Yep, could sell out stadiums abroad, but were not that large at home. Either way, there’s a million bands that can lay their existence at the feet of the Ramones. The only people who might contend with them in that respect that come to mind are, Elvis, The Beatles, and The Velvet Underground. The first is obvious in influence, but he kind of did the opposite of grow. The Beatles? Yeah, you can never take Ed Sullivan away from them. They did become more developed, but I sometimes think Martin could have molded most of that out of almost any group. If there was an actual genius involved in that group, it was probably him. But, I tend towards the theory that there was only a collective genius in them that exhibited from the whole. Their solo output seems to back me up here. However, they had raw charm when they wanted to use it, though. That went a long way in staking their legacy. VU was playing stuff that pretty much nobody wanted to listen to at the time. But fact was, it was one of the few things that wasn’t a throwback or a re-working of the past at that time in rock.
The Ramones were able to blend both into a style. Did they develop? Yeah, they sure did, but not wildly so. Did they go into a bunch of what John termed “Grandma Music” or into the areas of the oft-reviled “Revolution 9” (that I personally like)? Nope, but I don’t think that they needed to. They had a good enough idea in the beginning that it was enough, with slight modifications.
Did VU or The Ramones match The Beatles or Elvis in popularity WRT record sales? Nooooooooo, nope nope nope, Nooooooo, nope nope nope nope.. But WRT to the number of lasting bands who were in turn influential that they spawned, it’s probably close. If we gauge it relative to records sold, VU and The Ramones probably win handily. Similarly, Black Sabbath almost single handedly fathered legions, relative to their popularity at any given time.
Well, you know what they say about a guy who wears clown shoes…
…no, what do they say? TELL ME!
Well, I can’t really listen to any of the the other guys’ solo stuff any more than I can stand to listen to America…ok, I’ll admit to listening the shit out of “Sister Golden Hair” any time I hear that opening…I just can’t…I dunno. I’m more likely to stay and sing along with that song than with anything Paul or John wrote after The Beatles. YMMV, but I found most of John’s output similar to the output of mine and my other art student’s output in our first year. Some good, some bad, none of it was as good as when he had genuine competition. Paul’s is almost universally pablum. with no garlic or zest. George’s is different, but it’s still generally not as good as when he was with the Beatles, even at his solo peak. I can’t say I’m familiar enough with Ringo’s solo records to have an opinion.
So, I feel that they were geniuses together, and kind of just OK apart. They’re far from the only band that worked out that way.
ABBA.
I can’t think of another band the produced so many hits and is so recognisable by anyone. Most of the bands mentioned don’t have the number of songs everybody knows and recognise as ABBA.
They were charismatic and great writers.
Grow and evolve? Yes, they got more serious and better, but nothing spectacular.
ABBA was a tight package of singing, songwriting, and production. I don’t think they influence lots of people.
I don’t dispute this, but I do take issue with the idea that George Martin was the “real” genius of the Beatles, a notion Martin himself took pains to dispel. The genius, if that term must be applied, was in the Lennon-McCartney partnership.
Oh, poppycock. There’s plenty of bands as influential or important as the Beatles, depending on the exact genre of music you’re talking about, and I say this as someone who would would name The Beatles as the greatest pop/rock act of all time.
Beegees - They had effectively three careers, wrote for just about everyone, worldwide hits, hugely influential - whether like their influence or not it is undeniable.
Each of those careers was pretty different too, I know everyone tends to knock them, but look at it realistically
Longevity, influence, development, almost everyone on earth knows several of their songs.
Might even have sold more too if you add in all the stuff they wrote for others.
Would there be a case for the Isley brothers? I think they heavily influenced soul, and r&b - perhaps not rated as highly as they should be.
To be honest, in terms of songwriting, I would put John Prine in there or Willie Nelson, although neither would make it in terms of other criteria.
Eric Clapton. There is no living recording artist today who has had the same breadth of a career, remained popular and has been as influential as Slow Hand. Think about it. He was in the Yardbirds during the British Blues Boom and quit when they went pop, formed Cream and inspired Hendrix. Clapton could have quit right after “Sunshine of Your Love” and would have remained a guitar hero forever but he didn’t. He pushed forward. He felt the sting of rock criticism and was influenced by simplicity and depth of The Basement Tapes and quit the band. Hung around, played guitar for his buddy George Harrison’s masterpiece “All Things Must Pass” then joined up with Bonnie and Delaney as a backing guitarist for a tour. Decided to form his own band and named them Derek and the Dominoes. His playing enraptured Duane Allman…enough for Duane to take a part time leave of The Brothers and record with Eric. Imagine, 2 of the greatest blues guitarist to ever live just digging one another. Recorded “Layla and other Love Songs”. Again, he could have quit right then but nope, decided to move on. Recorded his own solo stuff (which by the way, the first couple of albums are outstanding!). Goes to London to record with Howlin’ Wolf and makes one of the greatest blues albums of all time “The London Sessions”. He just kept moving on afterwards. Granted, his later stuff was not quite as inspirational as his earlier stuff but then again The Beatles slowed down too. “Dig a Pony” is nothing like “Paperback Writer”. Anyway, I always felt Clapton kept reinventing himself and has remained a name when SO many others fell by the wayside.
The Ramones were influential, but they’re not in the same ballpark as the Beatles. Not even close. You know they were originally going to be a cover band that just played radio hits? But those radio songs were too complicated, so they had to write their own songs that were simple enough that they could manage to play them.
Yes, they were influential. But that’s the only note they hit. Their influence was demonstrating how little you needed. You didn’t need a great voice, or musical virtuosity, or amazing talent, or insane stage presence. All you needed was a song stripped down to bare essentials.