Talk:Ramones/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Visual timeline vs. Lineups table

I have created a timeline for a more simple display of the changes throughout the Ramones' lineup. Once I uploaded this; user "Illazilla" instantly deleted it, simply making the statement "these things are superfluous". Well that may be his opinion, but considering they are now used in almost every other major band line up, I doubt that is the general consensus. I do not want to get into an editing war with someone who, clearly, has so much more time then I to spend on these things. I believe this should be a matter for discussion and I hope this post will not be removed by Illazilla. Who wants the timeline, who wants the table?

Extended content
Timeline

97.125.100.48 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

These "timeline" things are superfluous. We already have a personnel section, as well as a table showing all the lineups and the years and recordings of each. All the timeline adds is colors, and it's actually of less utility than the table. Using the timeline, attempt to answer these questions:

1. Who played on End of the Century?
2. When did Joey play drums?
3. What was the lineup in 1985?

The first 2 questions can't be answered from the timeline. The third requires 4 steps: (1) Look along the x axis for the year 1985, (2) scan upwards to note the various colored bars, (3) look to the y axis to see which names those bars correspond to, (4) check the legend to see which positions the various colors correspond to. Comparatively, all of these questions can be answered using the the table, and the third one requires only 2 steps: (1) look down the left until you find the span of time that includes 1985, (2) look immediately to the right.

I have discussed these things before here and here, and don't have much to add to the arguments I've previously made. You are incorrect (or at least making a broad assumption) that these timelines "are now used in almost every other major band line up". In fact there are statistically very few articles that use them, considering the many hundreds of band articles on Wikipedia. Further, there are no standards or guidelines in place to promote consistency amongst these sorts of charts, so their application varies wildly from one article to another. There has been no community consensus that I have seen (as a member of several music projects including WP:MUSICIANS, and with 6 years' experience working on band articles) that these charts are necessary or even desirable. Until there is a clear consensus, and guidelines to ensure consistency, I'm disinclined to add superfluous charts that give no added utility beyond the presentations we already have and are actually less useful in answering the kinds of questions readers are likely to consult such a chart for. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with IllaZilla's analysis. (And I'm sure Clem Burke does as well.) DocKino (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with IllaZilla. The table is a much better looking and better organized. The only time I would support the use of a timeline is for a band with several different line-ups, like Black Sabbath. And in those instances, only if they truly add to the article or clarify. The problem here is, The Ramones had much the same line-up for most of their career and a timeline doesn't add any value to the article. Natt the Hatt (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnny wasn't a 'military brat'

In the section "Conflicts between members", it is stated that "Johnny was a military brat who lived by a code of self-discipline..."

A military brat is a child of a career military parent(s). John Cummings' (aka Johnny Ramone) dad was a construction worker. However, Douglas Colvin (aka Dee Dee Ramone) was a military brat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.133.86 (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Thank you. Johnny attributed his "code of self-discipline" in significant part to the two years he attended of military school. The article has been edited to reflect the facts. DocKino (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits of Dec 18th

Hi folks,

Could someome tell me please what exactly is "unproductive" about the edits I made? The edits I have added were intended to:-

• add a greater degree of structure to the article (please compapre before and after)
• some pics have been moved meaning that they are now aligned to the era with which they were associated

I also added an update here to request constructive and consensual support on improving this article.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about the image moves, but the "conflicts" section shouldn't go below the members section. The standard structure for band articles is that the list-style content (Members, Discography) goes below the prose-style content (History, Influence, etc.). --IllaZilla (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks,

Thanks for responding. I have taken the comments above on board and moved the members section to further down the article.

Any comments on some of the other amendmends I've made please? In particular the 'influence' section in my humble opinion is now much more structured compared with what before was something of a ramble. I have also added a section for 'Awards and honours' which again in my humble adds to the article.

Rgds,

Socheid (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Influence section needed some cleanup, but I don't think it needs 6 subsections. Now we've got sections that consist of just 2 sentences or 2 bullet points. The various tributes and cover versions could be split off into separate articles (a la List of Iron Maiden tribute albums and List of cover versions of Misfits songs). For examples of good Influences sections see Nirvana (band)#Legacy, Sex Pistols#Legacy, and Metallica#Legacy and influence. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for your very prompt reply,

I thought similar to you. I'm sure there's a lot more material could go into some of the sections I added. I though don't have that info at my finger tips and for the moment at least, I don't have the time to go chasing it down on the internet. I was hoping someone else may see it and improve what I added, hence why for example I added the comment to:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Punk_music#Ramones

Further I was going to add a tag that I have used in the past requesting for help for the section in question to be expanded. However when I added it and hit the save button, a message was published on the article saying the tag in question has been discontinued.

Further again, I concur that some of the sections when they have sufficient material in them would be better moved to a separate page. Whether there is sufficient material there at present I suggest is up for debate. I'm happy to be guided on that by opinion of others.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I just looked at, and swiftly reverted, turned a well-structured, coherent article into something ghastly. There was obviously a complete absence of any understanding of basic design principles, let alone any recognition of the norms found in high-quality articles here on similar topics. The article is not currently broken, and none of the few minor changes that were not damaging were in any way necessary. Quick, wholesale reversion was thus the appropriate, really the only, response. DocKino (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

That's your opinion. As per above there's more than just me who feels the article can be improved.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, I believe the editor responsible for the edits in question has been acting in good faith (if with unwarranted confidence and, it appears, a potential propensity toward edit warring). There is no concern about intentions, in my view. The problem is the work itself, which is incompetent and unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Example (talk • contribs) 11:15, 1 June 2005 (UTC)

Every single edit we make can be construed as an expression of an opinion. And every article can be improved; unfortunately, the specific edits made by this specific editor made this specific article much worse. DocKino (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi polisher of cobwebs,

In response to your comment, "please do not edit war or try to force through changes over objections by other editors". When I made the edits that I did, I supported that with an immediate request make on the punk project page for a request for input and consensus agreement towards making the article in question better. Since then there has been a response from another editor that appears to be to slam dunk remove all of that work in an instant without seeking input from other editors. That is no different from what you are accusing me in your last revertion. My request is that any perceived short comings on the edits I made are on a 1 by 1 basis. As suggested above there were numerous elements of the article that are improved with the following:-

1. the 'influence' section is little more than a long ramble and lacks structure. At least one other person agrees with me on this.
2. the addition of an 'Awards and honours' section makes the article more user friendly and more encyclopedic
3. Various images in the document were not optimally positioned with regard to the period in history from which they are related to.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PS Just to add to the point above. A comment was made that the article should be structured with the 'members' section further down than where I had it positioned. I accepted that completely as constructive and well intended and amended the article accordingly in the name of consensus agreement. I propose that the slam dunk undoing of edits as has been actioned by others is neither constructive nor consensual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socheid (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all,

Any response please to the comments I have made above?

Rgds, Socheid (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks,

No response to the comment made above so with twice as many people articulating that the 'influence' section needs improved, I have updated that section.

Regards, Socheid (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Socheid, you may have sought input at the punk project page, but the consensus of editors here doesn't seem to be in favor of your edits. So there is a distinction between your behavior and that of the editors who have reverted you (and I'm only one of several). It's no use to try to justify edit warring that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi polisher of cobwebs,

I have more than sought consensus from the punk project page. I have endeavoured to calmly articlulate my view point on this page with a view to a sensible discussion on how the ramones page can be improved. Those comments have largely been treated with disregard rather than someone articulate the concerns each of the edits I have made. Hence why I have on this occasion reduced the previous holistic edits on this occasion to an edit only on the influences section, a section on which there is someone else who has stated they share my view that the section needs improving. Can you advise your view on the influences section please? Do you not agree that the previous version of that section was only a ramble and lacks structure? Further the sub sections in the edits I made lend themselves as they expand to a separate page being created for such things as a list of Ramones tribute albums, ramones songs that have been covered by other performers?

Your opinion would be appreciated and thank for having responded.

Regards Socheid (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The wrecking of the properly formatted and rigorously sourced "Influence" section, which turned it into a ridiculous mess of stubby subsections and trivia points, has once again been reverted. DocKino (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

Re your comment in reverting edits on the Ramones page as follows:-

'Revert. Sorry, but we are not allowing the Influence section to be turned into a sloppy trivia bank.'

Some comments:-

1) When you say we, could you please clarify who it is that you are speaking for on top of yourself? I don't see on there that anyone has stated that they are giving you authority to speak for them

2) Please bear in mind that wikipedia guidlelines state that wikpedia pages are not owned by individuals. Thus you do not own the Ramones page. Agreement on edits on pages in wikipedia are based on consensus rather than one person looking to steamroller there views when there are others making up a majority alternative opinion. There are others who agree that the influence sections needs a tidy up. The tidied up edit I have added is more structured as opposed to the previous version which has no apparent line of structure and just looks amateur and messy.

3) Please refrain from edit warring. As mentioned above, individuals do not own wikipedia pages. Please work with others in a constructive manner rather than edit warring with abrupt, point of view comments that often give no indication of any wikipedia guidelines supporting the view point.

Thank you for any constructive and consensusly agreed work you can bring to wikipedia.

Socheid (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The proposed changes are extremely poor in multiple ways, as has been previously described. Please don't try making them again, Socheid, unless you can build a consensus in support of them here on the Talk page--or you are the edit warrior. Thank you. DocKino (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

This is an attempt at humour on your part surely? The only person who has objected to this change is you. As well as me, there is another person if you go through the hist who has agreed that this section of this page needs to be improved.

The reasons you have given for reverting these edits have been only your point of view and there has been no wikepedia guidelines brought to the table to support your view. At the moment this appears that you think that you own this page and have the right do on here as you wish. Wikipedia states that individuals do not own pages. The reasons put forward by you against the edits I made are poor. The reponse you have given above appears aloof, self important and does not demonstrate any sort of desire or inclination to try to work together with others.

Again, please do not edit war.

PS Please see the update above by IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC), stating that the influences section needs a tidy up.

Socheid (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Attemtping to work with others, I've made a couple of changes to the Influences section from what was there before:-

1) I have removed the 2 subsections re tribute albums in response to the comment highighted above by illazilla

2) I have removed the small amount of content that I added to the section when I originally made this edit. Thus all of the content of the Influences section was already there before I made the edit to make this section as it is now. The only changes I have made are to structuring.

Any constructive comment on, please type away.

Hi Illazilla,

Going by your comment above, it looks like you are pretty knowledgable re Influences section. Any chance you could bring your wizardry to bear on the Influences section on this page please to make it even better for everyone?

Thanks to anyone who takes a moment to read this.

Socheid (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And now you are blatantly edit warring. Socheid, your record on Wikipedia in no way suggests that you have the skills to maintain or improve a popular music Good Article. Mine does. I have been accorded 5 barnstars by our fellow editors in the field; you have none. I was one of the editors who brought Elvis Presley to Featured Article status and am largely responsible for keeping Sex Pistols at Featured Article status; you have never brought any article to any peer-reviewed quality status. If you are willing to learn how to build a high-quality music article, I'm ready to teach you, but I am not willing to sit by idly while you tear down this article. What you've done has nothing to do with the cursory comments that IllaZilla made. I believe you mean well, but your actual efforts are almost completely counterproductive. DocKino (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dockino,

Interesting reply. So let me get this right. If someone makes an edit, its OK for you to undo it. If someone else undoes your edits, its edit warring?

You may well have some stars added to your history. You also have on there a list of complaints regarding your uncollaborative and dogmatic challenging of other people's work. Further your response above supports the previous comment I added above, namely that your edits are self important and aloof and not geared towards collaborative working. To repeat again, wikipedia guidelines state that no one owns wikipedia pages. You are the only person who has challenged this edit so far despite it being on almost 200 watch lists. Further to repeat again, there has been a comment stating that the influences section needs a tidy up. This means that at present your view is against the consensus so far stated.

I have asked you before and this has been ignored. Please let me ask again. Can you please explain with detail why exactly the edits made are non beneficial? You clearly have a high regard for your abilities, could you please demonstrate how good they are by giving a detailed explanation of why the edit in question is devalueing the section in the article? As stated above, the only change that has been made is to break the content down into three structured sub sections. All of the content and references are exactly as before. However the proposed changes takes away the rambling non structured format, to some degree at least. Regardless of how many stars you have or anything else, you do have any higher authority to allow you to over ride the opinions of others when your view is the minority opinion. Do you honestly believe that you are perfect and nothing you do can be improved upon?

Also could you please explain why my actions have nothing to do with the input of illazilla? Illazilla made a constructive suggestion that one of the sub sections was too small. I have acted upon that and merged a couple of sections together. Its called collaborative working.

Could you please answer the previous question I also asked, namely when you said 'we' in one of your previous talk page updates, who are you speaking for please?

Your repeated undoing of the changes I have attempted to constructively apply with what is currently majority backing represents edit warring on your part.

Socheid (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Socheid, this is a Good Article for a reason: because editors who know what they are doing have brought it to a certain level of quality and maintain it there. When you're ready to acquire the skills to work on a high-quality pop music article, again, I'm ready to help you. In the interim, may I suggest you read our WP:Manual of Style--ALL OF IT. Along the way, I hope you will discover exactly why your edits are not acceptable. DocKino (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So once again some points have been raised in good faith for you and your response is aloof and self righteous and doesn't answer the questions aimed at you. And once again you edit war. Your view remains in the minority until others join the discussing to support your view that no subsections in the influences page of this article is the optimum format. Disappointing.

Changing back to the format supported by the majority of people to have voiced an opinion on this.

Socheid (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think the version by Socheid improves the article. The emphasis on cheap tribute albums is misplaced and the connection to the fanzine Sniffin' Glue seems insignificant. I think it was better the way it was. Piriczki (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in whatever argument is going on here at the moment, but I did make this edit to the Influence section just now to tidy up some issues:

• There definitely shouldn't be 1-sentence paragraphs, with line breaks after each sentence as was the case with the tribute albums. This isn't a list, it's a paragraph. Tie the sentences together in paragraph form.
• There don't need to be a bunch of subsections. The main 4 paragraphs flow into each other rather well: Ramones' influence on popular music as a whole → Impact of their first album & UK shows on the UK punk scene → Influence on the CA scene → Influence on artists from other genres. The subsection for tribute albums is fine, as that's content of a slightly different animal that a reader might want to jump to from the table of contents.

In general it's not a good idea to break down prose sections that aren't overly long into so many sub-sections and 1-sentence lines. It just doesn't look good. That's all I have to say for the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Piriczki and Illazilla,

Thank you both for taking time to contribute and for the constructive tone of your replies.

Socheid (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What a shame to see two of my favourite editors arguing like this. I am sad to see Socheid was blocked for edit-warring these well-intentioned changes into the article. I think I tentatively concur with IllaZilla and Piriczki on the content issue but I really don't want to see such heated discourse here please. I am not a particular fan of the changes Socheid was trying to introduce but I think there are lessons to be learned on all sides here. I will recommend the Socheid make his proposals courteously here when unblocked and I would like him to get a fair hearing, even though the long term editors of this article are rightly proud of its high quality and want to maintain that. In my experience Socheid does listen to constructive feedback and it's a shame things here developed the way they did. Could we restart this debate and accept that all want to improve the article, and keep it nice, please? --John (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I was about to troutslap both parties for edit-warring & bickering when they both know darn well better & should obviously be above that kind of thing. It's a shame someone ended up blocked over this. Let's proceed in a constructive manner, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

I would like to firstly thank various parties for their constructive involvement in the above discussion. Firstly John for intervening on my behalf, Guerillero for responding to the intervention John made requesting that the block Guerillero placed upon me is removed, Illazilla for inputting with good intention also. Also thanks to Gwen Gale for the responses given on Gwen’s talk page when I was requesting guidance on how to try to navigate through the above debate in the right way.

As is clear I haven’t yet responded to the proposal made by John that reads to me as a generous and team spirited attempt by him to give me an opportunity to feel included in discussion on the Wikipedia Ramones page. I have been taking some time to think this through calmly over the last five weeks. Indeed in the same period I have significantly cut back on my contributions to Wikipedia overall. Again I thank John for trying to be inclusive. My view at the moment at least though is that I would prefer not to be involved in the discussion in question. Indeed I am considering if going forward Wikipedia is for me. The reason for this is as follows.

I don’t for a second dispute that in the above discussion, with the benefit of hindsight there are things I could have done better and there are lessons for me to learn. I learn new things every day anyway so there is nothing earth shattering around that. I do though feel a sense of injustice. Regardless of what my shortcomings in this discussion were, at least I tried to go about things by seeking input, involvement and guidance from others. It thus seems very unfair that I have on my record in Wikipedia (ie on my talk page) that I was given a temporary ban, especially so when this is the first time a wiki admin has felt the need to take action against me. Conversely the other person who was involved in the debate comes out of this with no record tarnish from this debate. This is despite that while I again acknowledge I could have done things better in the discussion, the abrupt and rubbishing manner that was used against me was very different to the more team oriented manner that I tried to adopt. That I have been given a criminal record over this discussion while the other party’s record is given no blemishes seems all the more remarkable given that there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to comments made against DocKino’s history of inappropriate behaviour:-

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino

In summary, being given all the agro I took above and in the end I get labelled the villain of the piece? Thanks but no thanks.

Best wishes all. Socheid (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

clem burke

as i recall, clem burke was only with the ramones for about two days and he never played with the band "in concert." (if you never record with a band, or perform a public concert with them, can you really be said to have been a member of that group?) as i recall, some time in 1987, ritchie ramone quit. he was replaced by clem burke, who spent some time in rehearsal with the band. burke was supposed to make his public debut with the ramones at a concert at the ritz. (and in the publicity leading up to that concert, he was referred to as CLEM BURKE, not elvis ramone, not ramone anything.) however, on the night of the concert, marky ramone was behind the drum kit, returning after four years. i should know. i was there. if anybody goes searching around for lost studio or concert tapes of clem burke playing with the ramones, those tapes won't be found because they almost certainly don't exist. if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise? yes it does. but if a man was allegedly a member of a group, yet there is no evidence to document the fact that he recorded or performed with that band, was he ever a bonafide member in the first place? probably not, i would say.75.68.9.233 (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Clem "Elvis Ramone" Burke did in fact play 2 gigs with Da Brudders. At least one of them is on YouTube. He gets tired during the set and requests "I don't care", a slower number! This can be heard. Great drummer, but was unprepared stamina wise for the Ramones gig. So, having essentially failed as a replacement, Johnny was very happy to find Marky sober enough to reclaim his place behind the kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.61.196 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Ramones nor much about how to (correctly) edit wikipedia, but my favourite band (Human League), name-checks 3 members in their 1980's hit "Things that dreams are made of". Surely this should be mentioned here? I'll levee it to those that do, to delete, insert, repeat (to mis-quote a current pop song)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.249.61 (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Joke in this article?

In 1979, the band played at McKenna Hall on the Claremont Men's College campus in Claremont, California. During a memorable on-air interview with KSPC disc jockey Hugh Bonair, the band members mocked and smashed their host's disco ashtrays and clocks, which the DJ had hand crafted from recycled disco albums.

Is this disk jockey name a clever joke about male genitalia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A480:20D:FC9B:E321:5DBB:8C19 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the relevance of this in regards to the article. Remember, these talk pages are meant to discuss ways to improve the article, not to talk about the article itself. Cheers! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Heading misleading: Ramones definitely not the first punk band

The heading is misleading when it says that many cite the Ramones as "the first punk rock band." I am not arguing with the fact that many people do, indeed, make that claim, but that the way it is worded is misleading. The Ramones were not even remotely the first punk rock band (by a long shot). Neither, for that matter, were MC5 or the Stooges. The first punk rock bands were the garage rock bands of the mid-60's (circa 1963-1967). I am not denying The Ramones' punk credentials (as some people in these posts have). I definitley consider them to be true punk rock (great punk!!!)--just not the first. The heading should instead read: "The Ramones are often cited as the first modern punk band." Note: "...modern...." Let me explain.

In the early 70's certain inluential rock critics retroactively used the term "punk rock" to describe the mid-60's garage bands as a sub-genre, making it the first time the word was used as such to refer to a style of rock. (D. Marsh, Review for Question Mark & the Mysterions. Creem Magazine. May, 1971) (L. Kaye, liner notes to Nuggets LP compilation. Electra Records. 1972) To quote Lenny Kaye's liner notes to the original 1972 "Nuggets" LP compitaion:

"...In addition, most of these groups (and by and large, this was an era dominated by groups) were young, decidedly unprofessional, seemingly more at home practicing for a teen dance than going out on a national tour. The name that has been unofficially coined for them--"punk rock"--seems particularly fitting in this case." (L. Kaye, "Headed, Decked, and Stroked..." original liner notes for Nuggets. (Electra, 1972))

Go to the website, "Etymology of Punk (and the Developent of How the Term Came to be Used in Rock) (www.johnsavage.com/punk-etymology). It quotes and cites numerous articles from 1969-the late 70's. From 1971-1975, "Punk Rock," is used time and time again to refer to the garage rock of the mid-60's. The word "garage band," is also used, but not nearly as often as "punk." The critics do allow the extension of the term "punk rock" to apply to contemporary artists of that era (1971-1975), as well. You will see references to various contemporry artists of the time that the critics percived as "punk rock" at the time. Some references may surprise you (Bob Seger, Grand Funk Railroad, Springsteen, etc.). Some may not (Iggy and the Stooges, early Alice Kooper). But, one thing is certain: the barometer for whether or not they considered a contemporary group artist "punk" was the degree to which that group or artist was percieved to embody the spirit of the mid-60's garage bands.

In the article, "The Shakin' Street Punk Survey," by Metal Mike Saunders (that appeared in the "Shakin Street Gazette" Nov.7, 1974) Sauners speaks of the mid-70's punk movement in New York as a punk "revival" (not as a new thing called punk): "...the punk music revival is now in full swing.". (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974) He also talks about the influence of the Nuggets compilation LP on their New York contemporaries." (M. Saunders, "Shakin' Street Punk Survey," Shakin Steet Gazette. November, 1974)

Over a year and a half earlier, Greg Shaw, in his Rolling Stone review of Nuggets had said:

"Punk Rock at its best is the closest we came in the 60's to the original rockabilly spirit of Rock 'n Roll, ie Punk Rock The Arrogant Underbelly of Sixties Pop..." (Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973). (G. Shaw. Rolling Stone, Jan. 4, 1973)

A few years later, Shaw in review for a live show by the Sex Pistols at the 100 club (Record, June 1976), describes them as "punk rock," but in the context of how they fit into his previous definition of the term, not as a new definition (keep in mind that, at that time, they often did covers of old mid-60's songs, such as "Stepping Stone," by Paul Revere and the Raiders and "Substitute," by The Who). It is not until the Sex Pistols got really big and become a cause celebre all over England (post-Grundy show appearance) that the term "punk" shifted away from its previous definition to designating a new phenominon.

But, the article that goes into the most detail about the early definition for mid 60's garage as "punk," is "White Punks on Coke," by Mick Houghton (Let it Rock, Dec. 1975) He talks extensively about the "resurrection," of punk currently going on (i.e. what we would assume to be the New York Scene--CBGB's, etc.). At great length, he litanizes the various "punk" bands of the 60's: ? & The Mysterions, The Castaways, The Count Five, The Shadows of The Knight, The Barbarians, The Seeds, The Blues magoos, etc. Read it. To Houghton:

"But that challenge [to the British Invasion] was taken up by a plethora of amorphous garage bands which sprang up in the suburbs of American cities. It is among these groups that punk rock began. (Let It Rock, Dec. 1975) (M. Houghton. Let It Rock. Dec. 1975)

Over and over, the rock critics made it absolutely clear that they considered the garage rock to be the original (and touchstone) form of punk rock. Terms such as "protopunk" and "pre-punk" were false revisionisms that came later, after the fame, or rather, infamous notoriety of the Sex Pistols (incidently that very notoriety is one reason why the Ramones became reluctant to use the term "punk" to describe themselves after 1977).

During the during the mid-70's punk entered its modern era: i.e. its most recognizable form (1975-present) in which it became self-referentially defined from within as "punk rock," and became a seperate subculture (a movement) of its own, replete with its own manifestos, ideologies (as pertaining to the movement as a whole or to factions within the movement), and its own visual fashion sensibilities. But punk rock as a musical style pre-dates the subculture that grew around it by well over a decade.

If you have any doubts that punk rock existed before 1975 (or for that matter before 1968), then go to YouTube and pull up "60's punk" (or even try "1966 punk"). You will come up with hundreds of entries--as many as (if not more than) in any other subseqent era.

Then sample the following songs (pre-1968): "7 and 7 Is," by Love (1966), "Voices Green and Purple," by the Bees (1966), "The World Ain't Round, It's Square," by The Savages (1966), "Destination Lonely," by The Huns (1966--original mix/original release), "We're Pretty Quick,' by the Chob (1967), "1523 Blair," by The Outcasts (1966), "I'm Movin' On" and "From a Curbstone," by Evil (1966), "Project Blue," by The Banshees (1966), "Circuit Breaker", by The Pastels (1965), "The Courtsheip of Rapunzel," by The Bruthers (1966), "Rats' Revenge," by The Rats (1963), "Look into Your Mirror," by The Merlynn Tree (1967), "Riot on Sunset Strip," by the Standells (1967), "Bad Girl," byt the Zakary Thaks (1966), "Stop it Baby," by the Heard (1966), "Saturday's Son" and "Baby Show the World," by The Sons of Adam (1966), "Wondering Why," by the Tremors (1966), "Another Day," by The Moguls (1966), "It's a Cryin' Shame," by The Gentlemen (1966) (also listen to rehearsal version), "Things Gettin' Better," by Kenny and the Kasuals (1966), "Cry a Little Longer," by The Grodes (1966), "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," by The Seeds of Time (1966), "I Don't Want to Try It Again" and I'm Gone Slide," by The Dagenites (1965), "Nothin" and "Just in Case You Wonder," by The Ugly Ducklings (1966), "What a Way to Die" and "Never Thought You'd Leave Me," by The Pleasure Seekers (1966), "Hangin' Out," by The Blox (1966), "She Lied," by The Rockin' Ramrods (1964), "40 Miles," by The David (1966), "Jack the Ripper," by The One Way Streets (1966), "I'm Gonna Make You Mine," by The Shadows of the Knight (1966), "It's Gonna Take Awhile," by The Morticans (1966), "Up Down Sue" and "Come on In," by The Luv'd Ones (1966),"Action Woman," by The Litter (1966), "I Love You," by the Worlocks (1966), "She Said Yes," by The Painted Ship (1967), "Wild About You," by The Missing Links (1965), "Open Up Your Mind," The Mod 4 (1966), "Spend Your Life," by First Crow to the Moon (1967), "She could Be My Baby, by The Red Squares (1966), "Look for Another Love," by The Hush Puppies (1966),etc. These are only a few.

Then also listen to the period 1968-1974 (now called "protopunk"--a terribly misleading term): "Search and Destroy," by Iggy & The Stooges (listen to all of their first three albums. Then listen the the vastly underrated band, Death: "Politicians in My Eyes," "You're a Prisoner," and "Rock n Roll Victim." All of this pre-dates the Ramones. Once again, I am not denying their punk credentials or genuine greatness (they are rightfully considered one of the supreme punk bands of all time)--but they were not the first.

So the heading needs to be changed to include "...modern..." as not to be misleading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now made the necesary change. The addition of the word "modern," makes the heading more factually precise and can no longer be considered misleading. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. Please read WP:V and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For god's sake, how many times and in how many places are you going to post this long-winded manifesto of yours? You want to rewrite the history of punk rock? Go write a book. Get it published by a reputable publisher. Then come back here and we can discuss why your take on the subject is different from the vast majority of other sources'. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. I should write a book on the subject--there would be a lot to write about, things that the books you refer to have failed to mention. And, it would certainly be a better idea than struggling in vain in these venues to get you (IllaZilla) and others to open your minds to a broader perspective. I don't want to re-write the history of punk as you imagine. I just want to restore an important part of its original historical meaning that has been lost forever due to the post-1977 re-write that really did take place (and that's not a knock against the great 70's punk bands, such as The Ramones--any member of any of those bands would tell you the exact same things I have said). I can guarentee that my research would be a labor of love that would enhance peoples' appreciation of the early roots of punk in a far more meaningful way than anything currently offered on any of the Wiki sites. And I'm sure that it would take that and an act of congress to get you to even so much as consider my point of view. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As I've suggested elsewhere, it would be greatly beneficial if you helped create and improve other articles on the garage bands of the 60s, on which you are clearly well informed, rather than repeatedly arguing your particular point of view about nomenclature at great length - an approach which achieves nothing except to bore other editors. We have considered your point of view, but discounted it because it is not the prevailing view in reliable sources - which is all that matters here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right, Ghmyrtle. I will adopt that stategy in the future. Please excuse me if I have been a bit too vociferous. I will focus my future energies in the direction you recommend. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

By this sort of continuously finding precedents and 'prototype' examples you could even go as far back to say that Bill Haley's 'Rock around the Clock' is a punk song. This goes on forever and there comes a point to stop being Anal and draw a line in the sand.

yes, a line has to be draw in the sand, and it seems obvious to me that the line should be drawn at eddie cochran. bill haley wasn't punk. arguably, he wasn't punk in any way, shape, or form. he was rock n roll or rockabilly, but not punk. eddie cochran, on the other hand, WAS. "Summertime blues" and "somethin' else" are punk songs, pure and simple. (syd vicious even sang "somethin' else" in "the great rock n roll swindle" and the song fits in well with the tunes performed by the pistols and other 77 punks.) eddie cochran's songs had punk riffs, punk lyrics, punk attitude. cochran projected a punk image, and may have been the first rocker to do so. (punk image is more than putting on a leather jacket. it's a matter of attitude. elvis presley wasn't a punk no matter how many leather jackets he may have worn.) so, as far as i am concerned and as far as "rockist" research has revealed, eddie cochran was the first punk rocker. but there is much that we have yet to learn about the fifties rockabilly period, an obscure, underresearched moment in the history of rock n roll. it's possible that eddie cochran stole his characteristic riffs (and attitude, perhaps) from someone else, from some obscure, even unrecorded musician. in which case there may well have been a pre-cochran "first punk rocker." (i doubt that there was anything in the late forties that could be labeled punk, though. THAT would be pushing things a bit too far.)75.68.9.233 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You have draw the line somewhere (or else risk digging back to the stone ages). The 50s are, indeed, rife with prototypical punk elements (very little is ever said about this in most accounts), but I wouldn't advocate going back that far (unless you view certain things from that period as strictly prototypical--a case could be made that a lot of the 50s was indeed prototypical). This thread is not addressing what is to be considered prototypical, however, but what constitutes the actual beginnings punk itself. So, if there is a place to draw that line in the sand, I would choose the mid-60s garage era, as it was originally defined by the early 70s rock critics mentioned above. "Rockist" research shouldn't try to trace "attitude," and "image," but facts. And, there are undeniable historical facts to support this conclusion.

In the early 70s the term, "rockabilly" had already been used for many years to designate the genre that had long been identified and named. Whereas, until the turn of 70s, what we now call garage rock had not yet been identified as a genre or given any kind of specific name, at least not in any published form. The name that was given to it at that time (1970-1974, by some of rock's most famous critics) was "punk rock." But, let's leave the final verdict up to future scholarship--Wiki need not jump too far, too soon. Most garage enthusiasts share my perspective, so I am not just being "anal". When I started this thread, I may have been a bit too emphatic, but I hope that this discussion has helped editors achieve a broader point of view that can help us choose our wording with more precision and discernment. Keeping all things considered. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Deaths of original members

I saw the change made to the lead section due to the death of Tommy and, frankly, I think it was better the other way around. The fact that three original members died less than ten years after the band ceased to exist seems stronger as a headline than four dying 20 years after the fact. Besides the obvious fact that people age more and become more prone to diseases and physical problems in 20 years than in ten, there is the fact that, the way the text is now, it could be that they all died in regular intervals - i.e., the shock effect of three deaths in near consecutive years is lost. Also, when the text mentioned three deaths in less than ten years, two of them were of members of the last touring lineup, which means they were on the road with the Ramones shortly before dying. Not the case with Tommy, who was out of the band for over 35 years when he died. Do you guys agree on changing it back? Cheers. JimboB (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. 'Less than 20 years.' So what? Rothorpe (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased it. See if you guys like it. Cheers. JimboB (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Band members (Bottom of the page box)

Lots of bands that have broken up or don't exist anymore still have the main band members in bold. Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Tommy should be in bold and the rest under them in regular text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.33.59 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "Ramone" as a surname

According to all the Ramones biographies I've ever read (Pressman, Melnick, True) and indeed even Dee Dee's Wikipedia page, the origin of Ramone as a surname was that it was suggested by Dee Dee who himself got it from Paul McCartney who used 'Paul Ramon" as a pseudonym for hotel check-ins and such. This article states that he got the idea from a 60s gangster movie. Not saying that's untrue, but it is at odds with the unanimity of all the other sources.108.0.209.15 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The article was vandalized several months ago which went unnoticed. It's restored to its previous version now. Piriczki (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Band members section

Should the band members section include a list of the band members, touring musicians (including one-time appearances) and every session musician, plus a timeline and a table for lineups? The same question was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Band members sections but additional comments are welcome here. Piriczki (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't read this, but I just invoked WP:BOLD and removed the overly long list of one-time appearance touring musicians, session musicians ("handclaps"? Really?) and restored the lineups table to an older, less lengthy version. Album credits are (or should be) in the album articles, not here, and these people weren't "members" of the band. I'd have removed the timeline, too, as I find those all but useless and have argued in the past that a lineups table is of far greater utility to a reader (since it communicates the lineup at any given time in fewer steps than the timeline takes to interpret, and it communicates what releases those lineups played on which the timeline doesn't), but I've encountered too much resistance to that in the past to attempt arguing it again (IMO most editors prefer timelines just because they're colorful). --IllaZilla (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Phil Spector and guns

As it reads now, the rumour that Spector pulled a gun on members of the Ramones is presented as a fact: "During the recording sessions in Los Angeles, Spector held Johnny at gunpoint, forcing him to repeatedly play a riff."

This rumour is denied by Marky Ramone himself quite strongly (see http://www.nme.com/news/ramones/41403 and http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/marky-ramone-talks-phil-spector-and-his-first-book-he-never-pointed-a-gun-at-us-7564148). I'm suggest the line be changed to reflect it was a rumour and that band member Marky Ramone has denied any such incident took place. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Marc Bolan invited onstage at the Roundhouse, London in 1976

I was at the Roundhouse gig, and and I don't remember Marc Bolan being invited on stage. Maybe it was at the later Dingwalls gig that this happened. Dingwalls was a smaller club venue, which was often frequented by musicians and music industry people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.49.23 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)