fao bollocks

[Wrightson fan]

Ya' hadda' be there, kid. They were awesome.

 

A guy i work with saw one of their last shows ever on their only US tour. It was at Randy's Rodeo in San Antonio and he said he went out of sheer curiosity. He said that someone threw a beer bottle that hid Sid in the face and he was bleeding. Rotten kept call all Texans "fa**otts and nearly got himself killed. Never Mind was a great album in my opinion, but according to my buddy they truly stunk it up as a live act. It was more like watching a bad car wreck than a band.

[tth2]

Nah, I disagree - only Sid was drug addled and couldn't play his own instrument. The rest could play, and in the case of Steve Jones, rather well.

Ah, you beat me to it!

[Wrightson fan]

 

They are the most overrated, craapy band in history. They couldn't even play their damned instruments. Just because a bunch of drug-addled happened to beat The Ramones by a year or two doesn't make them noteworthy.

 

I don't think they did?

 

Weren't the Ramones playing CBGB's in '75?

 

I think the Sex Pistols formed under a different name before The Ramones, but both bands broke around the same time in late '75 and '76.

 

In any case, the Pistols suck.

 

Now the Ramones, they were truly visionaries. Yes, they were doing their stuff before the Pistols, so the Ramones were first, and definitely better. Love me some "Bonzo went to Bitburg" Rest in peace Joey.

[october]

Ya' hadda' be there, kid.

 

So very glad I wasn't. When people laud a band for their "attitude" and nonsensical politcal ramblings more than their mediocre music, I tend to get turned off. For me that's as empty as liking Britney Spears for her [embarrassing lack of self control], or shiiity mall-punk bands for their sweet tattoos.

[goldust40]

 

They are the most overrated, craapy band in history. They couldn't even play their damned instruments. Just because a bunch of drug-addled happened to beat The Ramones by a year or two doesn't make them noteworthy.

 

I don't think they did?

 

Weren't the Ramones playing CBGB's in '75?

 

I think the Sex Pistols formed under a different name before The Ramones, but both bands broke around the same time in late '75 and '76.

 

In any case, the Pistols suck.

 

Now the Ramones, they were truly visionaries. Yes, they were doing their stuff before the Pistols, so the Ramones were first, and definitely better. Love me some "Bonzo went to Bitburg" Rest in peace Joey.

 

Still play 'em on the car stereo every so often. Although I tend to play the Clash a lot more...

[Darthdiesel]

I have to agree the Sex Pistols rocked there message Most people hate old school punk rock. You had to be part of the movement to really understand what they were doing It was very political. If it weren't for old scholl punk rock we wouldn't have what we have today.

 

This is true. The music may be gone, but the attitude remains...

 

 

...in wannabe thugs like 'Diddy' and his brand of hip-hop

[Ringfinger]

GABBA GABBA HEY!!!!

[goldust40]

I have to agree the Sex Pistols rocked there message Most people hate old school punk rock. You had to be part of the movement to really understand what they were doing It was very political. If it weren't for old scholl punk rock we wouldn't have what we have today.

 

This is true. The music may be gone, but the attitude remains...

 

 

...in wannabe thugs like 'Diddy' and his brand of hip-hop

 

Nope. Punk's attitude was, and apparently still is, completely misinterpreted by the U.S. It was never originally about violence and thuggery, but about individualism.

[october]

Correct. I believe it was a tour of the UK by the Ramones in 75 or 76 that actually inspired a generation of Brits to play fast and furious 3-chord rock. But the thing that the Ramones and all American punk bands lacked, at the end of the day, was true passion. Not surprising, considering they were almost all spoiled white middle-class suburban kids.

 

I stand corrected. I just looked it up, and although they formed in '72 under a different name, they didn't start playing 3 chord punk until after The Ramones.

 

So Andy (October, not Golddust), on all of the points in your post, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!! Even the part about not being able to play their instruments. Steve Jones and Glen Matlock could really play. Sid Vicious, however, was indeed just an iconic poseur.

 

It's an opinion, Tim. I think the band is vastly overrated for what they actually produced, which was one mediocre album that won acclaim because of their clothes and attitude rather than the music. For where I am sitting, they are almost as vapid as the prefabricated mallpunk bands that innundate the MTV airwaves. Ask yourself this. What kind of a band replaces their bassist for a guy who can't play worth a damn because he LOOKED better.

[goldust40]

Correct. I believe it was a tour of the UK by the Ramones in 75 or 76 that actually inspired a generation of Brits to play fast and furious 3-chord rock. But the thing that the Ramones and all American punk bands lacked, at the end of the day, was true passion. Not surprising, considering they were almost all spoiled white middle-class suburban kids.

 

I stand corrected. I just looked it up, and although they formed in '72 under a different name, they didn't start playing 3 chord punk until after The Ramones.

 

So Andy (October, not Golddust), on all of the points in your post, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!!! Even the part about not being able to play their instruments. Steve Jones and Glen Matlock could really play. Sid Vicious, however, was indeed just an iconic poseur.

 

It's an opinion, Tim. I think the band is vastly overrated for what they actually produced, which was one mediocre album that won acclaim because of their clothes and attitude rather than the music. For where I am sitting, they are almost as vapid as the prefabricated mallpunk bands that innundate the MTV airwaves. Ask yourself this. What kind of a band replaces their bassist for a guy who can't play worth a damn because he LOOKED better.

 

You hadda be there, kid.

 

The band stupidly allowed themselves to be manipulated by a svengali type manager...

[october]

I have to agree the Sex Pistols rocked there message Most people hate old school punk rock. You had to be part of the movement to really understand what they were doing It was very political. If it weren't for old scholl punk rock we wouldn't have what we have today.

 

This is true. The music may be gone, but the attitude remains...

 

 

...in wannabe thugs like 'Diddy' and his brand of hip-hop

 

Nope. Punk's attitude was, and apparently still is, completely misinterpreted by the U.S. It was never originally about violence and thuggery, but about individualism.

 

Punk is alive and well over here. In the past years I have been to dozens of punk shows and, other than the ill-fated straight edge movement of the 90s, there isn't any "violence or thuggery". Chicago has really been a focal point for the punk movement in the last decade, but with smaller venues like the Fireside Bowl and The Bottom Lounge closed, I am not sure how much longer it will last.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Nope. Punk's attitude was, and apparently still is, completely misinterpreted by the U.S. It was never originally about violence and thuggery, but about individualism.

 

I'd go with that 100%. US 'punk' never did get what it was all about. Punk was about standing out in a crowd, not being part of the mob.

[tth2]

Ya' hadda' be there, kid.

 

So very glad I wasn't. When people laud a band for their "attitude" and nonsensical politcal ramblings more than their mediocre music, I tend to get turned off. For me that's as empty as liking Britney Spears for her [embarrassing lack of self control], or shiiity mall-punk bands for their sweet tattoos.

It's absolutely ridiculous to compare the Pistols to Britney or any poseur bands of today. You are simply too young to realize how completely different the Pistols and the rest of the punks sounded (and looked) when they came on the scene in the mid-70s. Rock at that time was bloated, pretentious and corporate. Led Zep flying around in their jet, ELP touring with a 50-piece orchestra, Yes producing albums with maybe 3 songs in total. They were singing about Celtic myths and topographical oceans and stuff that was screaming "Look, rock music is too culture!"

 

And then suddenly you had just regular guys who played hard and fast and showed you could make records without being a virtuoso musician. And they were angry about stuff! Just think of how Nirvana re-energized the music scene in the early 90s, and then multiply the impact by 100 to understand how much the punks shook things up back in 1977.

[goldust40]

I have to agree the Sex Pistols rocked there message Most people hate old school punk rock. You had to be part of the movement to really understand what they were doing It was very political. If it weren't for old scholl punk rock we wouldn't have what we have today.

 

This is true. The music may be gone, but the attitude remains...

 

 

...in wannabe thugs like 'Diddy' and his brand of hip-hop

 

Nope. Punk's attitude was, and apparently still is, completely misinterpreted by the U.S. It was never originally about violence and thuggery, but about individualism.

 

Punk is alive and well over here. In the past years I have been to dozens of punk shows and, other than the ill-fated straight edge movement of the 90s, there isn't any "violence or thuggery". Chicago has really been a focal point for the punk movement in the last decade, but with smaller venues like the Fireside Bowl and The Bottom Lounge closed, I am not sure how much longer it will last.

 

I was referring more to post-punk bands such as Joy Division, The Bunnymen, Gang Of Four, Sisters Of Mercy, right through to the Britpop bands like Suede, Blur, Pulp, Oasis, etc.

[goldust40]

Ya' hadda' be there, kid.

 

So very glad I wasn't. When people laud a band for their "attitude" and nonsensical politcal ramblings more than their mediocre music, I tend to get turned off. For me that's as empty as liking Britney Spears for her [embarrassing lack of self control], or shiiity mall-punk bands for their sweet tattoos.

It's absolutely ridiculous to compare the Pistols to Britney or any poseur bands of today. You are simply too young to realize how completely different the Pistols and the rest of the punks sounded (and looked) when they came on the scene in the mid-70s. Rock at that time was bloated, pretentious and corporate. Led Zep flying around in their jet, ELP touring with a 50-piece orchestra, Yes producing albums with maybe 3 songs in total. They were singing about Celtic myths and topographical oceans and stuff that was screaming "Look, rock music is too culture!"

 

And then suddenly you had just regular guys who played hard and fast and showed you could make records without being a virtuoso musician. And they were angry about stuff! Just think of how Nirvana re-energized the music scene in the early 90s, and then multiply the impact by 100 to understand how much the punks shook things up back in 1977.

 

Well, I love Zep, but basically that appraisal is spot-on!

[tth2]

Punk is alive and well over here. In the past years I have been to dozens of punk shows and, other than the ill-fated straight edge movement of the 90s, there isn't any "violence or thuggery". Chicago has really been a focal point for the punk movement in the last decade, but with smaller venues like the Fireside Bowl and The Bottom Lounge closed, I am not sure how much longer it will last.

Is there really still a punk movement in the US? My impression is that hardcore has become a real parody of itself, or been usurped by all the mall-punk bands, as you so accurately call them. In my opinion, the true punk attitude was kept alive not by hardcore but the industrial bands, particularly the Wax Trax movement in Chicago, Ministry (after they stopped being a synth band but before they went commercial), etc.

[october]

Ya' hadda' be there, kid.

 

So very glad I wasn't. When people laud a band for their "attitude" and nonsensical politcal ramblings more than their mediocre music, I tend to get turned off. For me that's as empty as liking Britney Spears for her [embarrassing lack of self control], or shiiity mall-punk bands for their sweet tattoos.

It's absolutely ridiculous to compare the Pistols to Britney or any poseur bands of today. You are simply too young to realize how completely different the Pistols and the rest of the punks sounded (and looked) when they came on the scene in the mid-70s.

 

Obviously I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole to make my point, but you still aren't making much of a case for them being a worthwhile as a band. I understand the cultural shift they spearheaded, but that doesn't make them A GOOD BAND. I don't care about their clothes or their ethos, I want to enjoy listening to the music, which I don't. I am not going to sit there with my headphones on and say to myself "wow, these songs suck, but they still kick [embarrassing lack of self control] because they were the death-knell for 70s pretentious classic rock". They may have been the first, and they obviously shook things up, that doesn't make their songs more listenable.

[october]

Is there really still a punk movement in the US? My impression is that hardcore has become a real parody of itself, or been usurped by all the mall-punk bands, as you so accurately call them. In my opinion, the true punk attitude was kept alive not by hardcore but the industrial bands, particularly the Wax Trax movement in Chicago, Ministry (after they stopped being a synth band but before they went commercial), etc.

 

I honestly don't even know where to start, and it makes me sad that someone who obviously knows his stuff thinks punk is dead on a grassroots level. Like with anything worthwhile, you have to dig to find the good stuff. MTV has sunk its souless claws into underground music almost from the beginning, and punk is no exception. Just because Good Charlotte, Simple Plan and Sum 41 have tats and piercings and wear black t-shirts, doesn't mean they are punk. Like someone said earlier, Punk is about individuality. Here is a link to a underground music zine I help produce which might be a good place to start if you are interested.

 

http://www.jadedinchicago.com/

[tth2]

Well, I love Zep, but basically that appraisal is spot-on!

I too love Zep, and Yes, and Pink Floyd, and many of the other leading practicioners of "pomp rock" (except ELP, whom I loathe), but the mid-70s had become a real creative dead-end and a wake-up call was desperately needed.

[october]

except ELP, whom I loathe

 

Oh, comeon! I saw them several times when I was a teenager and one time Keith Emerson descended from the ceiling playing a piano. Later he threw throwing knives at various onstage objects. It was sweet! My buddy slept through the whole show.

 

Actually, I think I still have the ELP, Jethro Tull concert shirt I bought when I was 16. What a hilarious time.