[deeg]

If the Ramones put their name on all sorts of merchandise does that make them sellouts?

I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.

[jrjeksjd8d]

The concept of "selling out" requires you to have some core values which you and your audience share. If you're a hard rock band and you make a cringe disco album because that's what the record label told you to do, that could be seen as selling out. If you're an anarchist crust punk and you get signed to a big label that could be selling out. If you're an underground DJ and you do the soundtrack for a big movie that could be selling out.

I don't think most music artists have the necessary relationship with their audience to "sell out", because their music isn't ideological and they don't have a real relationship with their fans. As famous sell-out Laura Jane Grace sang, the content is so easily attainable that the culture is disposable.

[JKCalhoun]

In short, selling out is when your art takes a back seat to making money (when it had previously been the other way around).

[analog8374]

consider it from the perspective of those who have no art. it's like a threat of decapitation for people who never had a head. headlessness is the norm and carries no fear

[sertsa]

Tangent? - https://www.headless.org/on-having-no-head.htm

[mosessupposed]

I believe in the idea that if you really do the hell out of something, you can make up for a lot of shortcomings. Quantity and spirit can substitute for quality in almost all artistic pursuits.

Here's Bill Withers on selling out: “Sellout… I’m not crazy about the word. We’re all entrepreneurs. To me, I don’t care if you own a furniture store or whatever – the best sign you can put up is SOLD OUT.”

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> Bill Withers on selling out: “Sellout… I’m not crazy about the word. We’re all entrepreneurs.

I think this is the prior that not everyone shares. Yeah if you consider yourself an entrepeneur that has no values except transactional economic perforamnce then its tautological that selling everything is good and the best.

If you however consider yourself an artist, if you think the comercialisation of certain things is inmoral, if you think transactional relationships are hollow or even damaging... then the idea of selling everything as good is nauseating.

Punk in particular is pretty antithetical to the ideas of consumerism and commercialisation. So its a genre and cultural movement where selling out is not only possible, but heavy demonised.

Bill Withers would be juxtaposed to someone like Gil Scott Heron in terms of where their music stands. And he was described as such when he broke out

Will Layman on Scott-Heron said "In the early 1970s, Gil Scott-Heron popped onto the scene as a soul poet with jazz leanings; not just another Bill Withers, but a political voice with a poet's skill."

[card_zero]

Sell meant "give" in Old English, including the sense of "give up", "surrender", "betray". (Their word for sell was equivalent to *be-buy.)

https://www.etymonline.com/word/sell

Etymonline says the meaning "betray for gain" is from 1200. So this is probably where "sellout" comes from. Compare with "he sold us out".

There's an entry for sellout too: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sellout "corrupt bargain".

[mr_toad]

Maybe. There’s another meaning for sellout - an event that is all sold out.

That makes me wonder if the meaning of a sellout artist was an analogy to an event which became commercially popular, and was (literally) no longer accessible to long-term fans.

[norome]

I believe you missed the point

[wholinator2]

I dunno, the guy likes words. At least i learned something :)

[card_zero]

I also like the Ramones and my Ramones shirt. I was trying to implicitly say what Arkhaine_kupo above me has now said.

I suppose there's often another layer to it, which is that you might think your favorite band (or, say, Apple) has principles and will stick to expressing certain important things. But then they might lose sight of the principles and start churning out lowest common denominator shit for money. It's not as simple then as money=bad. It's more that money as the goal means you have no goal (and your corporate mission statement is a feeble apology for that).

[smcin]

Noone expects the etymology inquisition.

[lelanthran]

No one expects the etymology inquisition.

[FatherOfCurses]

For me the gold standard take on "selling out" is "Hooker with a Penis" by Tool.

[Lio]

They should market Ramones' branded propofol for everyone that wants to be sedated. :P

[mtts]

> they were terrible musicians

Not only are the songs they wrote really good and catchy, Ramones are one of those bands where it sounds so easy anyone can do it but if you give it a try, you quickly find out it’s difficult to get the nuances right and your results, unlike theirs, sound crude and obviously amateurish.

They’re like AC/DC in that respect. Or Melvins.

[antonymoose]

I once saw a documentary on them, one of the critics had a quote that really stuck with me (paraphrasing):

If you or I drew a square, it’s unremarkable anyone can draw one. But someone had to be the first guy to drawn one, and that guy is the genius.

[mr_toad]

Reminds me of a story about Giotto di Bondone, an artist who when called upon to prove his talent drew, freehand, a perfect circle. Something which seems simple, but which is actually very difficult.

[pfannkuchen]

But have you tried recording your version and also playing it in public and promoting it for decades? It’s possible that’s what is making the one thing sound like it has something hard to name, and the other one not.

Like if you are sloppy there is an element of randomness in the output, and any particular randomness will be difficult to replicate.

[saidnooneever]

for this stuff its mostly just a question of buy same gear really. they play a bit 'wild' so esp live it wasnt like super clean. but the sound is mostly having the right kit including recording gear / setup or live equipment etc. depending on what ur trying to do.

playing sloppy isnt too hard to replicate.

[donkeybeer]

Punk is not easy, they were developing new techniques and song writing approaches. Otherwise you tell me why we talk of Ramones as being different from older rock like say Led Zeppelin. I will say by the time we get to bands like Minor Threat we have genuinely new song structural paradigms that never existed in rock music.

And to say nothing of course of the mechanical finesse and stamina required to play this kind of music.

[DeathArrow]

>I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.

This makes me to wonder why do you and other people like them and why were them influential?

Isn't a band's purpose to produce good music and aren't people supposed to like musicians because they produce good music?

[mingus88]

No, for many, wearing band shirts or adopting a specific style is signaling.

The Ramones were middle class kids, who started a band in high school when they were outcasts. They literally crafted new identities, writing tough lyrics and posing for photos with dour expressions. They weren’t cool enough being themselves so they became someone else.

The style is more important. It’s almost a point of pride that they don’t know how to play. Punk ironically has always been this way. There are so many rules you have to follow to be considered truly punk; you have to rebel in a very specific way. You have to look a certain way or you are out of the club.

In the 80s and 90s, your favorite bands were your identity. Cliques formed based on what obscure band you liked, and if nobody knew who they were, you were even cooler. Dig through the record store crates to find that rare vinyl nobody else has.

Hence more t-shirts sold than albums. Nobody gets your cool signal if you are silently rocking out with headphones on. You have the shirt; you were there, man.

Where I grew up, the misfits skull t-shirt was more iconic. Today you can buy it at Target.

[cycomanic]

What is good music though? I think the OP meant that the Ramones were terrible musicians in the sense that they were technically "good", i.e. most jazz musicians are much better technically. But that's the whole point the OP is making, to make good music you don't need to be technically good, i.e. to play the most complex guitar solos or be extremely accurate in your timing on the drums.

[pstuart]

"One chord is fine. Two chords are pushing it. Three chords and you're into jazz" -- Lou Reed.

I remember there was a whole debate about Lou being a sellout for appearing in an ad for a Honda Scooter. Such innocent days...

[deeg]

And that's the question, right? I like the ramones because they are loud, fast, and catchy. Is that enough to call it good music?

They were influential because they ushered in a new style of playing music. I remember reading an interview with The Clash and someone (Strummer?) mentioned that when the Ramones first played in london it was like a bomb going off. They were amazed that a band could play so fast and they all went home and tried to replicate it.

Originality is part of it. Today a band that sounded exactly like the ramones probably wouldn't go far because it's already been done.

Its a fascinating topic for me.

[zck]

> Isn't a band's purpose to produce good music and aren't people supposed to like musicians because they produce good music?

There are two definitions of "good" here, that are different.

1. "good musician" means a musician who is skilled or adept in their instrument. I'm separating this from if a musician is good at writing music.

2. "good music" means music that is entertaining or enjoyable.

The Ramones were not incredibly skilled in their instruments. They wrote music that many people found enjoyable. They were not good musicians, but they created good music.

[psychoslave]

It depends who you ask, not everyone weight the same considerations about the things they contemplate to.

For some people, the esthetic get the biggest factor, for some other social message it convey is more important, and other will want a balance.

The classical example is separation of author from its work dilemma.

[taybin]

Music is something you can do without formal training. Much like how you can be a terrible programmer but still create popular software. Just like how maybe what the world wanted at some moment was a slow PHP alternative to moveabletype, maybe the world also wanted sped up, stripped down, 60s girl band songs, without complicated rhythms and harmonies.

Not trying to say that Wordpress v1 was terrible software written by terrible programmers, but I hope you get my point.

[b00ty4breakfast]

I know most people don't take the concept of "selling out" seriously anymore, but the Ramones would not be sellouts for making Ramones merch. If they had turned into a hair metal band, where they would otherwise not make hair metal, just so they could sell a bunch of records, that would be selling out. Merely making money is not selling out

[boomboomsubban]

So something like getting Phil Spector to produce their record?

[b00ty4breakfast]

given the massive influence of 60s girl groups on the Ramones, I would say that getting one of the architects of that sound to produce their record is not selling out.

To stay on the "hair metal" example I gave, getting Mutt Lange circa Pyromania to produce a Ramones record would be selling out.

[relaxing]

You’re going to bring up Phil Spector and not mention the story of Spector threatening the band with a gun in the studio?

[tbossanova]

How are they terrible musicians? They played their specific type of music extremely well. Like, technically better than most people will ever be at music. People loved seeing them play. I still enjoy their records. So, what is terrible?

[deeg]

Maybe it was part of his schtick but johnny often bragged about not practicing. He wanted the concerts to be raw. The mistakes were part of the art.

I played guitar for a while and didn't have much trouble playing them and I was barely adequate at best.

The hardest song for me was California Sun. I just couldn't figure it out until I realized it had 4 chords instead of three. I learned later that it was a cover.

[weinzierl]

"technically better than most people"

I guess with them touring and playing basically non-stop a certain kind of that is inevitable.

Their concert frequency was on par with the otherwise known as most prolific band ever, The Beach Boys. It's just that The Ramones' members all died around third of the way (~20 years of touring vs 60).

[PepperdineG]

The Beach Boys also unabashedly liked money. I saw The Beach Boys - what was left of them anyway - with one the original members talking on stage basically talking about how he still did touring because he liked driving around in a Bentley.

[belZaah]

Terrible in which way? Did not use counterpoint sufficiently elegantly? It’s punk, mate. Try to do a set downpicking like Johnny.

[gexla]

Yeah, punk was a bit of a rejection of the polish of the big bands of the time. In a sense, the "horrible" was sort of the point. And for the shock value. But did that really mean they were horrible? Probably everyone kind of sucks at first. But it's hard not to improve your skills once you have got to a point where you have done a certain number of shows because you created a sustainable cash flow to support it.

[deeg]

There was an interview with Joey (maybe in the greatest hits liner notes?) where he said at the beginning they were trying to cover their favorite songs from the 50s and 60s but they couldn't figure them out. So they wrote their own that were easy (my word) enough to play.

Imo they were terrible musicians but a world class band.

[JKCalhoun]

"They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians."

And that is exactly why they were so influential.

"Hey fellas, let's start a band!"

[rubzah]

It's a commercial act, the 'punk' costumes carefully chosen for the right signalling, by a couple of middle class kids. What's with this idea that your taste in music must spring from the purest and rawest authenticity, preferably (in no particular order) poor, rebellious, substance abusing, ethnic, and so on. Leading to all these musical acts styling themselves like that.

The Ramones were sellouts and posers, just like most bands. Wearing them on a t-shirt to signal 'punk', the joke's on you. It's an "industry of cool", like Jack Black's character says in Almost Famous.

[mikkupikku]

Remember when Jack Black ditched his long-time friend, threw him under the bus, for being mildly edgy against the establishment?

[echelon_musk]

Any respect I may have had for Jack Black was completely lost when he did this.

When his money was on the line he chose his side and showed his true self.

Gotta pay for those 'jelly beans' somehow!

[taybin]

I don’t. What are you referring to?

[mikkupikku]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Gass#Controversy

[kgwxd]

Was Jack Black in Almost Famous? Are you thinking of PSH. I've mixed them up in my head myself, and I have no clue why. I was a Tenacious D fan from day 1, so it's not like they're 2 actors I'm only vaguely familiar with. And they aren't super similar in many ways. Yet they're somehow interchangeable in my movie memories.

[rubzah]

You're right, thanks for the correction. It's a very Jack Blackesque character, in my defense.

[tbossanova]

How delightfully cynical. Instead of thinking taste in music “must” spring from your cynical take on what authenticity us (which I agree is impossible to define and almost a useless term at this point), maybe people just… like the music, and it somehow speaks to them. Musical taste is famously subjective and entirely down to what music you heard before etc