# Talk:Ramones (album)

The title of this album is just 'Ramones', without the 'The'. Can someone who is authorized to do it exchange this page, The Ramones (album), with the Ramones (album)? Thanx!Face 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jkelly 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks dude!Face 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

53rd & 3rd really warranted it's own article, as it's a pretty famous song and the original page had more material, which could be expanded even further. this page is a mess, and over the next day or so will be expanded greatly. it seems the "songs" section merely served to pad it out. a lot more info is available on this subject. Joeyramoney 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sid Vicious died on February 2, 1979. The article implies he died February 2, 1976, which is incorrect. The Ramones hadn't even gone to England yet!
Melliforte 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Melliforte

Both this article and the main Ramones article portray the album as a commercial failure, based on the fact that it only rose as high as #111 on the Billboard Hot 200 chart.  However, that is actually not that bad a showing, given that they were a totally unknown band who sounded quite unlike any established band (aside perhaps from The Stooges), and given that the album came out on what was then a little-known record label (Sire Records).  Even though they were (and still are) rarely heard on mainstream radio, they actually found their audience pretty quickly and they did pretty well commercially right from the start.  Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

does anyone know if the claim of a lost track called "Gimme Therapy" is substantiated. The claim does not have adequate citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.232.139 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 

I've never heard of it, are you sure you're not getting confused with "Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment?" But either way unless you find a reliable source to verify what you have presented, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. CrowzRSA 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That section is a misnomer, since it only lists recent rankings. I was expecting to find in it reviews at the time (= reception). --Jerome Potts (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ramones (Ramones album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this article and have done quite a bit of copy editing to clean up spelling, time sequencing and such. Feel free to remove the pullquote I added in the "Reception" section.

What makes these references reliable?
http://www.softshoe-slim.com/lists/r/ramones.html#1
It's not, i replaced it with a "Museum of Modern Art" source.
http://www.tower.com/ramones-cd/wapi/106729034
Tower Records is an established, third-party website in its respectful field (music)
Reply Isn't it a record store, the music equivalent of Amazon.com?  Xtzou (Talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As it says in its Terms of Use, "Tower.com and its content providers attempt to be as accurate as possible with the product information provided. However, Tower.com does not warrant that product descriptions or other content of the Tower Web Sites are accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free. If a product offered by Tower.com is not as described, your sole remedy is to return it in unused condition." (see [1]), however, The New York Times says "Neither NYT nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk." (see [2]) and AMG's Allmusic says "AMG DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE VIA THIS SITE IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, OR CURRENT." (see [3])
Reply Well, what I noticed is that Tower uses snippets from the reviews of others. So you really don't know what you are getting there. They are violating copy right by Wikipedia standards.  Xtzou (Talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
But if it violated the Wikipedia standards, wouldn't Tower Records be deleted from Wikipedia? (Note: It has been an article since December 11, 2004, and has never had a proposed/speedy deletion.)
Reply The fact that it is a notable company (notable enough to have its own article) doesn't mean it's a reliable source for information about this article. One has nothing to do with the other.  Xtzou (Talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay well I changed the reference to album notes, since it also says where it was recorded.
References such as  Leigh 2009,  McNeil and McCain 2009 need to have full reference info some where, in a Bibliography if necessary.
They are right under the references section. (McNeil, Legs; McCain, Gillian (April 13, 2006), Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, Grove Press, ISBN 0802142648, Leigh, Mickey (2009), I Slept With Joey Ramone: A Family Memoir, Touch Stone, ISBN 9780743252164)
Per WP:Lead, the lead needs to be a summary of the article, in proportion to the weight in the article. That does not seem to be the case. Also, there is info in the lead that is not in the article, such as " The group covered the song "Let's Dance", a Chris Montez song from his first single. Several of the tracks have backing vocals by Mickey Leigh, Tommy Ramone, and executive producer/engineer Rob Freeman." (unless I missed it). Such information often goes in a "Production" section.
I added the Chris Montez song one, but the backing vocals part was already in the article. I think they actually go in the "Lyrical and musical themes" section.
I think the lead is not in sequence. It talks of being on the all time greats lists before it relates what the immediate reception was.
Done
The immediate reception and it's place in rock music history are separate events.  And there needs to be some explanation of why a popular album became an "all time great", as not all very popular albums do.
I'm pretty sure it explains that, with many critics giving it positive reviews.
All in all, I think it is a interesting article. It just needs to be a little tighter and more organized in the way it presents the information. I may be adding more comments.
Xtzou (Talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Further comments
From Recording and production:" It was ranked thiry-three on the Rolling Stone Magazine's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[15] VH1 named the album number fifty-three on their 100 Greatest Albums of Rock & Roll'." - this didn't happen immediately upon release. I think there needs to be a statement about its immediate reception, versus its long-term impact. Also, why is this discussed in this section of the article?  Xtzou (Talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Done
Reply The article is coming along nicely. I am too tired now, but I will review it again tomorrow. I really appreciate your quick replies and willingness to improve the article!  Xtzou (Talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article for the first time today, and noticed several typos, which I fixed. Then I began to notice a few sentences that are either awkwardly worded or repetitive. I fixed a couple of them, but tightening the others, and the article in general, will require some more time (and research). Because of these reasons, I don't think this article currently deserves the label of "Good Article."
RhCordoba (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you see anything wrong with the article, I encourage you to fix it. The version that you can see here, was the version that passed for a Good Article. The current version was a huge expansion on my part, but as you can see, I'm not the best copyeditor and my writing often times needs some fixing. This is why it has been requested to be reviewed by another reviewer, using the peer review method, so I can see all my mistakes. And for the record, the reason I expanded it so much is because I would like to nominate it for featured article status. CrowzRSA 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's get this straight. You saw it was a good article, and despite by your own admission being "not the best copyeditor", whose "writing often times needs some fixing", you decided to add a huge amount of text - not the best, and it often times needs some fixing - in order to nominate it as a featured article. Presumably in the hope that the nomination process would succeed, although to be fair you don't explicitly say that.
I mention this because I've been reading the article from start to finish, and it seemed odd that so much of the process whereby the band was shopped to different record labels appears in the lead and then in the body of the article, with people who aren't introduced and processes that aren't explained.
And then I got to the bit that goes, deep breath, "The recording process was similar to the recording sessions of The Beatles from the early 1960s with four-track recording representation of the devices, the guitars heard separately on the stereo channels — electric bass on the left, rhythm guitar on the right channel; drums and vocals are mixed in the stereo mix in the middle. The mixing of the recordings were also more modern techniques such as overdubbing, a technique used by recording studios to add a supplementary recorded sound to a previously recorded performance, and doubling the vocal line used."
Representation of the devices? It used techniques such as a technique? Did they actually use a four-track machine? Not everyone is familiar with the Beatles' early stereo releases. Did the band set out to copy The Beatles, or was it forced upon them? It doesn't read like a sourced account of the album's recording process, it reads like a mixture of guesswork and extrapolation.
If I was writing that as an essay, it would be "The Ramones recorded with a simple four-track machine, splitting the channels so that the bass and guitar were panned hard left and right, with the drums and vocals in the middle. Although Joey and (etc) spent the last four days of the session recording vocal and guitar overdubs, the record had a famously spartan sonic landscape; leading rock journalist X, writing in 1977, went so far as to say that it was QUOTE" and so forth yadda yadda. Of course, this isn't meant to be an esssay, it's supposed to be a collection of sourced facts strung together with punctuation etc. Yes, I could fix it. No, I'm not going to. It would take hours of my life and the end result would be no reward at all. Just wasted time.
Ultimately I'm sure you're enthusiastic. That's good. But know your limitations. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, first off, I didn't see it was a good article and added a "huge amount of text", before I expanded the article, it looked like this. After that, I expanded it and nominated it for GA with this version. Next, I expanded it again, and requested for a peer review. So I got it to GA, and I have added almost all of the information on the page. Also, if people aren't familiar with the Beatles' early stereo releases, they know that it was recorded similarly to the way the Ramones recorded it. What exactly do you want? Explaining? That's what linking is for. Explaining what they did would be off-topic. And also, I'm not sure what "limits" are, it's not like I'll get penalized for nominating it for FA. That will just help the article. CrowzRSA 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Was "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" a single released in 1976, as the infobox claims? The infobox has a link that takes you to a page devoted entirely to a cover of that song by a Swedish guy. Seems to me if there is no relevant page about a Ramones single that was perhaps released in 1976, then the link should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.175.188 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC) 

This is a problem that seems to afflict articles on many of the early Ramones albums -- the writing credits for the songs are not as they are stated in the liner notes for the albums.
For example, all the songs (except Let's Dance) on this first album are credited to "The Ramomes", according to the liner notes of both the original vinyl and recent CD issues.  The song "Let's Dance" is credited to Jim Lee alone.
If someone wants to make the (attributed) point that in fact some given songs were in truth the work of specific individuals and credited to the band as a whole for financial reasons (or whatever), that's fine -- but the article should make this divergence explicit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.148.18 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC) 

Re: I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend, the slowest and the only romantically colored piece on the album, was solely written by Tommy. The text has themes of irony and humor and depiction of violence. - This is said of the text which consists of 8 lines and goes like this : 'Hey, little girl /I wanna be your boyfriend/Sweet little girl/I wanna be your boyfriend/Do you love me babe?/What do you say?/Do you love me babe?/What can I say?/Because I wanna be your boyfriend'. -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Of Loudmouth: The song's text is — depending on the reading and punctuation — just a single row or four very brief lines. - What can depend on reading and punctuation in a text which goes like this: You're loudmouth baby / You better shut up / I'm gonna beat you up / 'Cause you're a loudmouth babe. - Not much of a Joycean prose, full of undercurrents, eh?) -- Evermore2 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

... should be, in fact, seventeen, according to Rombes, among many others. So where this piece about the instruments taking three days and vocals taking four days might have come from? -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi
During the copyedit some issues came to light that may need attention:

Background
"She started writing about us in Rock Scene" and "more press like The Village Voice" - this is a quote of Joey Ramone, it should only be italicised if the original was italicised.
Promotion
"nearly all at CBGB." - what is CBGB?
Compositions
"in the same way as the twentieth through thirty–third seconds." (para1) - in the same way as the twentieth? there are only 14 tracks on the album, if the expanded CD is meant, it should be stated as such. through thirty-third seconds? - unsure as to what was meant here.
("Listen to My Heart")

"...autobiographical and very real way I can not..." - seems to be missing some words.
("Let's dance")

"at the very first sample of the tape" - not sure of context here.
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, CrowzRSA 18:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Johnny said that the when writing the lyrics they were "trying to be offensive."[29]
This is incorrect, Johnny says that they weren't trying to be offensive. Not that they were. More specifically he says "We weren't trying to be offensive, we were trying to be normal"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.75 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC) 

According to this article, the album is being added to the Library of Congress National Recording Registry, which is kind of an honor and might be worth noting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.92.196.42 (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC) 

I don't see any current discussion on this so I have removed it for the moment. If it is returned I would expect that there be some detail given as to what the issues are. If there are strong enough arguments for the tag...we may want to reaccess the GA. If it isn't that much, lets just fix it and not tag please.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I found two spelling problems and corrected them.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Why was this remonved? The reference was from the RIAA website itself.108.81.33.59 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sooo sorry about that, I didn't scroll down in the citation so I thought that it was just referring to Ramones: Raw when it said Ramones. With the source ([4]), I'm going to re-add the material in its proper place. Thanks for using the talk page!! CrowzRSA 20:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sessions began in early February 1976 and were completed within a week"
This does not fit to the release date stated in the article (February 4)!
Rolf riebig (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ramones (album)/CommentsTalk:Ramones (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
Substituted at 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The original lyric "I'm a Nazi, baby, I'm a Nazi, yes I am" was still sung live, appearing for instance on Loco Live. This should probably be added to the mention of "Today Your Love, Tomorrow the World". Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The redirect Ramones(album) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 2 § Ramones(album) until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)