Has Klosterman gone too far?

Also, in yesterday's Times, there was this totally lame piece about Joe Strummer in the Week in Review section. The photo they ran was of Mick Jones, identified in the caption as Strummer.

...Yet anyone who is obsessed with rock 'n' roll would define these two humans as diametrically different. To rock aficionados, Dee Dee and the Ramones were ''important'' and Crosby and Ratt were not. We are all supposed to concede this. We are supposed to know that the Ramones saved rock 'n' roll by fabricating their surnames, sniffing glue and playing consciously unpolished three-chord songs in the Bowery district of New York. We are likewise supposed to acknowledge that Ratt sullied rock 'n' roll by abusing hair spray, snorting cocaine and playing highly produced six-chord songs on Hollywood's Sunset Strip.

There is no denying that the Ramones were a beautiful idea. It's wrong to claim that they invented punk, but they certainly came the closest to idealizing what most people agree punk is supposed to sound like. They wrote the same two-minute song over and over and over again -- unabashedly, for 20 years -- and the relentlessness of their riffing made certain people feel like everything about the world had changed forever. And perhaps those certain people were right. However, those certain people remain alone in their rightness, because the Ramones were never particularly popular.

[Is he nuts? The Ramones not "particularly popular?" Sure, they didn't make a platinum record, but every time I watch football on TV, there's the "Hey Ho Let's Go" refrain from "Blitzkreig Bop" being played at Giants Stadium between plays]

The Ramones never made a platinum record over the course of their entire career. Bands like the Ramones don't make platinum records; that's what bands like Ratt do. And Ratt was quite adroit at that task, doing it four times in the 1980's. The band's first album, ''Out of the Cellar,'' sold more than a million copies in four months. Which is why the deaths of Dee Dee Ramone and Robbin Crosby created such a mathematical paradox: the demise of Ramone completely overshadowed the demise of Crosby, even though Crosby co-wrote a song (''Round and Round'') that has probably been played on FM radio and MTV more often than every track in the Ramones' entire catalog. And what's weirder is that no one seems to think this imbalance is remotely strange.

[So basically this argument is that "sales = truth."]

What the parallel deaths of Ramone and Crosby prove is that it really doesn't matter what you do artistically, nor does it matter how many people like what you create; what matters is who likes what you do artistically and what liking that art is supposed to say about who you are.

[This is so amazingly and weirdly insecure, it's not even funny. What's important about the Ramones is not that critics liked them, at all.]

Ratt was profoundly uncool (read: populist) and the Ramones were profoundly significant (read: interesting to rock critics).

[Ratt wasn't fucking uncool when they sold platinum records!]

Consequently, it has become totally acceptable to say that the Ramones' ''I Wanna Be Sedated'' changed your life; in fact, saying that would define you as part of a generation that became disenfranchised with the soullessness of suburbia, only to rediscover salvation through the integrity of simplicity. However, it is laughable to admit (without irony) that Ratt's ''I Want a Woman'' was your favorite song in 1989; that would mean you were stupid, and that your teenage experience meant nothing, and that you probably had a tragic haircut.

[I wouldn't laugh at anyone who said that was their favorite song, but I have a feeling (based on the few Ratt fans I've met) that they'd pick another song before that one.]

The reason Crosby's June 6 death was mostly ignored is that his band seemed corporate and fake and pedestrian; the reason Ramone's June 5 death will be remembered is that his band was seen as representative of a counterculture that lacked a voice. But the contradiction is that countercultures get endless media attention: the only American perspectives thought to have any meaningful impact are those that come from the fringes. The voice of the counterculture is, in fact, inexplicably deafening. Meanwhile, mainstream culture (i.e., the millions and millions of people who bought Ratt albums merely because that music happened to be the soundtrack for their lives) is usually portrayed as an army of mindless automatons who provide that counterculture with something to rail against. The things that matter to normal people are not supposed to matter to smart people.

[Dude, I'm so CRYING for the mainstream now, it's not even funny.]

Now, I know what you're thinking; you're thinking I'm overlooking the obvious, which is that the Ramones made ''good music'' and Ratt made ''bad music,'' and that's the real explanation as to why we care about Dee Dee's passing while disregarding Robbin's.

[Uh no, what I'm thinking is "man the guy who wrote this is a snivelling, insecure turd who instead of writing a tribute to a musician he admires (Crosby), uses precious ink and paper to tear down an indefensible dead guy (Dee Dee - which obv. doesn't matter 'cuz he's dead anyway) and his fans (who don't write for the NY Times, afterall) as a misguided tribute to a musician he admires (Crosby).]

And that rebuttal makes sense, I suppose, if you're the kind of person who honestly believes the concept of ''good taste'' is anything more than a subjective device used to create gaps in the intellectual class structure.

[Oooooh, good one, Mr. Hegel!]

I would argue that Crosby's death was actually a more significant metaphor than Ramone's, because Crosby was the first major hair-metal artist from the Reagan years to die from AIDS. The genre spent a decade consciously glamorizing (and aggressively experiencing) faceless sex and copious drug use. It will be interesting to see whether the hesher casualties now start piling up.

[Finally, a real point! If only the article could've just explored this without having to resort to snide insecurities!]

Meanwhile, I don't know if Ramone's death was a metaphor for anything; he's just a good guy who died on his couch from shooting junk. But as long as you have the right friends, your funeral will always matter a whole lot more.

[Dude, he's dead, it doesn't hurt when you kick him.]

It's essentially a piece about Crosby, so why not write it that way? My guess is that the Times wouldn't run an article on him, so DD got thrown into the mix (maybe the Times' hypothetical refusal to run a piece solely on Crosby fueled the whole thing in the first place?) and got kicked around as a result. It's awful, but if he had run with the AIDS angle it could've been very good.

1. Knocking a dead man.
2. Knocking fans of that dead man's old band.

Neither of which gives anybody who's not a Ratt fan (and hey, I'm not a fan, but they had their moments: "Round and Round" is a great song; "Way Cool Junior" is not) a reason to think that he's doing anything but that. What I think about the Ramones or Dee Dee has nothing to do with it.

But album sales aren't the be-all-end-all of a band's popularity. I'm sure that for every kid that bought a Ramones album, there's another who borrowed that album and/or made a cassette copy of his own. And I'm sure quite a few Ramones albums have been shoplifted.

Also -- the Ramones were renowned as a great live band. Their following was fanatical, and lots of people who didn't even own Ramones albums turned out for the shows because they were a guaranteed good time.

And SoundScan didn't exist before 1991. The Billboard charts are compiled much more accurately now.

Read the Spin Metal issue if you want to read Robert Plant giving Klosterman a verbal smackdown.

I'm sure, but how many bands out there sound like Ratt?

they just dont have some boring generational fanbase where dudes like lord custos who get all their opinions from lists on websites learn that the ramones are 'important'

Where is this secret "lists on websites" of which you speak? Does Admiral John Poindexter run it?

"if you're the kind of person who honestly believes the concept of ''good taste'' is anything more than a subjective device used to create gaps in the intellectual class structure." is a v. good point and one that asks more questions than answers them & I don't think that stencil's "yes good taste exists and I HAVE IT" attituted provides much of an answer.

More people my age I think know about The Ramones than Ratt and especially people two years younger than me I bet. But still, there's something to be said for preserving the lost treasures of the past (which Ratt is, and the Ramones thanx to their ongoing "influence" (by which I mean claims of influence) are not)

Show me where I claimed this?

Obviously you've never been in the American suburbs, or more specifically to a Guitar Center in the American suburbs.

Klosterman has a point about critics choosing to play favorites (although I have to wonder, and I'm not being classist here, I'm just wondering -- how much overlap is there between the Metal Sludge readership and that of the New York Times?).

But isn't metal getting quite the revival now, thanks to VH1 Classic, and that Marky Mark movie, and Celine/Anastacia/Meredith covering AC/DC, and Mariah covering Def Leppard, and Britney covering Joan Jett (is she metal or punk?), and Sheryl Crow covering Guns 'n' Roses, and Tori covering Slayer, and Motorhead showing up as the t-shirt of choice among trendy supermodels, and the Arlene Grocery punk/metal karaoke (which has far more metal than punk)?

Who wants to start?

Couldn't you make the argument that Ratt and hair metal wasn't _supposed_ to have any lasting musical contribution to the world? I mean, if I remember correctly it was about big tits, big guitars, big cocks, big big big and more importantly more more more and now now now (perfect for the '80s and the reason that Ratt had four platinum records). So why is it a suprise that no one except for Klosterman still gives a fuck about them in ANYTHING other than a nostalgic sort of way? If he admits that Ratt was in the mainstream, maybe people don't IDENTIFY with that mainstream anymore and therefore don't care (simple enough?). Where are the Ratt fans now? I'd imagine they've moved on....

The fact that the Ramones had far more lasting cultural impact has been made but I'll just add this small anecdote... Seventh grade (the same exact time that Ratt was popular) and my friend Alex is telling me about the Ramones records he had just bought. Our totally square and normal teacher overhears us and says, "Wow, you guys listen to the Ramones? Me and my brothers used to bounce up and down on the couch while listening to Rocket to Russia." The Ramones were also the only band that the arts editor at the newspaper I used to work for would play that I could stand.

Anyway, safe to say that the piece says way more about the psychology of Klosterman than American culture.

The problems with this article is that:

-it puts way too much importance on some nefarious cult of "critics," and yeah I get sick of seeing Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (c'mon people it's not that good) on every year-end list, but to say all critics think alike is stupid (this coming from a non critic).
-trying to distinguish what "normal" people do and think about is completely pointless. With 270 mil+ in the U.S. alone, most of whom are pretty damn "normal" when it comes to education, wealth, background, etc., such generalizations are pointless.

Couldn't you make the argument that the Ramones and their "punk" wasn't _supposed_ to have any lasting musical contribution to the world? I mean, if I remember correctly it was all about baseball bats, sniffing glue, jumping up and down, angry angry angry and more importantly angsty angsty angsty and now now now

All of the obits in the magazine were "making polemics." It's just that most (but not all) of the other ones had valid (or at least interesting) points in them.

and Britney covering Joan Jett (is she metal or punk?)
Britney is metal, obv.

Wait a sec, that's how that Dave "Horseteeth" Fricke dork from Rolling Stone dresses! Shit, I've been wrong all this time, there IS a vast critical conspiracy (lead by Fricke, of course) to promote the Ramones!

Yeah, cuz obviously it's a critic's conspiracy of "good taste" to push Dee Dee's death down our throats, and not because "normal" people actually care more about it.

Shit, the intense coverage of Joe Strummer's death must be because of the Illuminati, not because "normal" people cared about his music!

hello critical self-delusion land! if you dressed with the leather jacket you wouldn't get "ramone" and you'd barely get "some punk dude" from most people and mainly you'd just get confused looks. cf. the Ghost World scene where Enid dresses classic punXoR.

The truth is that the kids don't care about Ratt or the Ramones really and metal DID have a huge cultural impact maybe just not on music that you (or I for that matter, often) would deem "good".

Joan Jett, BTW is neither metal nor punk. We need a Suzi Quattro revival.

I wouldn't claim to be so much of an expert on what "the kids" care or don't care about.

and metal DID have a huge cultural impact maybe just not on music that you (or I for that matter, often) would deem "good".

Who said it didn't have a huge cultural impact?

you did hstencil, you did:

My point exactly. For better or worse, the Ramones had far greater impact on music (how many Ramones-inspired bands have come down the pike since '75, anyway?) than Ratt, even though the latter had greater sales.

For a writer to acknowledge an artist's "lasting contribution" isn't necessarily the writer's way of saying that artist is better than the group who had some hits in the '80s and went under the cultural radar. He (the hypothetical he) is just saying, rightfully, that the career artist had more historical impact. It's not a loaded statement; it's true. You can take that truth and use it to question why a band like Ratt didn't have greater historical impact, but to claim blindly that they were equally or more significant is total bullshit. They were a somewhat popular band out of a large handful of somewhat popular bands that didn't have very many distinguishing characteristics.

I would argue that Ratt were more important to "metal" than The Ramones were to of "punk" in terms of exemplifying and solidifying a genre which stuck in public consciousness
Heh?
Thats like saying that Eater is more Important to Punk than Metallica was to Metal!
Madness, Sterling. Utter Madness.

My point exactly. For better or worse, the Ramones had far greater impact on music (how many Ramones-inspired bands have come down the pike since '75, anyway?) than Ratt, even though the latter had greater sales.

Read it again, I wrote that "the Ramones had far greater impact (emphasis here) on music," not cultural impact in general. Of course you can't deny that hair metal WAS the 1980s, musically and culturally, but as far as impact on music? At this point, negligible. I mean, it may inspire Andrew WK and a few Williamsburgers haircuts, but beyond that? Prove it.

Then write a fucking eulogy for metal! Ratt did not equal the sum total of metal. And the guy who died didn't even equal the sum total of Ratt! I mean, sure, it'd be interesting to read a sprawling thinkpiece about the cultural impact of metal as a totality and what it means going into 2003, based on this one poor schlub who died and didn't get the fanfare he supposedly deserved... but that's still not really telling me why this one guy from this one band that people remember the name of but only sorta is as important as the Ramones, the recognized originators and (many would say) standard-bearers for an entire genre.

Full circle, back to my point on Eazy-E. Of course, Eric Wright didn't die in 2002, so the Dee Dee thing was just a lazy angle.

Nope, but he did write a bunch of their songs. Don't know what Crosby's songwriting contribution to Ratt was, though.

i can't remember a single song by ratt

This is very true (although defining metal as "somewhat popular" is disingenuous, it was very popular). Comparing RATT and the Ramones is not analagous. In terms of importance (or prominence) to their genre, wouldn't the Ramones be more analogous to Def Leppard or Bon Jovi? And wouldn't RATT be the Damned of punk?

You mean "hair metal," surely. The answer? no.

The Damned were (a) funnier, (b) more versatile, (c) more experimental, (d) more durable.

No. The Damned's "New Rose" is considered the first British punk single, so they're more important than that. Ratt might be the Members of heavy metal.

That's not what I was arguing. Of course metal was popular.

Alex, we aren't talking ability here, just in terms of impact within their genre. You are right, JBR, about "New Rose." Bigger than the Members, though...

the demise of Ramone completely overshadowed the demise of Crosby, even though Crosby co-wrote a song (''Round and Round'') that has probably been played on FM radio and MTV more often than every track in the Ramones' entire catalog. And what's weirder is that no one seems to think this imbalance is remotely strange.

Somebody ask Rhino Records what they've sold more of in the last year, The Essential RATT or any of the first four Ramones CDs.

I can't tell what's made me laugh more today -- the above bit or the thought of David Fricke dressed up like Stephen Pearcy.

i think i love you mr. xx!!

ramones = did?

if so, why?

Ratt = uber-popular axe-wielding cocky playas who've got $$$, women, etc., so the urge to rationalize/refute their popularity in a meaningful way is a moot point cause no matter what someone writes, it won't matter because they're not leaving MTV and the radio anytime soon

< / PARANOID > < / PARANOID >

No, you'd get "Fonzie!" nearly every single time. I know from experience. It was probably much worse in the seventies.

Madonna = Olivia Newton-John + Sex Pistols, Madonna = Joni Mitchell + Chic

I know you all hate me but...
Well, mark s...we don't need to hate someone to PLOT AGAINST THEM! Mu-hah-hah-haaaah!

Don't look now.

http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/whatson/template.cgir?s=WTTW&t=0&p=25078&c=d&d=2003-09-21

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CMOoMIgWIAAB8kK.jpg

Sweet merciful jeebus melmo.

And not just because any ilx post preceded by "11 years pass..." is either going to be a very ill or a very fair omen.

is there some interpretation of this pic of him standing next to taylor swift that i'm missing?

they just fucked obv

i just thought his expression was funny

"is that Axl Rose over there?!"

i assume, since it was posted in this thread, that they just had an argument about the relative importance of ratt and the ramones, and she sided with the ramones, and he got indignant, and she's now pointing her finger saying "get out," and he's saying, "no! i'm chuck klosterman, and i am right."