The Sex Pistols

asshat · 06-28-2009, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

I'm going off memeory and how the whole thing developed. It was only later that the who did what and when claims were made.

@ethan: I agree with your deleted post.

I suppose your right. Genres don't mean a whole lot without recognition of them....which makes any punk debate kind of silly.

sleepy jack · 06-28-2009, 05:47 AM

I don't necessarily think it's so much a recognition thing as the image and attitude the Sex Pistols had. The Ramones, as great as they were, had a quirky comic book charm and while their songs about sniffing glue were off kilter they weren't as dissident as the Sex Pistols. They were rarely political and you never saw them on television with their mock-Beatles haircuts and leather jackets cursing. I think what right-track is getting at, is even though the Sex Pistols were fabricated on many levels it was their persona and rise to fame that promulgated the punk movement - not the Ramones or any obscure garage rock bands prior to that.

Anyway, to restate part of what I removed. I think when people get into this discussions it's kind of silly. You can trace roots but genres aren't birthed, they evolve. It's very rare you can look at one artist and say they are objectively the first band of that genre.

**Janszoon** · 06-28-2009, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

As far as I'm concerned punk started with the Pistols. All earlier claims were made retrospectively.

My understanding is that the New York punk bands that came before the Sex Pistols were called punk rock at the time, named after the local underground music magazine of the same name. When Malcolm McLaren was in NYC working with the New York Dolls he got hip to the whole punk scene going on in New York at the time and brought the idea and the name back to London with him and formed the Sex Pistols.

right-track · 06-28-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

My understanding is that the New York punk bands that came before the Sex Pistols were called punk rock at the time, named after the local underground music magazine of the same name. When Malcolm McLaren was in NYC working with the New York Dolls he got hip to the whole punk scene going on in New York at the time and brought the idea and the name back to London with him and formed the Sex Pistols.

And only then did it enter the public consciousness.

**Janszoon** · 06-28-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

And only then did it enter the public consciousness.

Possibly, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't start with the Sex Pistols. That would be like saying rock n roll started with Bill Haley because he brought it into the mainstream.

right-track · 06-28-2009, 09:27 AM

We could go on and on about the in's and out's of a duck's arse and include Bowie and if you want The Velvet Underground and the Stooges too.
What was going on in New York bore little resemblance to how the punk movement developed, as we know it, between 76 and 79. As far as I know the U.S. didn't have such a phenomenon (even closely resembling it) until years later.
Where the foundations of Punk Rock began is a matter for those who wish to document it's roots. Personally, I think it's a pointless exercise.
Without The Sex Pistols and the British punk scene, I don't believe punk would have entered the collective consciousness at all.

**Janszoon** · 06-28-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

We could go on and on about the in's and out's of a duck's arse and include Bowie and if you want The Velvet Underground and the Stooges too.
What was going on in New York bore little resemblance to how the punk movement developed, as we know it, between 76 and 79. As far as I know the U.S. didn't have such a phenomenon (even closely resembling it) until years later.
Where the foundations of Punk Rock began is a matter for those who wish to document it's roots. Personally, I think it's a pointless exercise.
Without The Sex Pistols and the British punk scene, I don't believe punk would have entered the collective consciousness at all.

Hard to say. There's certainly no denying that they had a big impact though, especially in the UK.

right-track · 06-28-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Hard to say. There's certainly no denying that they had a big impact though, especially in the UK.

Have a look at the U.S. "punk" bands that pre dated the Pistols, then ask which direction they went in.

**Janszoon** · 06-28-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Have a look at the U.S. "punk" bands that pre dated the Pistols, then ask which direction they went in.

Er... I'm not sure if I understand this comment. I was agreeing with you. Are you disagreeing with me agreeing with you?

right-track · 06-28-2009, 09:46 AM

err...I don't know.

I may have posted my reply assuming you were going to disagree with me.

Where's all the fun gone?

06-28-2009, 09:27 AM	#216 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	We could go on and on about the in's and out's of a duck's arse and include Bowie and if you want The Velvet Underground and the Stooges too. What was going on in New York bore little resemblance to how the punk movement developed, as we know it, between 76 and 79. As far as I know the U.S. didn't have such a phenomenon (even closely resembling it) until years later. Where the foundations of Punk Rock began is a matter for those who wish to document it's roots. Personally, I think it's a pointless exercise. Without The Sex Pistols and the British punk scene, I don't believe punk would have entered the collective consciousness at all.

06-28-2009, 09:46 AM	#220 (permalink)
right-track Atchin' Akai Join Date: May 2005 Location: Unamerica Posts: 8,723	err...I don't know. I may have posted my reply assuming you were going to disagree with me. Where's all the fun gone?