Talk:Ramones

Timeline

Hello.

In the timeline, if Richie Stern is not going to be counted as a bassist, then Dee Dee Ramone should not be counted as a guitarist. This is because Dee Dee was only a guitarist at the same time Richie Stern was a bassist. Only after Richie Stern parted ways with the Ramones did the band become a trio with Dee Dee switching from guitar to bass. That is what is attested by high quality sources such as:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=dBZlyEn5H1gC&q=richie+stern&pg=PT47&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=richie%20stern&f=false

I am amenable to having Dee Dee indicated as a guitarist in the timeline, but only if Richie Stern is counted as a bassist. As is suggested by the section above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ramones#Richie_Stern_as_a_band_member, there has previously been no opposition to excluding Richie Stern as a member.

DeathTrain (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with removing Richie Stern as a member since sources in the article list it. Dee Dee should still be listed as a guitarist, it goes against the sources, and you are not just aloud to rewrite history HGP7 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to rewrite history. I was not the editor who decided to exclude Richie Stern as a member in the first place; that was StefenTower who did so in response to a lack of opposition in the discussion above. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramones&diff=1238258260&oldid=1238169069

In fact, I was the editor who wrote in the Dee Dee Ramone article that he actually played guitar while Richie Stern played bass in the early days of the Ramones. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dee_Dee_Ramone&diff=1263088059&oldid=1260717040

Furthermore, I was the editor who first added sourced info on Richie Stern to this article back in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramones&diff=814238895&oldid=811628159

Dee Dee's tenure as a guitarist was solely confined to the time when Richie Stern played bass. Like I said, I am not opposed to having Dee Dee listed as a guitarist per se, but if he is, Richie Stern ought to be counted as a bassist. I am neutral on whether Richie Stern should be counted as a member or not. DeathTrain (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I would leave Stern out of the timeline and similarly leave Dee Dee's brief stint as guitarist out of the timeline, although of course both should be (and are) discussed in the narrative. I would also take out of the timeline Joey's as 1974 drummer and Dee Dee as 1974 lead singer, and at least for the color coding part just start with the point that Tommy joined and the original lineup solidified. That said, I wouldn't feel strongly enough to fight over any of this. These changes strike me as more minor improvements to an article that is good either way. 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC) CAVincent (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@HGP7: @CAVincent: Any response? It appears that StefenTower is retired. DeathTrain (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. I'd still go with starting the timeline (including members & instruments) at the point when Tommy joined as drummer. (And again, yes it is interesting and worth including in narrative that Joey started as drummer, etc.) CAVincent (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@HGP7: @CAVincent: I made it so that the lineup of Johnny, Joey, Dee Dee and Tommy is the first lineup as is CAVincent's preference. I am personally neutral on whether Joey and Dee Dee should be listed as the original drummer and lead singer, respectively. DeathTrain (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Were or are

Why is the past tense used for bands who no longer exist, but the present tense used for old TV programmes? If the Ramones WERE a band, then surely Dynasty WAS a TV show. 87.114.59.9 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Ramones are not pop-punk

Pop-punk emerged in the 90s, or around that period. They are only punk rock. If you still need more proof read this. They developed the sound of pop-punk, but they were never actually pop-punk. FloydCrafty (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting: the references in the body of the article support the proposition that the Ramones influenced the later emergence of pop-punk, but are a best notably weak support for claiming that the Ramones were a pop-punk band and certainly don't support inclusion of the genre in the infobox. CAVincent (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

"Commercial success" in the lead

Part of the lead says: "Although they had never achieved significant commercial success during their existence, the band is seen today as highly influential in punk culture."

What constitutes "significant commercial success" is of course subjective. However, this way of putting it can give the reader the impression that they were an underground band playing mostly in high school gyms. If we look at their discography we see that all of their 14 studio albums charted, usually in more than one country. If we look at their singles, for example Pet Sematary reached #4 in the US Alternative chart, and its article describes it as a radio hit.

I understand that compared to some bands the Ramones' success might seem modest, but I think the aforementioned sentence is downplaying their achievements.

Maybe change it to: "They achieved some commercial success. Despite never topping the charts, the band nonetheless became highly influential in punk music culture." /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 11:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Since there were no replies after a week I tried the following wording: They achieved some commercial success, but never topped the charts. Nonetheless, the band is seen today as highly influential in punk culture. But it was reverted. Any opinions? /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 08:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

If you were to try to look for quality reliable sources that say something like "they achieved some commercial success", you might find the problem with making that claim. Also, I would not worry about "downplaying their achievements." The Ramones were hugely influential despite the lack of commercial success, which the article conveys. I expect that most if not all sources are going to something similar. CAVincent (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I would agree that given how influential they have become, it's surprising that no album charted higher in the US, but I still think that "no significant commercial success" is overstating it. I found sources describing a single or an album as "a hit":

The Ramones released Rocket to Russia in 1977, and it quickly gave the band another hit album. The set would go on to climb to No. 49 on the Billboard 200, which marked a new peak for them at the time. It still stands as their second-highest-rising title on the tally [...] Forbes

While the album just scraped the U.S. charts, Leave Home became a genuine hit in England in the spring of 1977, peaking at number 48. [...]Following the U.K. Top 40 hit "Sheena Is a Punk Rocker," [...] End of the Century, the Spector-produced Ramones album, finally appeared in January of 1980 to mixed reviews. Despite the lukewarm reception to the album, the record's cover of the Ronettes' "Baby I Love You" became their only Top Ten British hit; in America, none of the singles made an impact, although the record became their biggest hit, peaking at number 44. Allmusic

(Emphasis added)

It's true that you get a more nuanced view if you read the entire article, but in this case I think we can more accurately summarize the facts in the lead if we change this sentence.

Would you prefer this wording: "Although they only achieved moderate commercial success during their existence, the band is seen today as highly influential in punk culture"?

/Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 09:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer the statement in the lead remain unchanged. That Forbes source is unusable, as explained at WP:RSP, and is clearly terrible. Generally speaking, I wouldn't object to using a bio from Stephen Thomas Erlewine, but I'd consider it a serious stretch to say that this supports "moderate commercial success" for a band whose peak chart performance was #44 (notably, enlisting Phil Spector in a failed attempt to finally break through to the mainstream). Part of the Ramones story is precisely that they never achieved the commercial success of early peers such as Blondie and Talking Heads. CAVincent (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not looking at the Forbes source more carefully.

You keep mentioning the US charts, which seems a bit US-centric to me when they reached #8 on the UK singles chart with Baby, I Love You. /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 16:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

They're an American band (cue the Grand Funk). While I wouldn't say that the UK charts are irrelevant (in the Ramones' case, it is indicative of their having a larger impact outside of their home country), I'd judge their commercial impact mainly on US charts, not unlike why I would judge the Jam's commercial success primarily on UK charts rather than US charts. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2026 (UTC)