JackJeckel

Because the Sex Pistols were ******* sellout drug addicts who did **** all to promote the punk scene and were doing what they did solely so they could support their next fix.

Not saying the Ramones weren't a bunch of glue sniffing dummies, but they weren't put together by some label dude with deep pockets.

2tonelol

You poor misguided fool.The music industry is rife with drugs,nearly every major music star you care too mention has had a substance abuse issue.From Elvis to Hendrix to Aerosmith to Whitney Houston.The fact that Sid Viscous was a herion addict doesn't mean the rest were.

The fact that the Pistols were formed before Malcom Mclaren (granted they didn't have a singer) seems to of escaped you to.Maclaren was no 'Dude with deep pockets' far from it he was eeking out a living in his clothes shop.

Any band that you listen to has been 'funded' one way or another as an investment to someone,normally a record company.


So tell me what bands you like that aren't drug taking,bank rolled w*****s?

__________________
Jesus is coming!!!! Look Busy!!!!

http://liquidator.mysite.freeserve.com/

TheBig3

Frank Zappa had much more talent than everyone listed and had no abuse issues,

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Anarchy doll

do some research before you slander...something I learned on this site...
the Pistols were NOT sellouts, as soon as they saw what McLaren was trying to do to them and exploit them, the broke it off and broke up, and followed their own musical desires, and made hardly and money to boot!
and they were NOT drug addicts, only Sid Vicious was a druggie and he was on his own, but is classified as a short time member of the band....
The Ramones WERE ALL druggies, and fine...whatever....they were a good band and did wonders in the name of punk, but did not promote the ideas of Anarchy and freedom in your own home rebellion like the pistols did, they were American too, and the Pistols were English, so they were rebelling against completely different things....the Pistols were political, where as the Ramones(to me) were rebelling against society in general, so they are equally good for what they had to offer....

sleepy jack

That aint true they may have been drug addicts and sell outs. But they supported the punk scene *******.

And the Ramones never said they sniffed glue they just did a song about it.

I wanted to make this short so i didn't dig up a bunch of **** to support me.

Oh yes and **** you jack off's to his mother jack

__________________

visualsynergy

You're wrong. The only member of the Sex Pistols that had a drug addiction was Sid, and even then his part was dubbed in by original member Glen Matlock. The Pistols did experiment with drugs recreationally and Rotten was picked up by the cops for having a little bit of speed on him, but that's about as far as it goes. You're either misinformed or just have no idea what you're talking about, so you might want to get the facts first before making false accusations like that. And Johnny Rotten was very much responsible for creating the whole punk ideology and helped to really get punk into the mainstream, so The Sex Pistols did more than The Ramones ever did in the name of music.

And Malcom Laclaren may have been manipulative, but he never stopped Rotten or the boys from coming up with their own ideas or making them change their image just to make money so he really had no effect on them artistically-speaking either way.

right-track

He didn't need to. His job of fabricating a band for his own benefit was already done.
I have the opinion that neither the Sex Pistols or the Ramones are punk.
The reason I say this, is that the Ramones were not even classed as a punk band by British punks at the time the Pistols were doing their thing, that came later.
And as the scene grew in England (which is ironic because punk was deemed dead by the music press after the Pistols ended) the Sex Pistols were looked down on by 'real punks', after McClaren was seen for what he was...a manipulator out for a quick killing.

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.

htownpunk1983

Sid Viscious was that way, but John Lydon and the others weren't, Sid happened to be more marketable, thats why his image grew to be the band image. John Lydons Book "ROTTEN" talks about it at leignth, its very good.