This is such a tough call. Both bands are responsible for some mind blowing music and both are responsible for some utter shite.

I love both bands very dearly but if i had to choose I'd go with the Ramones.

I've got to vote for the Sex Pistols. I like them alot and still listen to them every once in a while.

The Ramones never clicked for me. They're good but they just never moved me.

Pissing contests aside, think of it this way. How many decent albums did each band produce?

Sex Pistols
- 'Never Mind The Bollocks'

Ramones
- 'Ramones'
- 'Leave Home'
- 'Rocket to Russia'
- 'Road to Ruin'
- 'It's Alive!'

The Ramones left a broader discography. Plus they were the first, which does count for something.

The Ramones and its not even close.

Pistols made one subpar rock record.

The Ramones made a number of great albums.

Plus the Ramones never claimed to be something they weren't

I have 0 problems with bands signing to major labels. Just for the love of everything holy stop claiming to be anarchist, communist, whateverist when you sign to one of these.

Anarchy in the U.K. just loses a little bite when its sanctioned by E.M.I.

(Yeah Yeah, they had that song E.M.I. but I am sure they still cashed the checks with no problems)

Again to summarize the Pistols being on a major label is not my problem, being on a major label and trying to pretend to be anarchist or whatever is. ( That goes for you too Against Me!, Rage Against the Machine, and Billy Bragg)

o_d_m wrote:Again to summarize the Pistols being on a major label is not my problem, being on a major label and trying to pretend to be anarchist or whatever is. ( That goes for you too Against Me!, Rage Against the Machine, and Billy Bragg)

I agree that the Ramones were the better band (their best records I prefer to Nevermind the Bollocks, and as TommyD points out, their greatness was more prolific).

However, I disagree with you on the above. The Sex Pistols were anarchic - they led to riots, arrests, questions in Parliament, news hysteria, beatings (leaving permanent injuries in the case of Johnny Rotten), and general schism between most of the country and a small but very visible youth minority who railed against the decaying, staid and depressed (economically, and from what I hear, emotionally as well) commonplace of the UK at that time.

Of course, I would argue that the real revolution (for worse, mainly) came over the next decade with Thatcher, but that does not negate the fact that for a period the Sex Pistols were an invigorating force.

Some great bands were inspired by the Pistols; immaterial of their musical worth, they created a lot of good.

With regards to the major label criticism, there was nowhere near the network of non-major labels and distribution in comparison to ten years later. Given that the commercial/art/fashion/McClaren-fartarsing-about entity that was the Pistols proclaimed itself to be so much more than a band, it was natural that they would want to get records released in a highly visible fashion. The major/independent split within rock music was not even recognised then, I believe. I would be truly interested to hear otherwise.

My vote for the Ramones still stands though. Much better band, them.

tommydski wrote:Pissing contests aside, think of it this way. How many decent albums did each band produce?

Sex Pistols
- 'Never Mind The Bollocks'

Ramones
- 'Ramones'
- 'Leave Home'
- 'Rocket to Russia'
- 'Road to Ruin'
- 'It's Alive!'

The Ramones left a broader discography. Plus they were the first, which does count for something.

I'd concede that being first does count for something but aren't the two groups not a like just enough for that not to matter? Also, the bit about the broader discography doesn't stand with me. Several of the people that have voted in favor of The Ramones have even said that not everything they put out was good. At least one of them going as far as to say that the first three albums held all of the band's high points.

Maybe I've always been wide of the target on this but The Ramones always seemed much more silly and happy- go-lucky to me than the Sex Pistols. I thought their approach was to identify a problem and then make it all cartoony. The Pistols would say, "here, this is the problem, it's fucking awful, get angry about it, figure out a way to fix it."

I think a huge reason I see it like that is because their respective sounds dictate that. The Ramones were much more poppy sounding and The Sex Pistols were much more raw sounding. As a result that's why The Sex Pistols clicked with me in a way The Ramones didn't. That's why I say that I think they sound just differently enough for the fact that the Ramones came first not to matter. Without a doubt, they were first and did to some extent influence The Sex Pistols, but I don't see that they took the Ramones act intact, hung a British flag on it and called it The Sex Pistols. Had they done that then the who came first thing would matter a lot more.

Again, I just like The Sex Pistols more. It doesn't mean I'm right.

The Ramone Pistols

Tommy Alpha wrote:

curry pervert wrote:

Tommy Alpha wrote:

242sumner wrote:

ctrl-s wrote:Pick one.

Today I'll say: Ramones. They were first.

...the first republican punk band ?

What about Ronnie Biggs? They were still the Pistols then.

You reckon? Half the members being exploited by the manager to wring the last few bucks he could out of them?

Tommy Alpha wrote:Ramones never embraced a murderering parasite piece of shit and tried to sell him as a fucking folk hero.

Just curious, but who are you under the impression that he murdered?

And yeah, I do reckon. You can't just have some kind of historical revisionism and discount that period of the pistols, shit or not. They were exploited the whole fucking way through, in some way or another, so why not include this period? They were the Pistols then and they were the Pistols in 1996 playing in Hyde Park or wherever the hell it was and the Ramones were the Ramones when they were doing Pet Cemetary and stuff with Phil Spector and when they had CJ on bass. You've got to add it all up.

If that's the standpoint you want to take then fair enough. As far as I'm concerned the band ceased to exist after the Winterland concert, regardless of anything that was released with their name tacked onto it. That's not being revisionist, and I'm sure if you could ask the surviving members (and possibly even Mclaren) they would agree that there wasn't really a band after that point.

Enjoy both equally for their valuable contributions. I will abstain from voting. Not Crap for either though.

the both suck bad musically, but the ramones influenced Husker Du who are godly, so I guess the ramones win