The Sex Pistols had a greater influence on todays Rock than the Beatles did.

[Preacher]

I like them OK, they're no Wire but they're better than the Clash, if just by virtue of their breaking up before trying to rap.

Now this I have an issue with. Someone is trying to dis the Clash? Really?

[Brian Krashpad]

The band was produced. They weren't formed themselves, they were picked for their appearances and attitudes.

No. That's false. Stop it. Jesus, this stuff could be found out on wikipedia if not dozens of other websites if you'd bother to look.

You're incorrect on your history. Two of the 3 instrument players (Jones and Cook) had played together in a band several years before Malcolm got involved. Jones went to Malcolm (not the other way round) for financial/management help for that band. At some point its then third member either quit or was fired, and Matlock, who had worked at Malcolm's shop where Jones and Cook regularly hung out, came aboard on bass.

Of the original 4, the only one who was "picked for his appearance and attitude" was John Rotten, and I have to say it was a {censored}ing brilliant choice.

A large part of punk has always been appearance and attitude, as might be said of rock and roll in general, so I remain mystified by your problem with the choice of Lydon.

[Brian Krashpad]

My statement about the Sex Pistols not being punk rock may seem harsh, but whenever I see them, its like watching the kids on the Disney Channel dress up like rock stars or something. Its all very cute. And I know the topic is about influence not originality, but everything that SP did had been done before just possibly in slightly different context. When your predecessors include bands like the Stooges, the Dolls, the MC5, Ramones, etc. its kind of hard to be "revolutionary".

Ah, but you've moved the target, haven't you. I didn't say anything about anyone being revolutionary. Just that your premise that the Pistols "weren't punk rock" is redonkulous. Which it is.

It's clear you don't like them, and thought their precursors better than them. That hasn't anything to do with them being punk rock.

[lawnchair]

Ok here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject:

By 1976, McLaren had started to manage The Strand, the band who would later become the Sex Pistols. He soon convinced them to kick guitarist/songwriter Wally Nightingale out of the band and also introduced them to bassist Glen Matlock (who worked in SEX). His assistant, Bernie Rhodes (soon to be manager of The Clash), spotted John Lydon who was then sporting green hair, and torn clothes with the words "I hate" scribbled on his Pink Floyd shirt. His appearance and attitude impressed McLaren, and Lydon, now dubbed "Johnny Rotten", was brought in to audition as a new frontman. Rotten joined, and the band was renamed The Sex Pistols (McLaren stating he wanted them to sound like "sexy young assassins").

Sounds pretty contrived to me.





Oh...almost forgot....

[Engl Kramer]

I'm noticing a trend. Maybe the real question is does anyone from the US like the Sex Pistols?

 

 

I can't think of a band that has had major success in the states that couldn't pass for an American band i.e. the singer has a passable American accent.

[Fulham Fallout]

reply to the post before last:

Not more contrived that how many bands get together. How DO you think bands come together? Sort of organically by transmitting thoughts through the ether? You need musicians, hustlers, visionaries and chancers.

And why does it MATTER how bands got together?

[guitarcapo]

The Sex Pistols had a greater influence on todays Rock than the Beatles did.

 

 

You are wrong and a liar. The fact that you are using the Beatles as a "standard" by which "influence" can be measured proves this.

[Alex W]

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:"

I you. You said everything I was about to say but you said it better than I would have.

[Brian Krashpad]

Ok here's what wikipedia has to say on the subject: By 1976, McLaren had started to manage The Strand, the band who would later become the Sex Pistols. He soon convinced them to kick guitarist/songwriter Wally Nightingale out of the band and also introduced them to bassist Glen Matlock (who worked in SEX). His assistant, Bernie Rhodes (soon to be manager of The Clash), spotted John Lydon who was then sporting green hair, and torn clothes with the words "I hate" scribbled on his Pink Floyd shirt. His appearance and attitude impressed McLaren, and Lydon, now dubbed "Johnny Rotten", was brought in to audition as a new frontman. Rotten joined, and the band was renamed The Sex Pistols (McLaren stating he wanted them to sound like "sexy young assassins"). Sounds pretty contrived to me. Oh...almost forgot....

Except you've edited it down to the 25% of the story that supports your premise and disregarded the rest.

It's no more contrived than Loog Oldham kicking out Ian Stewart for not looking right, or Epstein firing Pete Best both for not looking right (no moptop, among other things) and looking too right (being considered the best looking).

The Pistols found an interesting-looking person who turned out to be one of the most engaging frontmen in rock, and hired him. Oh, and the point that he had absolutely no prior experience as a vocalist is about as {censored}ing punk rock as you can get. Innit?

You've got it back-asswards.

[Brian Krashpad]

reply to the post before last: Not more contrived that how many bands get together. How DO you think bands come together? Sort of organically by transmitting thoughts through the ether? You need musicians, hustlers, visionaries and chancers. And why does it MATTER how bands got together?

 

 

It don't.

 

Some miss the forest for the trees.

[Alex W]

I'm noticing a trend. Maybe the real question is does anyone from the US like the Sex Pistols?

 

 

I'm from the U.S. and I would name the Sex Pistols somewhere in the top 5 or 10 bands that have influenced my music the most.

 

The argument that they were "put together" like a boy band is a strawman and inaccurate. I hate to say it but rock and fashion have always gone hand in hand, even in the 90's when rock fashion was trying not to look like a rock star.

[csm]

It's no more contrived than Loog Oldham kicking out Ian Stewart for not looking right, or Epstein firing Pete Best both for not looking right (no moptop, among other things) and looking too right (being considered the best looking).

 

 

Actually, a key factor in Pete B's ousting was George Martin's low opinion of his drumming ... and the band's growing friendship with 'the best drummer in Liverpool' ... Ringo.

[Brian Krashpad]

I'm from the U.S. and I would name the Sex Pistols somewhere in the top 5 or 10 bands that have influenced my music the most. The argument that they were "put together" like a boy band is a strawman and inaccurate. I hate to say it but rock and fashion have always gone hand in hand, even in the 90's when rock fashion was trying not to look like a rock star.

I'm from the US too.

Born in Memphis, adopted home of Elvis and a contender for birthplace of the blues. Was Elvis' gold lame' suit any more contrived than Johnny's bondage trou?

Methinks not.

[Brian Krashpad]

Actually, a key factor in Pete B's ousting was George Martin's low opinion of his drumming ... and the band's growing friendship with 'the best drummer in Liverpool' ... Ringo.

 

 

True dat, though we'll probably never know all the reasons at this point, given that Epstein, chosen to deliver the news, is long dead, and that the only reason Best was given is something along the lines of "the lads don't want you in the band any more."

[Muddslide]

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:"

Excellent post.

[Muddslide]

I can only speak for myself. Sex pistols have had absolutely 0 direct influence on anything I write. I know this because I have heard the Sex Pistols only enough to determine that they really weren't my bag.

 

 

In a sense, then, they influenced you by showing you, in part, what you did NOT want to be like with regards to your own music.

 

But I'm just being a prick.

 

 

Sorry, just don't care for them. Not crazy about the Clash either so...If I feel the need to connect to my inner punk,l I tend to turn to the Ramones. Maybe the fact that anarchy is such a horrible idea contributes to my general dismissal of the late 70's punk movement. Angst for the sake of having Angst is what modern punk strikes me as having. May as well be Blink182.

 

 

Yeah, the "faux-angst" is what turned me off to several of the old guard punk bands, and I agree that it IS prevalent in modern day "punk."

 

Im not calling you out specifically for this, but part of what you said that I bolded is one of my pet peeves when people are discussing punk. The idea that "Meh, all punk was was a bunch of snotty kids who only knew two guitar chords bashing around, making inept noise and whining and bitching."

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. True, there were many bands that could be described like so (and some of them were great!) and--also true--a lot of punk rock from the very beginning was either really generic, totally derivative or just very poorly executed (you could say this about ANY genre of music.)

 

But punk rock, even from the beginning (another source of argument) was in reality very expansive and covered a very large patch of territory. Some punk bands were loose and sloppy as all hell (Flipper.) Some were blisteringly tight (Die Kreuzen.) Some were oh-too-serious and political (most of that hasn't aged too well) some were far more thoughtful or humorous (Angry Samoans, Adrenalin O.D., Cruci{censored}s.) Some were barely able to play, some were very competent, inventive musicians.

 

There was a GREAT diversity among punk bands. Beefeater and Minutemen were funky and soulful (the latter also had one of the best, tightest and most unique rhythm sections ever in rock and roll) Husker Du was very influenced by 60s jangle-pop and bubblegum (as were The Ramones) The Dils and Meat Puppets had a marked country/twang influence. X and The Cramps brought alot of rockabilly and early R&B, Bad Brains were able to stir up some dub and reggae with equal skill to their loudfastrules assault. Mission of Burma was very dark and cerebral. Power of the Spoken Word and D.R.I. were (or became) "crossover" bands with a good deal of metal mixed in. Wire grew from minimalist straight up punk to deeply experimental to catchy synth-driven pop in three albums. The Fall have always been wry and literate, and have covered all kinds of musical terrain while always sounding like The Fall. The Butthole Surfers were immersed in psychedelic and garage rock and took those things in nearly unprecedented directions.

 

That's leaving aside the diversity evident even in specific bands from a specific era and scene--consider the late-70s CBGBs bands: Ramones, Blondie, Talking Heads, Television. That's a pretty disparate collection of bands.

 

That's also leaving aside all the "punk" that took place beyond the mid-80s and the "post-punk" (really dislike that term) bands that opened up and stretched out even more in the years since then.

[Elias Graves]

Man, I know nothing about punk really, but isn't every band "put together" by someone? Even cover bands choose members based on what they know, who they know and what they bring to the organization?

 

EG

[Muddslide]

Man, I know nothing about punk really, but isn't every band "put together" by someone? Even cover bands choose members based on what they know, who they know and what they bring to the organization? EG

 

 

 

I'd agree. Every band, and the music they make, is contrived to one extent or another. Every band has some kind of gimmick, even if their gimmick is to appear as free of gimmickry as possible.

 

As a famous jazz musician once said (even though the quote is often erroneously credited to Thurston Moore or Jack Brewer, I believe it was perhaps Coltrane or Dolphy who originally said it):

"Once the music leaves your head it is already compromised."

[knotty]

Screaming Lord Sutch!

Only kidding (sort of). The premise of the original thread question is pretty pointless. I love the Beatles massively, but the Sex Pistols changed my life, because as an obnoxious 14 yr old in 1976, they spoke directly to me in a language I could understand. AND they made a BEAUTIFUL noise! Even though they released their recds on major labels, the punk movement as a whole mobilised thousands to make music and get it distributed and heard via the independant labels (Small Wonder, Rough Trade, Raw etc etc and later Fast, Factory, 4AD, et al). Breaking up the stranglehold of the majors is a massively important part of punk's and the Pistols' legacy.

/QUOTE]

Now this is how I see it, (apart from the pointless bit or course)
Thanks for all the opinions.

[lawnchair]

Who knew such a simple statement would cause such an uproar. How dare I say that the Sex Pistols weren't punk? They're totally punk. The punkiest punks in the whole punkin' world.

 

They were a pointless, mediocre band that I've never seen influence anyone very greatly if at all...especially on the recent music scene. Johnny Rotten was not so much engaging as he was obnoxious and dismissible. He's made a career out of having a very loud voice with nothing to say.

[knotty]

You are wrong and a liar. The fact that you are using the Beatles as a "standard" by which "influence" can be measured proves this.

I think liar is a little out of line. The rest I dont understand.

Please get your mummy to type it out in grown up speak.

[lawnchair]

I think liar is a little out of line. The rest I dont understand. Please get your mummy to type it out in grown up speak.

Shazam! haha

[Alex W]

They were a pointless, mediocre band that I've never seen influence anyone very greatly if at all ...especially on the recent music scene. Johnny Rotten was not so much engaging as he was obnoxious and dismissible. He's made a career out of having a very loud voice with nothing to say.

 

 

Ok we get it, you personally don't like them. But to deny their influence in music is just a bit close-minded and silly. There are all sorts of bands that don't personally speak to me but I don't deny their influence simply because of my own taste.

 

"The Trouser Press Record Guide entry on the Sex Pistols declares that "their importance

[Edward]

How punk rock... :poke:

(p.s. ..... Keith Allen is here taking the piss out of folks like you.)

:x

[Edward]

Still can't quite believe how quickly some Beatles fans get soooooo defensive when their precious moptops get a perceived slight....

I like a lot of the Beatles stuff, but you have to admit they're massively overrated to some degree. Everyone is.