ramones.

Dims, so the mine is cause for concern. What else you got?

Moving Sale wrote: There is a reason why GG and Dee Dee only played together for a week. One wasn't a punk rocker. Sure they could count to 4 and recorded a mild diss record but in the totally of the circumstances they were not punk rockers.

You could make the argument for every member of The Ramones, but if you choose DeeDee, you expose your fucking stupidity.
DeeDee, Stiv Bators and Richard Hell are unquestionably "The Big 3" of the modern era of American punk.

You are an angry, frustrated midget.

* honourable mention to H.R. of the Bad Brains...

It can't be said for every member of the Ramones that they played with GG for a week. How dumb are you?
As for your trio. Why are they the pillars? Because you say so?
And why do you care so much about my body? Do you dream about me too?

Moving Sale wrote:It can't be said for every member of the Ramones that they played with GG for a week. How dumb are you?

What point are you trying to make, dipshit? That Dee Dee is or isn't punk rock?
You are a mess.

That's it, act like its my fault you can't read. Go fuck a moose.

Just in case nobody mentioned The Standells, I will. Because they're the fucking Standells.

Moving Sale wrote:Someone has to define punk rock. Why does it get to be you but not me?

Jeez dude...I never said you couldn't - you already had, and you asked me to provide my definition. Remember?

You wrote:I have told you why I think they are not. Can you tell me why you think they are other than because people say they are?

But let's forget about the Ramones and whether they are punk for the time being, and address this gem:

You wrote:I await your lemmingesque response.

I find this more than a little ironic in light of the fact that

You wrote:That is how humans communicate, using words.

For language to be of any value, and for communication to be effective, words, phrases, and labels must be coined, defined, and used according to their commonly accepted definitions. If we were able to define and use words any way we wanted, communication would be much more difficult because no one would know what is meant by the words being used. So yeah, if you want to accuse me of being lemmingesque for applying a commonly accepted label to the type of music the Ramones played because that is how humans communicate, guilty as charged.

Sure, there are differences as to how definitions are interpreted, which is more common when discussing art and music than, say, science or perhaps law. There is no definition set in stone for what constitutes punk rock (as illustrated by the link I provided in which there are several definitions), or rock & roll for that matter. You apply a narrower definition to punk than I do. I apply a narrower definition to rock & roll than the HoF apparently does. Who is right? I am, of course, because I say I am. You are because you say you are.

But seriously, I'm right.