Ramones vs. The Clash (singer, indie, punk, albums, Nirvana)

sleepy jack · 04-19-2008, 05:11 PM

The Ramones have definitely produced more albums but I wouldn't say they were more diverse than the Clash, most bands aren't.

zekethefreak · 09-02-2008, 10:59 AM

Wow, I can't believe the responses I am seeing. I was just listening to The Ramones, the other night, with my wife. She kept wanting to skip to songs she recognized. As I explained to her, if you recognize one Ramones song, you recognize MOST Ramones songs. The Clash, on the other hand, were fountains of creativity. Never settling for simple 3 chord songs, they completely expanded their sound, with each album. SANDINISTA was a melting pot of nearly every musical style out there... with the exception of Country, and even then, they may have ventured into some Rockabilly, which has roots in Country.

NO QUESTION, it's The Clash.

Minstrel · 09-02-2008, 12:29 PM

The Sex Pistols are fantastic. The Stooges were punk. The term "proto-punk" gets applied to them (and the Modern Lovers, Patti Smith, MC5, etc) because the term "punk" wasn't in wide use at the time they were making their early music. Big deal. Labels are usually retroactive anyway. Their music absolutely had the sound that would later be called punk...had they made exactly the same music in 1977 or 1978, no one would even consider not calling them punk.

As for the Ramones and the Clash, I rate them about equally. The Ramones are better for adrenaline rush rock, like the Buzzc o c ks. The Clash were more expansive in their sound and more varied. But less pure energy and straight ahead rock. It's very mood-dependant to me.

Ghostrider · 09-02-2008, 12:42 PM

The Clash simply the best band to come out of the punk/new wave movement period.

Twisted Fish · 09-02-2008, 03:31 PM

The Clash by far, never could get into The Ramones.

Mordoth · 09-02-2008, 03:48 PM

They both suck.

Alfred · 09-02-2008, 03:59 PM

I voted Ramones, but I was on a Ramones-binge at the time. I'd have to vote The Clash now. Much more diverse, and they had more passion.

I mean, I bought one of their T-shirts over a Ramones one didn't I?

Mordoth, I have never disagreed with anyone more than I disagree with you.

sweet_nothing · 09-02-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoth

They both suck.

Funny coming from a Mordoth fan.

ZING!

GravitySlips · 09-02-2008, 05:54 PM

Mordoth hates metal too.

WHAT DOES HE LIKE?????!!!

Alfred · 09-02-2008, 06:20 PM

If he hates The Ramones AND The Clash, he hates life.

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

09-02-2008, 10:59 AM	#32 (permalink)
zekethefreak Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Salt Lake City, Utah USA Posts: 122	Wow, I can't believe the responses I am seeing. I was just listening to The Ramones, the other night, with my wife. She kept wanting to skip to songs she recognized. As I explained to her, if you recognize one Ramones song, you recognize MOST Ramones songs. The Clash, on the other hand, were fountains of creativity. Never settling for simple 3 chord songs, they completely expanded their sound, with each album. SANDINISTA was a melting pot of nearly every musical style out there... with the exception of Country, and even then, they may have ventured into some Rockabilly, which has roots in Country. NO QUESTION, it's The Clash. __________________ http://unclezekesmusicemporium.blogspot.com http://seandahl.blogspot.com http://www.myspace.com/nomanfan

09-02-2008, 12:29 PM	#33 (permalink)
Minstrel Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 436	The Sex Pistols are fantastic. The Stooges were punk. The term "proto-punk" gets applied to them (and the Modern Lovers, Patti Smith, MC5, etc) because the term "punk" wasn't in wide use at the time they were making their early music. Big deal. Labels are usually retroactive anyway. Their music absolutely had the sound that would later be called punk...had they made exactly the same music in 1977 or 1978, no one would even consider not calling them punk. As for the Ramones and the Clash, I rate them about equally. The Ramones are better for adrenaline rush rock, like the Buzzc o c ks. The Clash were more expansive in their sound and more varied. But less pure energy and straight ahead rock. It's very mood-dependant to me. __________________ "Blow your tuneless trumpet, the choice is yours / We don't want the glamour, the pomp and the drums / The Dublin messiah scattering crumbs"

09-02-2008, 03:48 PM	#36 (permalink)
Mordoth Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: KRIEG Posts: 84	They both suck. __________________ Truth.

09-02-2008, 03:59 PM	#37 (permalink)
Alfred one big soul Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 5,096	I voted Ramones, but I was on a Ramones-binge at the time. I'd have to vote The Clash now. Much more diverse, and they had more passion. I mean, I bought one of their T-shirts over a Ramones one didn't I? Mordoth, I have never disagreed with anyone more than I disagree with you. __________________ LAST.FM / VINYL COLLECTION / RYM

09-02-2008, 12:42 PM	#34 (permalink)
Ghostrider Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 131	The Clash simply the best band to come out of the punk/new wave movement period.

09-02-2008, 03:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
Twisted Fish Groupie Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Delaware Posts: 11	The Clash by far, never could get into The Ramones.

09-02-2008, 05:54 PM	#39 (permalink)
GravitySlips Music Addict Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,578	Mordoth hates metal too. WHAT DOES HE LIKE?????!!!

09-02-2008, 06:20 PM	#40 (permalink)
Alfred one big soul Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 5,096	If he hates The Ramones AND The Clash, he hates life. __________________ LAST.FM / VINYL COLLECTION / RYM