Members vikingrat Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 There was nothing fake about John Lydon's anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted June 30, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 Wrong on all counts. "Arguement" isn't a word. The Beatles were more influential no matter how narrowly you limit things - punk rock, hard rock, metal, etc, were all far more influenced by The Beatles, just read/listen to the artists themselves. If you had made the same argument about The Ramones, of course, you would still be wrong, but at least you would be wrong about a far more influential and original band. So tell me which artist was not influenced by anyone or anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted June 30, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 30 years on and people are still 'angry' isn't that what rock is about?[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Krashpad Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 Ok, I'll jump in on this just because I dislike the Sex Pistols so much. First of all, the Sex Pistols are not and were never punk rock. They were fashion and cultural icons practically created and hyped a lot by Malcolm McLaren. They were a publicity stunt. They were a stunt of course, but the implication that such is somehow inimical to punk rock, or to them being a valid band, is both wrongheaded and historically inaccurate. The Pistols in particular were steeped in Situationist theory, which both McLaren AND Rotten were versed in. The confrontational aspect of Situationism is now, albeit long divorced from it's philosophical roots, one of the pillars of what makes punk rock punk rock.The influence of McLaren, while large, does not detract from the validity of the band and what they were doing. Britrock in particular had had a long history of sometimes extremely "colorful" "empressarios" who rather carefully helped cultivate their bands' images-- the Beatles had their Brian Epstein, the Stones had their Andrew Loog Oldham, and the Who their Kit Lambert. (On the American scene, don't forget Elvis' "Colonel Tom Parker," who was neither a colonel nor actually named Tom Parker, not for that matter even in born in the USA.) Does the existence of these manager types lead us to question the validity of their groups' music? No, nor should it. I'd note that a punk band seen as much more "serious" than the Pistols, and the yin to their yang, the Clash, had their Bernie Rhodes, AND a connexion to a fashion store, Acme Attractions, Don Letts' store that provided the most serious counterpoint to McLaren and Westwood's "Sex" shop.To anyone with a revisionist historical bent claiming the Pistols "weren't punk rock:" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elvisart Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 The Sex Pistols were a joke band. The band members were picked for their appearance and everything else was supplied for them. They were a boy band in bondage pants. Anyone who gives them any more respect than that is fooling themselves. Oops, better facepalm yourself. Steve Jones and Paul Cook were and are studio musicians to this day. Glen Matlock was a decent bass player as well, till he got dumped for Sid. The Sex Pistols are an icon of that era, just as the Beatles are an icon of their era. I'd rather listen to the Pistols than the Beatles myself, but I like a little aggression in my music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Krashpad Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 The Sex Pistols were a joke band. The band members were picked for their appearance and everything else was supplied for them. And this, sir, is a demonstrably false statement. CSM has already pointed it out, so I won't belabor the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr_GoodBomb Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 Apart from the fact that they wrote all the songs themselves (mostly -- lyrics: Rotten; music: Glen Matlock) and played all their own instruments on their records without the aid of session guys ... In other words: they created their own music without outside writers or players and, for what it's worth, they were one of the half-dozen most exciting rock bands I've ever seen live. Sounds like a fun show, and I can appreciate what you're saying. However, the fact that the premiere punk band so many respect and adore for being groundbreaking, innovative, and known to go against some big churning music machine was created by it like any other boy band is sort of counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr_GoodBomb Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 And this, sir, is a demonstrably false statement.CSM has already pointed it out, so I won't belabor the point. The band was produced. They weren't formed themselves, they were picked for their appearances and attitudes. That's fine for the Beatles (mind you, who could all play their instruments), but when the entire intent of the band, hell, the genre, is to counter that kind of machined image and music... it seems like bull{censored} to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willyguitar Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 The band was produced. They weren't formed themselves, they were picked for their appearances and attitudes. That's fine for the Beatles (mind you, who could all play their instruments), but when the entire intent of the band, hell, the genre, is to counter that kind of machined image and music... it seems like bull{censored} to me. I see your point in a way here... but the thing is, they didn't give a flying {censored} about being precious about the music or how it was actually set up, or whether they were 'created'. That, I think was completely immaterial at first, although they themselves were perfectly aware of the machine which they had become and the industry to which they had become slaves, and were sick about that too. Part of the point was precisely to get up people's noses by being cheeky {censored}ers who could appropriate the scene, by whatever means seemed possible or plausible. Of course there were contradictions, but that is part of the tragedy of any kind of mass publicised entity of this kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members csm Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 The band was produced. They weren't formed themselves, they were picked for their appearances and attitudes. That's fine for the Beatles (mind you, who could all play their instruments), but when the entire intent of the band, hell, the genre, is to counter that kind of machined image and music... it seems like bull{censored} to me. Don't know what you mean about The Beatles -- they were already an experienced unit and the top live band in both Liverpool and Hamburg before they ever met Brian Epstein. And now I want you to burn all your Jimi Hendrix Experience records -- Noel Redding was hired by a manager because Jimi liked his hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members angusjohnftw Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 8hzQsvxtLTM How punk rock... :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted June 30, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 How punk rock... :poke: Not too up on irony are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ralph onion Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 "Why Dont We Do It In The Road!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted June 30, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 "Why Dont We Do It In The Road!"Thanks Ralph but I am not that way inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scuzzo Posted June 30, 2010 Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 ok but you will need to defend such a thesis..Sid could not play.. he knew this.johny knew this, they all did..so... take each member and compare themthat would beMic Jones? = HarrisonSid = PaulJohn = John L or Paul? = Harrisionna thats just silly, the pistols knew they could were not musicans that what punk was about.. i will say the SexPs did a lot for the punk movement..but did they do more for modern music then the Beatles?na...nice troll though... so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted June 30, 2010 Author Members Share Posted June 30, 2010 ok but you will need to defend such a thesis.. na thats just silly, the pistols knew they could were not musicans that what punk was about.. i will say the SexPs did a lot for the punk movement.. but did they do more for modern music then the Beatles? na... nice troll though... so I never said they did more for modern music - that would be crazy. My stance is that they had a greater influence on modern ROCK. They bought the anger back into it and made it something that parents didnt understand again. I know other bands did as well but the pistols profile meant they had, and have, a lasting impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Oldskool Texas Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 My stance is that they had a greater influence on modern ROCK. They bought the anger back into it and made it something that parents didnt understand again. "Modern rock" isn't defined. Therefore, "anger" is a stupid yardstick by which to measure a band's influence on it. Even if we accept "modern" to mean "angry," the Sex pistols were certainly no angrier than The Who or countless other bands. And parents didn't understand them, either. There. All done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RogerF Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 The Beatles > Ramones > Sex Pistols. Besides, The Beatles were punk before punk was part of the musical lexicon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brianeharmonjr Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 Beatles win. Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stevenjuel Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 the sex pistols taught people that its still rhyming if you mispronounce words to make them rhyme with other words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ashasha Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 I never said they did more for modern music - that would be crazy. My stance is that they had a greater influence on modern ROCK. They bought the anger back into it and made it something that parents didnt understand again. I know other bands did as well but the pistols profile meant they had, and have, a lasting impact. Every generation has some sort of rebellious anger in it's music. It's nothing new; it's just evolved into a more obscene version. And I doubt that it wouldn't have evolved if the Sex Pistols were never formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Slave2TheAudio Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 haha The Beatles influenced the SP you moron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gumkick Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 I feel a bit dumb engaging with this question but possibly there's something interesting there. There were a few distinctive things about the Pistols; first and foremost I'd say Lydon's singing, that was hugely influential, second there's the lyrics, and third is the fact that they were a huge phenomenon. There's also the fact that they fired the only guy in the band who could write music and therefore became a one-album kind of phenomenon. The Beatlemania phenomenon was probably the biggest part of the Beatles' impact early on. They were a pop-rock band, influenced by Buddy Holly etc. who were somewhat less sophisticated than the Zombies, the Drifters or certainly Bacharach & David. Their lasting impact came from the fact that they had two of the greatest songwriters in pop history and in the way they were able to grow and improve over a long series of successful albums. As far as "today's Rock", I don't know. The contemporary scene seems to me to be distinguished by a thousand micro-genres in the "underground" and a revolving cast of generic American Idol types in the charts. Possibly the more appropriate precursors would be The Fall and Stock Aitken Waterman. I think the Sex Pistols are still an influence on angry young bands that want to do more or less relevant music. The Malcolm McLaren, "here's the brand new, outrageous, thing" side of them is at a low ebb right now. The biggest bands, Radiohead, etc., are more in the mold of the Beatles at least in their career ambitions. If you're asking whether Lydon's howl or the Beatles harmonies are more prevalent at the moment... well today's scene is so fractured, who can tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tlbonehead Posted July 1, 2010 Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 if, by Sex Pistols you meant, The Kinks, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knotty Posted July 1, 2010 Author Members Share Posted July 1, 2010 haha The Beatles influenced the SP you moron!You should have read the thread.However your vision, wit and force of argument leaves me feeling crushed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.