Sex Pistols

[Silent Majority]

My...legacy... My finances...E_hRzigXEAAG8rp.jpeg

C'mon now you know you bought these to match your t shirt.

Some Charles Hawtrey y-fronts has much more in common with the reality of the band.

Art imitating life.

Sex Pistols = pants.

There's nothing wrong with me

[Marky Dread]

My...legacy... My finances...E_hRzigXEAAG8rp.jpeg

C'mon now you know you bought these to match your t shirt.

Some Charles Hawtrey y-fronts has much more in common with the reality of the band.

Art imitating life.

Sex Pistols = pants.

There's nothing wrong with me

I am me

[Dr. Medulla]

Apologies for piling on—I'm apparently composed of 39% schadenfreude—but given that Lydon claims that using Pistols music would compromise the band's legacy and cause him great sorrow, I looked at what other examples he, seemingly, had no problem signing off on: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797465/

Mostly it's music documentaries, which is fine, but then there's The A Team movie, Freddy Got Fingered, Get Him to the Greek and That 70's Show. Is Danny Boyle *that* much more damaging than Tom fucking Green?

[Flex]

Apologies for piling on—I'm apparently composed of 39% schadenfreude—but given that Lydon claims that using Pistols music would compromise the band's legacy and cause him great sorrow, I looked at what other examples he, seemingly, had no problem signing off on: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797465/

Mostly it's music documentaries, which is fine, but then there's The A Team movie, Freddy Got Fingered, Get Him to the Greek and That 70's Show. Is Danny Boyle *that* much more damaging than Tom fucking Green?

Now that millenials are allowed out of their safe space misery-boxes to write for the atlantic and such, we're busy trying to develop a grand unified theory of Tom Green Was Secretly An Auteur This Whole Time. Anyways, the people doing that deserve two recessions.

[Dr. Medulla]

Apologies for piling on—I'm apparently composed of 39% schadenfreude—but given that Lydon claims that using Pistols music would compromise the band's legacy and cause him great sorrow, I looked at what other examples he, seemingly, had no problem signing off on: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797465/

Mostly it's music documentaries, which is fine, but then there's The A Team movie, Freddy Got Fingered, Get Him to the Greek and That 70's Show. Is Danny Boyle *that* much more damaging than Tom fucking Green?

Now that millenials are allowed out of their safe space misery-boxes to write for the atlantic and such, we're busy trying to develop a grand unified theory of Tom Green Was Secretly An Auteur This Whole Time. Anyways, the people doing that deserve two recessions.

Take any five—no, ten—great Canadian comedic actors of your choosing; Tom Green negates them.

[Marky Dread]

Apologies for piling on—I'm apparently composed of 39% schadenfreude—but given that Lydon claims that using Pistols music would compromise the band's legacy and cause him great sorrow, I looked at what other examples he, seemingly, had no problem signing off on: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1797465/

Mostly it's music documentaries, which is fine, but then there's The A Team movie, Freddy Got Fingered, Get Him to the Greek and That 70's Show. Is Danny Boyle *that* much more damaging than Tom fucking Green?

Pretty Vacant was used by bookmakers William Hill a couple of years back.

Nothing the Sex Pistols do now can diminish the impact they had on british music and culture.

What is the Sex Pistols legacy and who cares if they really meant it maaaaaaan?

[Dr. Medulla]

Nothing the Sex Pistols do now can diminish the impact they had on british music and culture.

Which is to say it's in the hands of the audience, as it always is. Personally, I can appreciate them for fucking me up in the best way possible when I was 16 and, as an old pretend intellectual, as the exposé of popular culture sham side that McLaren claimed. They were and are authentic and a fraud, and it's not inconsistent to believe both things at once. No matter how repulsive a soft turd Lydon has become changes any of that.

[Marky Dread]

Nothing the Sex Pistols do now can diminish the impact they had on british music and culture.

Which is to say it's in the hands of the audience, as it always is. Personally, I can appreciate them for fucking me up in the best way possible when I was 16 and, as an old pretend intellectual, as the exposé of popular culture sham side that McLaren claimed. They were and are authentic and a fraud, and it's not inconsistent to believe both things at once. No matter how repulsive a soft turd Lydon has become changes any of that.

Just a bunch of kids, they were me/us and not from Mars or somewhere pop stars were supposed to be from. Punk made stuff accessible and didn't exclude you for having no money. You could adapt what you had and join in. McLaren took that D.I.Y. aesthetic and turned it into a money making scheme.

I still don't consider them a "punk" band musically. I never have as they had more in common with the glam sounds of previous than that of the Ramones. Lyrically I consider them confrontational in a fun way but not political. I know some will disagree but they were about stirring things up. They didn't offer any solutions. John's lyrics were attacking the mediocrity and banality of 70s life. To me they were a positive force and made me realise we didn't have to accept bullshit and just tolerate stuff for the sake of it.

No amount of John's current moaning or whingeing will diminish the change they had on me. Right time, right place and the right attitude.

[Dr. Medulla]

I still don't consider them a "punk" band musically. I never have as they had more in common with the glam sounds of previous than that of the Ramones.

What bonds the two, I think, is both a decision to be pretty basic in approach—anti-prog—and to reinforce the amateurism that informed rock n roll from the start (again, anti-prog). So, yeah, if the Ramones looked back a bit further than the Pistols for inspiration, they still shared that rejection of rock as arty music.

Lyrically I consider them confrontational in a fun way but not political. I know some will disagree but they were about stirring things up. They didn't offer any solutions. John's lyrics were attacking the mediocrity and banality of 70s life. To me they were a positive force and made me realise we didn't have to accept bullshit and just tolerate stuff for the sake of it.

And I'd say that is entirely political. Political doesn't have to be offering up a program for change or explicit ideology. That you say they were consciousness raising for you—and they were for me, too—is political. Saying you're sick of the way things are and identifying the source is political. Those in authority recognized it that way—they didn't want a bunch of street kids questioning the status quo.

No amount of John's current moaning or whingeing will diminish the change they had on me. Right time, right place and the right attitude.

It reminds of something Devin McKinney wrote in his Beatles book, that you couldn't hate the Beatles in '66 if you hadn't so loved them in '64. I wouldn't give a fuck about Lydon's idiocy and Trumpian turn if he hadn't transfixed and inspired me when I was 16. From 1976 to 1980, he really mattered, and this turn, even if not entirely unexpected given his past, still stinks.

[Marky Dread]

What bonds the two, I think, is both a decision to be pretty basic in approach—anti-prog—and to reinforce the amateurism that informed rock n roll from the start (again, anti-prog). So, yeah, if the Ramones looked back a bit further than the Pistols for inspiration, they still shared that rejection of rock as arty music.

I doubt any decision was made to be basic or anti-prog at all. They were basic because that's where they were at musically. They only followed the sound of the bands they loved. The Small Faces/Kinks/Dolls/Stooges etc. They were already playing those mod type songs long before John joined the band.
If they made any conscious decision to sound anti-prog then they like all the other (punk) bands would've copied the Ramones.

The Sex Pistols were nowhere close to the basic sound of the Ramones. Just listen to Glens bass lines for evidence.

Lyrically I consider them confrontational in a fun way but not political. I know some will disagree but they were about stirring things up. They didn't offer any solutions. John's lyrics were attacking the mediocrity and banality of 70s life. To me they were a positive force and made me realise we didn't have to accept bullshit and just tolerate stuff for the sake of it.

And I'd say that is entirely political. Political doesn't have to be offering up a program for change or explicit ideology. That you say they were consciousness raising for you—and they were for me, too—is political. Saying you're sick of the way things are and identifying the source is political. Those in authority recognized it that way—they didn't want a bunch of street kids questioning the status quo.

Okay fair enough. What I'm saying here is how they changed me. I was 12 years old in 1976 when "Anarchy in the U.K" was released. What I knew about politics would have fitted on a postage stamp. I'm not approaching this view from my 57 year old self.

No amount of John's current moaning or whingeing will diminish the change they had on me. Right time, right place and the right attitude.

It reminds of something Devin McKinney wrote in his Beatles book, that you couldn't hate the Beatles in '66 if you hadn't so loved them in '64. I wouldn't give a fuck about Lydon's idiocy and Trumpian turn if he hadn't transfixed and inspired me when I was 16. From 1976 to 1980, he really mattered, and this turn, even if not entirely unexpected given his past, still stinks.

Sure but then I don't care about his current views and haven't cared for his views for 30 plus years since. When it mattered to me he mattered. But my other point was I'm talking about the Sex Pistols and the collective group (they) not just John.

[Dr. Medulla]

I doubt any decision was made to be basic or anti-prog at all. They were basic because that's where they were at musically. They only followed the sound of the bands they loved. The Small Faces/Kinks/Dolls/Stooges etc. They were already playing those mod type songs long before John joined the band.

If they made any conscious decision to sound anti-prog then they like all the other (punk) bands would've copied the Ramones.

The Sex Pistols were nowhere close to the basic sound of the Ramones. Just listen to Glens bass lines for evidence.

The point is that none of those bands were drawn to "sophistication." They were drawn to basic rock (basic compared to proggy, arty stuff, stuff meant for the mind more than the body). Loud and fun and raucous. Yes, it's because that's where their abilities were at … but that's what punk made a virtue of. If they aspired to be Yes, they wouldn't have tried. To be anti-prog means rejecting needing that skill level to play music.

Okay fair enough. What I'm saying here is how they changed me. I was 12 years old in 1976 when "Anarchy in the U.K" was released. What I knew about politics would have fitted on a postage stamp. I'm not approaching this view from my 57 year old self.

Okay, right, definitely. And I'd never say there's only one correct interpretation for any band or piece of music. Some people heard the Pistols and thought party time; others heard revolution; and others heard the collapse of civilization. If we accept that our interpretation is valid, then we accept other people's interpretations as valid (to them, anyway).

Sure but then I don't care about his current views and haven't cared for his views for 30 plus years since. When it mattered to me he mattered. But my other point was I'm talking about the Sex Pistols and the collective group (they) not just John.

Fair, and I kinda envy your ability to just compartmentalize like that. Morrissey has made it hard for me to listen to the Smiths, and I fear that I'll get to the point where I can't listen to the Pistols or PiL without his asshole evolution bleeding thru. That's all on me, I know, but that's what I meant with that McKinney observation—passion runs hot, going both ways.

[Marky Dread]

Doc I've no idea how the "qoute" thing works and after years of posting here I'm too long in the tooth to be bothered. So thanks for persevering with my ineptitude.

What I'm trying to get across regards the anti-prog stance is that it's is a punk thing. Something that was put out there to almost validate some bands lack of ability.
It fits very nicely with the punk idealism that anyone can just get up and do it. Which isn't really true. Now the other side to this is just because you can't play too well or in some cases at all or with limited ability you shouldn't let this hold you back (The Slits).
However there were some bands/musicians that had been around for some time when punk arrived and they jumped aboard and played beneath their ability to be part of the new thing. Those bands that didn't try to play down their ability like The Stranglers were often sneered at.

With the Sex Pistols they didn't choose to be anti-prog they just didn't care for that style of music anyway because it's too laid back and has little energy. They were inspired by the mod bands of the 60s who were all about uptempo r&b and beat music. Could Jones, Matlock & Cook have played stuff by the likes of "YES" well no but then they simply didn't want to either. It wasn't anything to do with punk being the antithesis of prog.

Interestingly a lot of those musicians in the prog bands had been in r&b bands in the 60s.

[Dr. Medulla]

Doc I've no idea how the "qoute" thing works and after years of posting here I'm too long in the tooth to be bothered. So thanks for persevering with my ineptitude.

Heh. It ain't the most intuitive interface, so don't worry.

What I'm trying to get across regards the anti-prog stance is that it's is a punk thing. Something that was put out there to almost validate some bands lack of ability.
It fits very nicely with the punk idealism that anyone can just get up and do it. Which isn't really true. Now the other side to this is just because you can't play too well or in some cases at all or with limited ability you shouldn't let this hold you back (The Slits).
However there were some bands/musicians that had been around for some time when punk arrived and they jumped aboard and played beneath their ability to be part of the new thing. Those bands that didn't try to play down their ability like The Stranglers were often sneered at.

Definitely, some turned the idea that skill level shouldn't be a barrier to performing into a dumb mandate that you aren't allowed to improve. Don't sneer at people who paw at their instruments, don't sneer at people who have achieved some proficiency. When I say anti-prog, it's about that attitude that there is an entry fee of skill. Where punk said anyone should be able to do this, prog said, hold on, only accomplished musicians, in mind and body, can do this. And then created music that demonstrated, nope, most of you won't be able to do this.

With the Sex Pistols they didn't choose to be anti-prog they just didn't care for that style of music anyway because it's too laid back and has little energy. They were inspired by the mod bands of the 60s who were all about uptempo r&b and beat music. Could Jones, Matlock & Cook have played stuff by the likes of "YES" well no but then they simply didn't want to either. It wasn't anything to do with punk being the antithesis of prog.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. Prog doesn't appeal to a general audience because it doesn't want to. It's elite and is meant for elite ears (those who "get" it). The mod stuff that inspired Jones et al was more populist, meant to be understand and embraced by the average kid. The approach kind of gets baked into the music. It took post-punk to get to that sweet spot where the music could be unconventional like prog yet accessible to non-musos like those who were attracted to punk. (In a curious way, then, it took punk to liberate prog from the elites.)

Interestingly a lot of those musicians in the prog bands had been in r&b bands in the 60s.

Right, and then they became ambitious in a way that rejected the amateur precepts of rock, that anyone could do this. None of this is about shitting on prog, even if it may come off that way, only that the attitude toward the music and who gets to do it does matter.

[Marky Dread]

Doc I've no idea how the "qoute" thing works and after years of posting here I'm too long in the tooth to be bothered. So thanks for persevering with my ineptitude.

Heh. It ain't the most intuitive interface, so don't worry.

What I'm trying to get across regards the anti-prog stance is that it's is a punk thing. Something that was put out there to almost validate some bands lack of ability.
It fits very nicely with the punk idealism that anyone can just get up and do it. Which isn't really true. Now the other side to this is just because you can't play too well or in some cases at all or with limited ability you shouldn't let this hold you back (The Slits).
However there were some bands/musicians that had been around for some time when punk arrived and they jumped aboard and played beneath their ability to be part of the new thing. Those bands that didn't try to play down their ability like The Stranglers were often sneered at.

Definitely, some turned the idea that skill level shouldn't be a barrier to performing into a dumb mandate that you aren't allowed to improve. Don't sneer at people who paw at their instruments, don't sneer at people who have achieved some proficiency. When I say anti-prog, it's about that attitude that there is an entry fee of skill. Where punk said anyone should be able to do this, prog said, hold on, only accomplished musicians, in mind and body, can do this. And then created music that demonstrated, nope, most of you won't be able to do this.

With the Sex Pistols they didn't choose to be anti-prog they just didn't care for that style of music anyway because it's too laid back and has little energy. They were inspired by the mod bands of the 60s who were all about uptempo r&b and beat music. Could Jones, Matlock & Cook have played stuff by the likes of "YES" well no but then they simply didn't want to either. It wasn't anything to do with punk being the antithesis of prog.

I don't think we're disagreeing here. Prog doesn't appeal to a general audience because it doesn't want to. It's elite and is meant for elite ears (those who "get" it). The mod stuff that inspired Jones et al was more populist, meant to be understand and embraced by the average kid. The approach kind of gets baked into the music. It took post-punk to get to that sweet spot where the music could be unconventional like prog yet accessible to non-musos like those who were attracted to punk. (In a curious way, then, it took punk to liberate prog from the elites.)

Interestingly a lot of those musicians in the prog bands had been in r&b bands in the 60s.

Right, and then they became ambitious in a way that rejected the amateur precepts of rock, that anyone could do this. None of this is about shitting on prog, even if it may come off that way, only that the attitude toward the music and who gets to do it does matter.

Yeah I think it's less about the actual music being played (even if that is out of some musicians grasp) and more to do with the elitist attitude. Though 10 minute drum solos etc were never going to be as exciting as cramming in 3 hi energy songs in the same time. Again though Sex Pistols were not exactly The Damned or Ramones when it came to playing fast songs.

When I hear the Pistols they just don't fit with other punk bands at all musically.

[Dr. Medulla]

When I hear the Pistols they just don't fit with other punk bands at all musically.

I agree. When I first discovered punk, it made me a bit disappointed, even contemptuous, of bands like the Clash. The Clash didn't sound "punk" enough. But time and exposure led me to appreciate that there was much more diversity and where there was commonality, the Pistols were still just a bit off to the side.