Talk:Ramones

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)

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)

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)

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)