visualsynergy

Where did you get your information from? He may have manipulated the members of the band and got them at eachother's throats just to create a false sense of chaos, but the lyrics, ideas, and sound all came from the Pistols themselves and Malcolm really had no say artistically because he really wasn't that creative from what others have said. Read Johnny Rotten's biography and watch The Filth and the Fury to get a better understanding of who The Sex Pistols really were. The Ramones were labeled punk only because they were part of the alternative wave of groups to come out in the 70's in America, which also included Talking Heads and Blondie, so I'll give you that one. But the Pistols helped create the sound and philosophies of the punk genre, so they definitely deserve a lot of credit for that. The Sex Pistols are basically revered today as the definitive punk band, and if anyone looked down on them because of their manipulative manager then they're idiots. Why would you judge an entire band on the guy who helped get them record deals? Many bands have had less than noble managers and they weren't looked down upon because of that. I really don't see any logic behind that.

right-track

The Sex Pistols didn't create the sound and philosophies of the punk genre, but were a product of a previous underground movement, consisting of a small number of bands, playing small pub venues to an equally small audience.
These bands, like their audience, were tired of what the mainstream music scene had to offer.

They couldn't play their instruments and were crap and knew it. What really mattered, was the philosophy that anyone with an attitude and something to say, could pick up a guitar and do their thing, without having to have a degree in music and a University background.

Enter McClaren and with it the Sex Pistols and with that, the media.
And with that, the end of an ideal.
It could even be argued 'logically' that the Sex Pistols, by default, were the opposite of the definitive punk band.
All McClaren and the Pistols really did, was borrow from an already existing musical subculture and bring it to a wider audience, packaged for the mainstream.

visualsynergy

I said that they helped create the sound, and the chaos and impact they caused on England during the late 70's had only been rivaled with bands like The Beatles, and even then it was more because of the fact that The Sex Pistols did and said whatever they wanted and actually had a real message that they wanted to get out to the masses (at least Rotten did). Johnny Rotten was sick and tired of being looked down upon just because he was born into a lower class and rebelled against the separation of classes in England and thought that the whole idea of monarchy was bull**** and he basically helped start a revolution with his music. Who else used those philosophies as effectively as he had in their music pertaining to punk or pre-punk? The Sex Pistols started out like all those other bands, playing small pub venues and other small audiences; they didn't just become popular or mainstream overnight. And just because they were popular doesn't automatically mean that they "sold out" either. The Pistols did help get those philosophies of standing up for what you believe in and fighting inequality into the mainstream, and even if they couldn't play their instruments as you say they made some damn good catchy songs. I don't know where you've been getting your info from, but all of the original Pistols could in fact play their instruments (Cook and Jones weren't the best ever when they started but they got better as they progressed and they could play the songs that were put out in front of them); Vicious was the only one who couldn't play his instrument and that doesn't really count because his part was dubbed in by original member Glen Matlock anyway.

Using others to influence you isn't simply stealing and it doesn't make you a "fake", because if you go by that rationality then every punk band that came after the Pistols and (and after those so called small bands that played before them) weren't really punk at all. Again, you're not elaborating enough to be convincing or telling me where you're getting your information from, especially when a couple of things that you've said were downright false. You may not agree with what the Pistols did or like the style of their songs, but you can't deny the impact they had on punk and music in general.

__________________
"Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone."

cardboard adolescent

Wait, the Pistols started a revolution?

Where the hell was I when this happened?

sleepy jack

Well probably on dads jeans or something.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

so that's how the magic pants got mommy pregnant

right-track

I never said I didn't like the Sex Pistols.
I was referring to the pre punk pub bands, when I stated they couldn't play their instruments particularly well.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything and reading Johnny Rotten's biography (which I have) or watching the Filth and the Fury in order to gain a better understanding of who the Sex Pistols really were, is no substitute for remembering the overall vibe towards them at the time.
And if that stunt with Ronnie Biggs wasn't an attention seeking 'sell out', then I don't know what is.
The Sex Pistols weren't fake..they just weren't the real thing.

visualsynergy

Johnny Rotten made it clear that he thought the stunt with Ronnie Biggs was a bad idea and wanted no part of it, and he even sued (and won) Malcolm Maclaren because he disagreed so strongly with how he tried to run things and he wanted everyone to know that he wanted no part of what Malcolm was trying to do, which was just make as much money as possible marketing "his" band in any way that he could. Rotten wrote the lyrics (though Matlock did help him on some songs) and got the ideas out; the other Pistols played their instruments and did what they wanted but Rotten was the driving force of the band. I think memories can be deceiving because they're just based on personal perception; what's important is the facts and I've read up a good deal and seen enough of the Pistols to know that they made a huge impact on the genre of punk and music as a whole. Are you saying that they weren't the real thing just based on your memories of that time? I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to say really.

__________________
"Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone."

right-track

I'm trying to point out the perception of the average punks opinion of them, once it was apparent that McClaren was out for a killing.
And that the Sex Pistols weren't really the first and that your comment about Rotten getting punk into the mainstream wasn't seen as necessarily being a good thing.

visualsynergy

I think I see what you're saying, but I just don't know why anyone would judge the band on the fact that their manager only cared about making money, even though Rotten wanted no part of it and genuinely loathed Malcolm (as well as Vicious). I personally don't see how getting punk into the mainstream would be a bad thing because in the Pistols' case it was the best way for them to get their (or at least Rotten's) message out and for anyone to hear them other than the people at the small pubs that they started out at. I'm not claiming the band to be perfect in every way because they did have their weaknesses and the other members besides Rotten did seem to care more about publicity than having a real message, but I still say that just by their impact alone on the media and the punk scene they do deserve a lot of credit for that.

__________________
"Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep and you weep alone."