Ramones

33⅓ Main Series #20

by Nicholas Rombes

What could be more punk rock than a band that never changed, a band that for decades punched out three-minute powerhouses in the style that made them famous? The Ramones' repetition and attitude inspired a genre, and Ramones set its tone. Nicholas Rombes examines punk history, with the recording of Ramones at its core, in this inspiring and thoroughly researched justification of his obsession with the album.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction, Punk, History, Biography, Pop Culture

136 pages, Paperback

First published February 18, 2005

About the author

Nicholas Rombes works in Detroit. His novels include The Absolution of Roberto Acestes Laing (Two Dollar Radio), The Rachel Condition (CLASH Books), and Lisa 2, v 1.0 (Calamari Archives). He's written for The Believer, The Oxford American, n+1 online, & Filmmaker Magazine and is author of Ramones, from Bloomsbury's 33 1/3 series and 10/40/70 from Zer0 Books.

Reviews

[Ric · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a pretty solid read, especially if you like The Ramones or punk in general. It was basically split into two parts, the first being a look at the punk rock genre and how the Ramones fit in, and the second as a song by song look at their first album. 3.5 stars.

[Peter Landau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad personal look at the import of the first Ramones album, placing in the larger context of punk, wedding it to a time and place. The first part is more general and the second half of the book is a song-by-song survey of the record. There are academic bits throughout and it ends on a cultural studies jag, which is interesting, if not all that insightful or original. But I read it pretty much in a sitting and it kept me engaged while my daughter was at a pool party. I didn't bring my suit and sweated through my clothing. While I applied sunscreen prior to leaving, we were at the pool for hours and I should've reapplied the sunscreen. I didn't. She got a bit of a burn. I feel bad about it and will always now associate that with this book, thankfully not the Ramones first album, but it may help explain my lackluster review.

[Brian · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love this series, but this was not a great book. Billed as a book about the Ramones first album it is more a dissertation on the Punk scene, its beginnings and how it has aged and adapted. That is fine, not what I signed up for.

Also I prefer these books that are more personal and less analytical. This author gives one random moment of is personal interaction with the album, which he apologizes for.

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

There was some interesting and very thoroughly researched historical and social context for early punk here - but it is decidedly NOT a book about the first Ramones album. They’re part of that general context of course, but the discussion of the album itself literally starts on page 76 of about 105 total pages. Just not exactly what I was looking for.

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

It often seems that writing about the punk era is required to twist itself into an exclamatory pretzel. The "irony" question must be broached! The politics are on balance apolitical! Did it begin in the US with the post-Stooges crowd or was it really not truly punk until the UK explosion made it big? The album that is usually held up as the rebuttal of that last point is The Ramones, a half-hour slab of tight, sped-up bubblegum and chanting that came out in 1976. A visually striking band whose iconic T-shirt is now - 50 years later - being worn by kids young enough to be their great-grandchildren.

The problem with all this pretzel-twisting is that it eventually waters down the true value of the proposition itself. This album was a sonic blast that only got to number 181 on the charts but has spoken directly to millions since. The visual aesthetic of the band, the shared surname, the "stoopid" subject matter, the roaring takes on 1950s and 60s tropes: all of these were in place and you feel them immediately. The upshot is that if The Ramones did not exist, you feel someone would have to invent them. You could not say the same for the Bay City Rollers or even a long-termer like Fleetwood Mac.

So while I do not mean to be reductive, I think we need to be a little sharper in rendering it than this by-the-numbers take on it manages.

Let's start from the fundamentals. Johnny's right hand was all down strokes, driving, gang-forming. Dee Dee locked in with that, tight as tight could be. Tommy's drums did what they needed to: no jazz, no Keith Moon anarchy, no John Bonham hugeness. Joey's vocals are tough-but-sweet. Or sweet-but-tough. You know he isn't pulling out a real baseball bat to beat on any brat. His mannered pronunciation just -somehow - works. They dressed the part. They played like a machine, the shared sense of humour woven into the songs rather than into their banter. You were transfixed rather than amused, you were dragged along.

Do we care what they believed? We do not. Even on the questionable "Today Your Love, Tomorrow The World" with its "little German boy" who is a "shock trooper in a stupor" (and which goes even further in the demo where he is a "Nazi baby, I'm a Nazi yes I am") doesn't sound like any kind of übermensch manifesto, just an attempt to make you say "did he really just sing what I thought he sang?" Dee Dee was half-German and Berlin-born, apparently fascinated by the trappings of the time. Joey was a Jew, giving his all to the lyric before and after the censor came to call. Kids try to shock their world by saying things they know to be "beyond the pale". The history of rock is stuffed with this kind of calculated Tourette's. The main point is not to censor them all, but to give them their context. After all, Let's Spend The Night Together did not change its meaning on becoming Let's Spend Some Time Together but simply sounded foolish. The Ramones were not recruiting for the Fatherland (although others are as we speak and Johnny may well have been on their side) but rather playing a game that is as old as the hills. Say that "we're more popular than Jesus" in secular company receives nods and people doing their sums, while saying it within the earshot of a flock of the faithful leads to violence and record-burning.

And the context here is: sum up the life of youngsters in the early to mid-1970s with vignettes of being in the crowd (Blitzkrieg Bop), the annoyance (Beat on the Brat, Loudmouth), the self-advice (Listen To My Heart), the temptations of cheap highs (Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue), the residual fears (I Don't Wanna Go Down To The Basement), the forbidden-fruit movies (Chain Saw), half-heard news (Havana Affair), the golden oldies on the radio that get a bit more grunt to them in your imagination (I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend, Let's Dance), the eager gossip (Judy is a Punk - actually it's Jackie who's the punk while Judy is a runt…) and even hustling for loose change or identity (53rd and 3rd). All parts of that multifaceted, still-underprivileged life offered up with a single-minded outlook.

It thumbs a nose here and there, it trades on wryness, it rocks, it growls, it winks, it kvetches, but above all it manages the extraordinary feat of not taking itself seriously at all and at the same time taking itself incredibly seriously. This stunning alchemy could only be maintained for a brief period of time, but there it is, and this is where it began.

[Paul Austin · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a series focusing on influential and/or seminal albums, including Ramones is a given. I was a few years late getting into the Ramones (Rocket to Russia was a birthday gift in 1980, officially making me the oddest kid in my 7th grade class in Maine) but it seems like I always knew about this album. Heck, everyone did. If you were into this newfangled punk rock thing, it was essential. If you always wanted to start a band but didn’t know how to play an instrument, this was the record that said you could do it anyway. And if you hated punk rock… well, you still knew about this album. “‘Blitzkrieg Bop” called attention to punk’s unsettling fascist undertone by title alone, and the likes of TIME and Newsweek breathlessly (and humorlessly) leapt to warn of the coming menace. The Ramones sounded like nothing that came before; it was — and is — the absolute bare minimum of musical elements, fused together for the singular purpose of providing a sing-along hook at breakneck speed.

The odd thing about the album is just how few people caught on to how openly calculated it all was, and Nicholas Rombes makes a point of this while still loving the album (”‘Blitzkrieg Bop’ is the best opening song to any rock album”… no fence sitting there!) The Ramones, of course, were a lot craftier than they looked. The band settled on the trademark leather jacket, torn jeans and bowl haircut look after experimenting with glam, and the earliest Ramones shows still featured remnants of their gold lame and platform shoe phase. But once they got the sound and the look locked in, it was locked in. Popular culture changed around them while they remained static, and if you perceived a change — at least in the early records — you were only seeing reflections off the band, not changes within.

When the band began to add a bit — y’know, a tiny bit — of ornamentation to the music, the “sellout!” cries started coming. Which is laughable, because the band couldn’t really sell out; the whole point was to sell. They wanted to make as much money as possible, and be as famous as possible. If their look and sound was cartoonish, it’s because their influences were Phil Spector pop and Mad magazine; it wasn’t about politics. This came into pretty sharp relief when they later did try a hand at Reagan-bashing, and is probably why “Bonzo Goes to Bitburg” came off so ham-fisted. It’s inevitable if your whole schtick is being a bunch of hams — albeit hard rocking ones.

If you pick this album up now, you’ll likely be getting the remastered version. Kind of odd, really; the first thing that struck me about this album was how grindingly awful it sounded, at least to a suburban kid who was used to Bad Company records. Doesn’t remastering it miss the point? I asked the book’s author, Nicholas Rombes, for his take on this:

Ramones was reissued recently, in remastered format. Does the upgraded fidelity take away from the rawness of the original? It didn’t sound “huge” when it came out, but it sure sounded unique.

N.Rombes: Compared to the original vinyl release, the remastered version sounds terrible. Harsher, thinner. During research for the Ramones book, I interviewed Craig Leon, the album’s producer, and he agreed and said he hoped to someday release a remastered version that’s in keeping with the original, glorious sound of Ramones. I really think Leon deserves a lot of credit for the full-throttled sound on Ramones, especially since so many other punk bands from that era failed to come across on vinyl.

The reissue people pick up now has bonus tracks as well; do you think they distort the essence of what Ramones was when it came out? If a classic novella was reprinted with extra material that the author had purposely edited out at the time he or she turned it in, people would be crying foul.

I’m of two minds about the bonus material. As a fan of the album, I prefer to remember the album the way I originally experienced it: it was short, fast, and loud. “Extras” were the last thing it needed; isn’t the whole point of punk to dispense altogether with the extras?

But as a writer, those bonus tracks (plus other bootlegs, etc.) were helpful in trying to paint a larger picture of how the album came about and how the Ramones experimented with their sound and refined it. The demos produced by Marty Thau — which really helped pave the way for their eventual record contract — are fascinating to listen to compared to the Craig Leon versions. But in the end, I don’t think the bonus tracks do anything. The album’s mystery and strength derive from its shocking simplicity.

Has the perceived legacy of the band as ‘punks’ been tainted by all that’s been revealed in recent years? Johnny Ramone’s proclaiming “God Bless George Bush and God Bless America” recently, that sort of thing? Or do you think there are plenty of Ramones fans who are they themselves conservatives, and it’s elitism to assume those folks shouldn’t find an attachment to this “punk” band as well?

This may sound cornball, but great music — like great movies, literature, art, etc. — transcends the politics of its makers, as well as the politics of those who listen to it. I don’t think the music is tarnished one bit by our understanding of the politics of the Ramones as individuals. Plus at the time the album was made, espousing “conservative” sentiments was radical, especially in the U.S., where the values of the hippie, counter-culture movement had been absorbed into mass culture.

The conservative, reactionary stance was–in the early 1970s–really a way to stick it to the hippies who were, by this point, making terrible music and recirculating once radical ideas as the New Orthodoxy. But in the end, what matters is the music, which shatters tyrannies of meaning.

When the Ramones started, their motivation… do you think it was for the money, the fame, or the art?

All of the above. I think it’s easy to romanticize the punk era as somehow being motivated by “purer” instincts than other types of pop music. The Ramones were in it for everything: art, fame, money. Although, I think they mostly just loved what they were doing — creating. The whole “indie” label, anti-corporate stance certainly became a part of punk later, but early on, many of the CBGB bands scrambled to sign with big labels, as did the Sex Pistols, the Clash, etc.

As Craig Leon and the Ramones themselves have said, they really did think they were making a “pop” album in 1976, one that would re-capture the sense of fun and danger of many of the 1950s and early 1960s bands they liked. In lots of interviews from 1976 on, the Ramones are always sort of surprised and mystified that they didn’t “catch on” like they hoped they would. Of course, they are legendary and iconic now, and their sound has been picked up by so many bands, so it’s easy to forget how strange they sounded in ‘76, and how much they wanted as many people as possible to hear that sound.

And as they continued on, several albums in… same question. Art, fame, or money? Not that they have to be (or usually are) mutually exclusive.

It’s interesting how their first three albums have virtually the same sound, although Leave Home (#2) and Rocket to Russia (#3) are more polished. In the end, I think there was a real love and passion for making music and for performing that kept them going, especially on Joey’s part. He always remained such a quiet, modest guy, hidden behind that hair. Although they experimented with different producers and slightly different sounds, the Ramones never changed their music to suit popular tastes. Some say this lack of change doomed them to the margins for a long time. But it didn’t doom them to that; it doomed them to greatness.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best of the 33 1/3 books I've read so far: I'd say it's the "consensus" view (as of the publication date in 2005) of the first album by the Ramones, and does a great job providing contexts for the band. The main claim is that the Ramones knew exactly what they were doing, and managed to create something unique from the shards of "pre-punk" (60s garage rock, Stooges), the New York Scene, and glam. Close examination of the lyrics shows the band referencing all kinds of disparate sources, and the actual stories told by most of the songs are surprisingly hard to pick out. (Interestingly, Rombes doesn't do much with 53rd and 3rd; he also doesn't belabor "Havana Affair" which to this day makes me laugh.) Rombes engages with the question of what the Ramones were doing occasionally with Nazi imagery but doesn't go anywhere conclusive. The author claims that "the Ramones are the only punk band from the 1970s to have maintained their vision for so long, without compromise" (p. 4): To that I would only note that when they did compromise their vision a bit (e.g., the Phil Spector-produced End of the Century -- a darn good album but only sort-of the Ramones), they afterwards got back into their regular groove. The book might say the first album is the "best" Ramones album (I didn't see those words, but it might be in there) but most people would allow that "Leave Home" and "Rocket to Russa" are right up there. Rombes is right on the money to say that the first time you hear that first album, you will never forget that moment.

Elsewhere the author claims that the self-consciousness of the New York rock critics effectively co-developed with New York punk (and also notes that many of the critics were also performers): Based on the evidence assembled, I was persuaded. On the other hand, Rombes accepts a little too quickly, maybe, the history in Clinton Heylin's From the Velvets to the Voidoids: A Pre-Punk History for a Post-Punk World.

[Danny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considering I enjoy the 33 1/3 series and love this album, I am not sure if I enjoyed this as much as I should have. The first half of the book reads like a dissertation on the beginnings of punk and the Ramones place in it. The author does a lot of research on punk magazines at the time and you get a great sense of the direction of punk music and the Ramones at the time the album was released. The discussion of the recording of the album and the songs on it is shorter than is typical of books in this series. This book will give you a good feel for where the Ramones were as a band when the album was recorded and make you want to listen to this album, which was probably the goal of the book. I would have enjoyed a little more in depth discussion on the meaning and lasting influence of the songs on the album and the album itself. I feel many authors would have spent two chapters on the influence and impact of “Blitzkrieg Bop” alone, but I got the feeling from some of the authors comments that he has a lot of respect for the listeners personal connection to songs. The author likely wanted to maintain that mystique as much as possible for the reader and did not want to go deeper into the authors connection to the songs or their current cultural impact. This was an earlier 33 1/3 release and it feels different than current releases. The author mentions being asked to write the book at one point, and that is kind of how the book reads, like a respected punk music critic was asked to write a book on a classic album. The current 33 1/3 releases feel a little more like passion projects by the authors. I would recommend this is you are a fan of the series or collect anything written abut the Ramones. 3.5/5

[annalee · Rating 1 out of 5]

I so wanted to love this book as a music/Ramones nerd, but I couldn’t, and I wouldn’t have even finished it if it wasn’t so short. Honestly, I think I know more about the Ramones than Rombes.
The thing that annoyed me the most was that he talks about the flirtation with Nazi imagery in punk, specifically that within some of the Ramones songs, and acts as if we cannot know if the Ramones were being ironic or not. It’s disingenuous to ignore the fact that both Joey and Tommy were Jewish, and Tommy was the son of Holocaust survivors. Additionally, Rombes says that the political affiliations of the Ramones were hard to figure out, other than Johnny. Joey was an outspoken advocate for leftist causes, including Artists Against Apartheid.
Finally, the part where the album was actually discussed was disappointingly short. I think most of us picked up the book because we wanted to know the stories behind the songs, which Rombes actually believes can ruin the music (🙄). For example, I wanted to know more about the story behind “53rd and 3rd,” but he barley even mentioned the song.
Overall, I do NOT recommend this book, especially if you’re a Ramones fan. You’ll do better watching “End of the Century” or reading one of the autobiographies, like Dee Dee’s “Lobotomy.”

[Mikey · Rating 3 out of 5]

LITERATURE in PUNK ROCK - Books #69-71
------------------------
BOOK:
- Ramones (33 1/3 series)
- Why The Ramones Matter
- On the Road with the Ramones
--------------------------
The Ramones were an American punk rock band. Formed in the New York City neighborhood Forest Hills, Queens in 1974, they are often cited as the first true punk rock group. Though achieving little commercial success, the band is today seen as highly influential.
The first two books were elongated cultural studies paper bereft of intimacy. On the Road with Ramones by Tour Manager Monte Melnick comparatively was a heartfelt, intimate, multi-perspective exposition. The book employed an open discussion format of numerous individuals from across the decades.
My plan was to end the year reading (nearly) every book on the Ramones. That changed soon upon reading the On the Road with the Ramones. A surprisingly often-quoted, roadie/guitar-tech was the father of a close childhood friend.
Tomorrow would be your 39th Birthday, Trevor. We miss you.

[Dave Christian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first of the 33 1/3 series that I have read and I had high hopes. They were mostly met. I appreciate the two-part approach of the book, the first part addressing the emerging punk scene and the second part addressing the album itself.

I thought the first part was really good. It established the emergence of punk rock and the NYC music culture.

But I wish the second part had focused more on how the record was made. There was talk about the demos that were made - I would have liked to have read more about that. But, I get it, this book wasn't about that. It was about the actual album. But, even so, the recording of that record gets kind of glossed over.

And it feels like there should have been a third part to this, the aftermath. I would have liked to have read more about how the Ramones toured the record and other artists that followed as (a) they were inspired by the album and (b) record companies flocked to duplicate the "success" (was it successful?) of the album (as they always do).

I would give it a 3.5 if I could.

[J.J. Lair · Rating 3 out of 5]

This wasn’t so much about the Ramones as it was about what is punk. There were punk magazines sprouting up in the 1970s. Can a rock writer or critic understand punk or what it means to be punk? Movies can be punk. Can a band be punk just for being loud? What is the attitude? Is punk a rejection of reality or certain reality? Is it a response?
The writer takes these themes on in relation to the time of the album “The Ramones.” He puts the album in context. In doing so, why it is also timeless.
While not about he Ramones, the topic and theme is interesting.

[Nick Erlandson · Rating 2 out of 5]

About 60% of this book reads like an introduction for the remaining 40%. I kept waiting for it start and it never really did. It seems silly to provide almost 90 pages of context to an album you’re already familiar with. Who else would read this except a fan of the band?

The whole thing feels like it was written with a looming deadline. At least 50 pages of the book are meandering stream of consciousness. Are the MC5 punk rock? Is “Taxi Driver” punk rock? Is facism punk rock?

The 33 1/3 series has been a ton of fun, but you can skip this one.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well written analysis of the origins & influence of the album. However, from the perspective of a non-Punk fan, it could be pretty dry, despite its extreme brevity. Beyond even that, it spends a surprisingly short amount of time on the album itself, focusing more on 70s Punk as a movement. Personally, I would have preferred the author spent more time actually talking about the album.

[John Lyman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sure seemed like a PHD dissertation to me. Veered waaay off the album for most of the book. Some interesting stuff about the album, thank goodness, but lots and lots of talk about punk rock and its relation to art and other art forms. Tons of literary, and similar, comparisons that pretty much all went over my head. Should’ve been half as long as it was.

[Ben Guccharno · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the first audiobook I ever listened to. I remember thinking that it was sort of dumb that the author tried to make the Ramones seem cool for eating junk food. That’s not why they are cool. They are cool because they all died in the same year and because of “Blitzkrieg Bop” and because Johnny played guitar again after they retired.

[pianogal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This one was surprising. The book wasn’t great- there was a lot of history on the punk movement. Fine. But the surprise was how much I loved the album. I don’t usually like this kind of music but I like this one. Looking forward to digging into it more.

[Gary Lee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Far too much attention placed on the importance of rock criticism and the concept of "punk as artistic statement" and maybe ~20 pages actually dedicated to the first Ramones album.

[Ted Gurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched story of the times, music and climate of 1976 and the stars that aligned allowing The Ramones to emerge.

[Mae Toone · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book in a mental hospital because it was one of the few books my friend owned at the time now she’s a big reader good for her good for her

[in8 · Rating 5 out of 5]

engaged w/ in Malibu: https://5cense.com/24/1166.htm

[Rob · Rating 3 out of 5]

More of a thesis on punk rock itself than a critique of the album. Slightly disappointing.

[Patrick McCoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I devoured Nicholas Rombes' book on Ramones from the 33 1/3 series by Continuum Books. It is another standout in the series. Like, Frank Bruno's Elvis Costello Armed Forces book, it takes a look at cultural zeitgeist that was taking place as well as some of the more controversial aspects of the movement from a more academic perspective, which I found though-provoking and enlightening. (You gotta love references to Hemingway, Hammett, and Pynchon, Colin Wilson and Theodore W. Adorno, Pauline Kael, Lester Bangs and Greil Marcus, Bukowski and Burroughs) For example, he traces the use of the word "punk", which can be found as far back as Hemingway, to the present usage of the term. Furthermore, he points out that what was punk when The Ramones emerged has evolved into something else. He presents the precursors to The Ramones, as well as the bands who were part of the legacy. He explores the use of fascist imagery which was more of a reaction to the free-love hippie vibes of the era they were rebelling against, rather than a dogmatic belief system. However, if you've seem The Ramones documentary film, Johnny is a right -wing fascist Republican, but then again Joey is a bleeding hear democratic liberal. But The Ramones were more apolitical than anything else-they were into having fun, watching B-Movies, eating hamburgers, being stoopid, etc.. The writing is alive and doesn't come across as too academic or pretentious, because I think Rombes is emotionally involved in The Ramones and his experiences with the record, when he write that he wanted to open the book by saying that "Blitzkrieg Bop" was the best opening song of any rock record, but knew he couldn't say that but wrote it anyway. According to Rombes:

Here's why: "Blitzkrieg Bop" succeeds not only as a song in its own right, but also as a promise kept. The songs that follow live up to the speed, , humor, menace, absurdity, and mystery of that first song, whose opening lines "hey ho, let's go" offer not so much a warning as an invitation to the listener, an invitation and a threat that the song isn't a fluke or a one-off, but it sets the stage for an entire album that would be fast and loud.

Rombes mentions that the first Ramones song he remembers hearing was "The KKK Took My Baby Away", which he found somewhat troubling. I'm sure my first songs was "Rick-n-Roll High School" I seem to remember seeing it at some point. But I remember the first time I hear Ramones first album driving to Seattle in my old 72 Mustang. It was my fried Chris, his girlfriend Colleen and her older brother Mike. They were becoming arbiters of musical taste turning me onto a bunch of different punk-new wave-underground bands. We were trying to go see Camper Van Beethoven but we got the dates wrong and they weren't playing Seattle that weekend. It was a revelation that resulted in Chris dubbing me a copy of this album with the excellent follow-up "Rocket To Russia"-probably the only two essential records by The Ramones in my opinion. It is a classic album, and a compelling look at the album, what it meant, and what it means today.

[Hollowspine · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting look, not just at the Ramones, but at Punk history and culture as a whole. It’s a highly debated topic even now, just what is Punk? How did it start, what does it mean? I found Nick Rombes’ essay very informative and while so many essays on punk lean towards one definition or another I appreciated his approach to the topic, focusing on the times the members of the Ramones grew up in, using material from interviews and aggregating reviews, articles, and books on the Ramones or punk history, such as From the Velvets to the Voidoids or Please Kill Me, two books which sound like great reads, to corroborate his points.

Coming to the book as a novice, with no special knowledge of the Ramones, other than one documentary seen years ago, I learned a lot and gained a fuller understanding of the music I enjoy listening to so much. That said, as Rombes points out himself, does knowing the backstory behind some of the lyrics change the music for listeners? I think, yes. Is that change positive or negative? I’m not sure. For me having the backstory to “Beat on the Brat” doesn’t change the song at all for me, since I could definitely sympathize with Johnny’s feelings and think that he chose the best outlet for those feelings in his music.

Rombes did a good job balancing the critical with the personal. He writes about his initial draft of his opening sentence about Blitzkrieg Bop, the first song on the Ramones album, rather hyperbolic, saying, “This is the best opening song to any rock album,” and then feeling it was disingenuous, but then listening to that song and having to say it anyway. I got a feeling of genuine love and excitement about music from his writing and couldn’t help but hear the songs he mentions in my head as I read and wanting to put down the book and go listen to the music.

When it comes to punk there will always be debate, is this or that person/book/venue/band punk. Have they “sold out.” Is it inherently liberal or conservative? Rombes addresses these questions throughout the essay, pointing to the Ramones, not really as our Punk fore-bearers, but as a band. They self-promoted, they wanted to sign to a major label, they wanted to be paid for the work and DIY elbow grease they put into their music, their music was genuine, they didn’t set out to form a new musical genre, but they did want to upset that happy, smiley face wearing, 70’s ‘be nice’ philosophy.

I can get with that.

For anyone who would like to learn more about an amazing album and band as well as those interested in punk culture, this is a well thought out and researched short introduction, that is unbiased (except for the love of music).

[Ryan Fohl · Rating 3 out of 5]

This covers the heyday of rock criticism and journalism which happened to coincide with the birth of Punk. The book is more about rock writing, theory, and thought than it is about the ramones. Contains some quality insights about Punk and the 1970s.


“This scene and the punk stance in general are riddled with self-hate, which is always reflexive, and anytime you conclude that life stinks and the human race mostly amounts to a pile of shit, you’ve got the perfect breeding ground for fascism.” -Lester Bangs 1979

“There is no more damning critique than the charge of repeating yourself. And yet punk was precisely about repetition; its art lay in the rejection of elaboration.”

“Second verse, same as the first” is both a line in a song and a line in a song about a line in a song.”

“Liberals don’t understand the power of fantasy and the fascist imagination.”

What I learned: This album is more thoughtfully produced then one would expect. Lester Bangs used the phrase “grunge noise” in 1972.

[Jon]

Rombes doesn't have much to say about the history of the group or the individual members' lives (he doesn't even mention their real names), and--perhaps understandably, it is the Ramones, after all--he comes up a little short on analysis of the songs on their debut as well. (He doesn't even mention that the line "Second verse, same as the first" from "Judy Is a Punk" is taken from the Herman's Hermits tune "I'm Henry VIII, I Am", which itself is a radically reworked version of an old music-hall number by Harry Champion.) There are some interesting quotes, especially one from David Thomas about how he and other suburban 70s rebels found America's decayed urban centers appealing places to live, hang out, and make music for the very reasons they were supposed to stay away. But since anyone familiar with the Ramones is likely to know the info Rombes presents already, this is an okay, but not great entry in the 33 1/3 series.

[Brad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Notes:

talks about how the 60s hippie culture rejected the 50s idealism and that punk seemed to (a) reject the excess of the 60s that didn't deliver it's promise of freedom (b) rejecting the uber-liberal hand holding, some for shock and some for real (c) rejected the wholesomeness being sold in the rerun suburban dream (d) embraced the wholesomeness

" 'Far from being anti-war like the hippies, the new kids welcomed carnage of any kind as a kind of liberation from their dull shopping mall surroundings.' " (60) Quote from Joe Harrington's Sonic Cool page 341

"The unresolved contradictions that make the Ramones' first album so dizzying--are the songs sincere or ironic? are the fascist references political or naive expressions of defiance? if the Ramones hate hippies, why do they look like hippies with their long hair?--speak to a moment in American history when such ambiguity was part of the larger fabric of cultural life." (62) fascism was also shock

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're looking for lots of not all that interesting quotes from '70s rock and roll mag and fanzine writers on this band and this record, this is the book for you.
Otherwise, skip it and check out "On The Road With the Ramones", which is much better than "An American Band" or the British Ramones book which is more like a cut and paste collection of other people's reporting and which I'm too lazy for the title of.

Also, if you love or even like this band, you owe it to yourself to watch the stellar documentary "End of the Century."
And if you can't get enough of watching Dee Dee talk (true for me, probably some kind of warning sign but I'll just ignore it), look for "Hey, Hey, Is Dee Dee Home.'

[Rich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, I usually stay away from rock journalism but the 33 1/3 books are changing my mind. Is this the new age of awakening for me? I doubt it...

This is the second book in the series that I've read and the second excellent effort. The author gives an intriguing rendition of the era of NYC punk (and contrary to an opinion I got recently, punk DID NOT start in the 1990s - sheesh!). He deftly points out that the mythologizing of punk has led to the current impression that punk artists didn't want to be successful and thumbed their noses at the "establishment" which couldn't be further from the truth. Music is meant to be heard and this one is no exception.

A great book about one of the more influential albums by Lon Guyland suburbanites... and you can listen to the album about 750 times in a row in the time it takes you to read this book. Fantastic!

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first three quarters of this book don’t really tell anything about the Ramones’ first album, nor does it tell anything about the Ramones themselves that anyone who’d even has a speck of interest in reading this wouldn’t already know. The book mostly talks about 70’s pop culture, making references to movies, television shows, and of course music, but all the references are way too mainstream to be interesting and fail to offer anything informative. The last quarter or so it gets into the making of the album and briefly touches on the early days of the Ramones. This part of the book is somewhat enjoyable, but overall not worth the reading the bulk of it.