Right, let's try another one -- two of punk's founding fathers, although very different in style -- who do you prefer?

Battle #1: Led Zeppelin Vs. The Who

Battle #2: REM Vs. U2

This was the first really hard one for me. I like both a lot but I guess The Ramones just barely edge out The Clash.

Love both but need to go with the band I select to listen to the most. That would be the Ramones!

The Ramones are one of only two bands* I'd ever consider getting a tattoo of, and the other one sure as hell ain't The Clash (though I like them just fine). I have always liked The Clash, but I never understood the accolades laden upon them from critics. I like the off-tracks (from both bands) as well as the "hits", but The Ramones are the punk equivalent of the friggin' Beatles.

Lemmy has spoken.




(*Motorhead is the other)

The Clash is fine, but definitely The Ramones for me. No contest.

Tough one. Gotta go with Ramones in the end, though.

Only band that matters...this was a hard one though.

Tough call, but I went with The Clash. Probably should have voted "I can't decide" though.

The Clash.
The Ramones are great as well, but I was always a bigger fan of The Clash.
The Ramones music tends to be more rooted in 50's and early 60's Pop music, whereas The Clash were from the punk scene where reggae was their soundtrack and it was also a huge part of their musical make-up, and by the time they got to London Calling they were also throwing R&B into the mix.
I know that The Ramones thought The Clash ripped them off when they did "White Riot", but I never really noticed that until I saw that documentary on the Ramones. Apart from that, The Ramones might want to listen to every punk act out of the UK if they're going to cry plagiarism.

The Ramones did have some good albums with The Ramones, Ramones Leave Home, and Road To Ruin (In all fairness, that's practically all I had), but I owned all The Clash LPs along with the box-set and the live CD (The Shea Stadium one--BTW, I was at that concert, too! )

The Clash. Joe Strummer's voice and songwriting talent rules.

I used to play my Clash LPs constantly and they still give me plenty of memories from that era.

I still like the Ramones too, but The Clash easily gets my vote.

I would chose the Clash but you really can't compare the two to begin with.

Love both and I listen to both on a regular basis but gotta give my vote to the only band that matters.

The Ramones can suck it. Boring, untalented, punk-lite schmucks. I've rarely heard a band so boring get so many accolades. When people talk about American punk, the first thing people think of is The Ramones, when they should be thinking of The Stooges, The New York Dolls, Richard Hell, Patti Smith, X, etc.

The Clash, on the other hand, were absolutely brilliant. Fearless, experimental, open to new sounds, new ideas, and Joe Strummer/Mick Jones were the John Lennon/Paul McCartney of punk. I listen to The Clash on a regular basis, whereas I'd be happy never hearing The Ramones again. This is by far the most lopsided battle of the bands we've yet seen.

Other than most of London Calling and a smattering off of the first 2 albums, I think that the rest of the Clash stuff is pretty much shit. The Ramones had at least 6 or 7 good to great albums and only a couple that are really embarrassing (End Of The Century being the worst). I also like Joey Ramone as a singer more than Joe Strummer.

that all sounded the same

Wrong. Also, Patti Smith and Richard Hell were art ****. Neither should be included under the "punk" umbrella. The New York Dolls were just a rock band, maybe glam, but no more punk than T Rex. The Stooges are debatable. X are amazing.

Ramones remain the greatest band ever.

End of the Century had its charms. "Danny Says" is still a great song, and my wife and I danced to their cover of "Baby, I Love You" at our wedding.

I wouldn't be quite that hard on The Ramones, but I do favor The Clash by a longshot, and I do agree it's lopsided. X is the American band that compares favorably to The Clash, IMO.

I've never heard any band that could reign in and pummel its influences into submission like The Clash. No matter what style they did (and they did a hell of a lot), they always just sounded like The Clash being The Clash. As an example, I would argue that U2, particularly during the Rattle and Hum era, got overpowered by its influences; The Clash never did. (in fact, they were NOT overpowered by funk )

Art **** huh? What a persuasive argument. I guess Dylan's an art *** too.

Thanks for letting me know I can completely ignore your opinion from this point forward. Saves me a lot of time and trouble.

Seems like an odd matchup. Even though the two bands are both lumped into the punk genre, they're quite dissimilar in...well, everything.

I've always felt that, in terms of consistently bashing out fast, loud, catchy punk songs, The Ramones' UK counterparts were The Buzzcocks, and unless I'm mistaken, they both came out around the same time. Am I alone on this? (And for the record, I chose The Clash...and The Buzzcocks, both by a wide margin.)

Well, The Beatles, Pete Townshend and a bunch of other British Rock acts went to art school, so, I guess they're all "art ****" too?

The Stooges I would definitely say are the true pioneers of punk. There was no one that sounded anything like them in their day. I have a tailored punk station on Pandora, and The Stooges sound perfect programmed in with any punk record from any period of the genre.

The NY Dolls, much like the Ramones, are very 50s and early 60's pop-inspired and were basically trying to bring rock music back to the shorter 2 1/2 min. single after a period where rock bands were mostly offering lengthy jams.

Pretty funny that *** is censored but **** isn't

Wake me up when the The Ramones make anything in the same universe as London Calling.