Who do you think is more influential: The Beatles or The Ramones
 

I've been meaning to start this thread for a while now.

I think most people will say the Beatles. I, however, think the Ramones are just as influential and maybe more. What do you guys think and why?

I'm going to go with Ramones due to the sheer number of semi-known or virtually unknown punk bands they've spawned. The Beatles just get named dropped a lot, but I think the world would be a better place if the VU would get the credit they deserve for the late 60s thing.

The Ramones. The Beatles didn't influence shit. (Not even saying I like the Ramones actually, but.. I don't see the Beatles influencing anything in popular music.)

The Beatles. I don't think the Ramones' influence is felt much at all outside of the punk spectrum, and even then, I'd say it isn't as large as many perceive it to be, especially outside of the US.

Not denying they have a pretty heavy influence, though.

Describe what the Beatles have influenced and how.

Some may say they have influenced everything.

I'm on the Ramones' side though. And their influence isn't just in the punk spectrum. Johnny's guitar is everywhere.

The only way you can say they influenced everything is if you encompass everything that is dissimilar to the Beatles, and assume that their influence on them was "The Beatles is what I do NOT want my band to sound like." I mean, yeah, Dylan Carson and Merzbow were so influenced by the Beatles right.

I think captain beefheart was the most influential to GOOD bands. Note that Safe As Milk was John Lennon's all time favorite album too. And Zoot Horn Rollo was Jimi Hendrix's favorite guitarist before he died. And all 4 Beatles were at a Beefheart concert in England. Huge fans.

Ramones influenced a bunch of shitty, simple, boring punk bands. They didn't really do much besides make a few really simple power-chord-driven songs with dumb lyrics. Don't get me wrong, I like the first few Ramones albums, and I don't want to understate their importance, but to put them in the same league as the forward-thinking, brilliant (though not a band I care for that much, admittingly) Beatles? Come on. I mean, the Beatles did some pretty insane shit at the time... Revolution # 9, backwards guitar solos, and so on. I don't know if they really INVENTED any of the techniques they used, but to put them in a pop context was pretty insane and would've been potentially (and definitely commercially) disasterous if they weren't so intelligent about it. I think they really showed bands that you could do some pretty out-there shit and break away from the simplicity of most pop music at the time. Ramones showed people that anyone could write a simple song, but .. again .. their influence was mostly to a bunch of shitty bands. Ever hear one of their tribute albums? Case in point. Shitty, talentless punk bands and Marilyn Manson were influenced. So, again, I don't know how to answer this question. Ramones may have had more influence amongst 14-year-olds in America... but as far as influence on IMPORTANT MUSICIANS (worldwide)?

I'd say Beefheart.

the ramones were influenced by the beatles to some degree..(it doesnt make any difference in who i think are more influential, just saying) and I think the beatles were more influential in general.

I'd say The Beatles. The Ramones even got their name from Paul McCartney.

Dumb question

It's a silly question. When I think about my influences writing music. . . pretty much everything I've ever listened to and liked has influenced me in one way or another.

You couldn't have yr Ramones if ya didn't have yr Beatles. It's like pudding and meat, mang.

I think the whole Ramones-y 'just fuckin' play' ethos has been more enduring, but straight up influence ... Beatles, definitely.

Seeing as the name "Ramones" comes from a pseudonym Paul McCartney used, this is a pretty silly question...

I'm not asking you guys who WAS more influential, I'm asking who you guys THINK is more influential. Just because Beatles came first and/or influenced the Ramones, it doesn't mean they are more influential. swa(y)'s previous post does a good job of explaining that.

And saying that 'mones got their name from Paul doesn't mean Beatles were more influential. That's a laughable argument.

Kraftwerk

what's a laughable argument is you saying that you don't ask who WAS more influential but who people THINK was more influential.

of course people are going to tell you what they THINK, because nobody has a direct hotline to ultimate truth and reality beyond thought. what the fuck!

hahaha.

^^^ End of thread.

Obviously we all live in parallel but separate dimensions and he's curious who's more influential in our reality.

sonic youth and others kind of bands are more closer to ramones than the beatles (fever beatlmania are still spreadind his virus around coldplay, u2, oasis, blur, kaiser chiefs and more boring bands) so i vote velvet underground.

Read an interview with almost any musician operating in the 1960s, regardless of genre, and they'll admit that they were aware of and took an interest in what the Beatles were doing. Nobody could ever make an equivalent claim for The Ramones (or I suspect any other band since).

That's not true. They influenced a variety of bands, some of them shit, and some others not so shit.

That's the whole point of The Ramones, really. They never set themselves to do anything other than that, so what are you saying there?

See the part of the sentence that said "They didn't do much." Anyone can write the same song a thousand times. On the other hand, The Beatles (arguably) invented -- and innovated. And they did it well. And they took risks doing it. They wrote similiar or same-sounding songs for an album or two and then just went right into experimenting, right into making complex masterpieces (and, again, I'm not even a big fan of their work -- but I definitely think they're extremely important). That's inspiring and influential and yada yada.

^That about answers it.

Please tell me you just ran out into the street and found a random cretin to write that for you.

Yeah, I know it's an awful thing when people answer these questions with a serious tone and an understanding of the subjects they're talking about. Watch me change my answer to be more appealing to you now.

MAN THE FUCKIN RAMONES DUDE WHY ARE YOU EVEN ASKING THIS? THE FUCKKING RAMONE S BLED BLOOD AND SWEAT SWEAT WITH 3 POWER CHORDS OR WERE THEY BARRE CHORDS? WHO GIVES A FUCK, WITH LYRICS LIKE "TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE" THEY ROCKED!!!!!!! THEYT FUCKING ROCKED! THEY INFLUENCED MY FRIEND'S BAND DOWN THE STREET -- THE BAND IS CALLED ANAL GLUE SNIFF AND THEY HAVE THAT SONG THAT GOES "LAURAAAAAAA LAURAAAAAAAAA LAURA I DON'T WANT TO GOOOOOO LAURA I WANT TO KILLLL YOU LAURAAAAAAA." IT'S A HIT AMONGST MY 5 FRIENDS. SO DEFINITELY THE RAMONES. FUCK THE BEATLES BULLSHIT THEY DON'T ROCK.


Is that better?

repped!

"Repped!"

Now that's funny.

"I don't give a shit about Beatles songs, written 100 years before I was born."

I like you too. Let's kiss.

This was actually my favorite response on this thread.

dope

guns

fucking on the streets.

(volume 3)

...is more influential than the ramones and the beatles combined.

Why are you implying that I'm saying The Ramones are more influential than The Beatles? Read the post againg before you feel like passing on opinions about EVERY single band out there. And what is 'they didn't do much' supposed to mean? They never professed of being the most experimental of bands to start with. Boring.

I'm not implying anything.

I'm simply expanding upon my answer on this thread topic.

Whatever. Expanding my arse.

There's more to the truth than just facts.

Like what?