Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Taking a suggestion from the Avril Lavigne thread, I've decided to expand into its own thread my question: why is Sid Vicious such a legend among the punk community.  I said that he couldn't play his instrument, that he never wrote anything, and that he couldn't sing.  And I believe it was gypsy eyes who said, "you could say the same about Kurt Cobain...haha."

But the thing is, when I say that Sid Vicious couldn't do any of those things, I mean he REALLY couldn't do any of those things.  Whether you like Kurt Cobain or not, you have to admit that, at the very least, he knew a few chords on guitar, kept in tune while singing, and wrotes songs (whether you think they're good is a different matter).  Sid, on the other hand, simply DID NOT do any of those things.  A lot of times in these threads, people say, "oh, so-and-so can't sing or play guitar" or whatever.  But the thing is, technically most of those people can.  Sid Vicious, though, was not a musician.  What often gets overlooked is that he was the second bass player for the Sex Pistols...it was Glen Matlock, the original bassist, who wrote a lot of their classic songs.  Sid couldn't play bass at all, and I mean that in the most literal sense of the term.  He didn't write anything.  As for singing....want a good laugh?  Download Sid's solo rendition of Frank Sinatra's "My Way".  Then tell me that he can sing.

From what I can tell, Sid is a legend because he embodied the non-musical side of punk.  He had the hair, the look, the destructive nature.  Live fast, die young.  I really can't think of any other reason.  But I really can't tell for the life of me why Sid Vicious is as much a punk icon as someone truly worthy of that title, like, say, Joe Strummer.

Well, it's balls, for lack of a better word.

The media and popular culture always need someone to look up to.

The funny thing is, so many punks look upto him (I call them hair punks, because they're more into the fashion than the music). This is what really baffles me. Why Sid? Why not Jimmy Pursey? Why not Rik L Rik? There's thousands of people who have their finger on the pulse of punk rock, and have supported it for years, and you choose Sid to look up to. You may as well look up to Avril. I thought punk was DIY, rebellious, explosive, not all hanging round like sheep trying to look like that drugged up areshole.

And let's not even start about the fuckin' Sex Pistols, whom I like, but let's face it, they were a bunch of stupid little posers.

I can't excuse it from any punk fan, who thinks he's an icon. We're all one remember?

I've already PMed Gypsy about this, I won't get pissy about it. But I am looking forward to hearing reasons why they look up to Sidney.

hey im a pistols fan but i dont look up to sid vicious some of the shit (actually most) he did was ludacrisy...my punk icons are the clash it wasnt about looks to them.



hair punks...i call them fashion punks..there the ones who HAVE to have a mohawk and HAVE to  have bondage pants and HAVE to have a leather jacket....

There we go, then.  Sid Vicious was the icon of superficial fashion punks, and nothing more.

exactly... although he was kinda..cute..

i got 'The Filth and The Fury' DVD and it explains alot to you from the band members and afew others, one of the best docu's i've seen, it's gets right into everything.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums it up though Mattman.
He died young, thats why he's a legend.
and anyone who puts Kurt Cobain down with Sids talent doesnt know music very well.
Kurt changed music forever, he had enough talent to do that. : ok:
Sid couldnt play shit.

Nancys death, Sid dying so young and other mysteries behind him, has made him "a legend".

He is a legend beacause he was a member of the Sex Pistols and died young - when he was alive he also managed to act like a complete cunt all the time and murdered his gf.

Its a kind of story music writers cream their pants for. When they write about him they call him a legend, and so people start to believe that.

Thats all there is to it.

Yeah I guess he was kinda, sort of cute :yes:, but if you really want to see a film that depicts the life of Sid, you should see 'Sid and Nancy' starring Gary Oldman. That film really just shows how he wasted his life, and really how he couldn't sing at all. :hihi: People really only look up to Sid Vicious, not because of his talent, if he has any that is, but because of the way he died, and what he did before he was arrested for murder. I doubt very much people these days care about his singing, only the way he died for love- for Nancy. The story of Sid and Nancy is very much a dream for writers, and thats exactly why they make such a fuss over him. It's such a different luv story that its perfect 2 write about. And they'll probably keep writing about it for years to come......

wow you took that the wrong way buddy, i didn't say "same could be said about kurt cobain" because he couldn't play either, I'm very well aware that Sid REALLY can't play, at live concerts some guy backstage played his parts... wonder why, everyone knew he couldn't play, before the SP he'd never even been in a band!  :hihi:
No I said it because you said that the only reson he's such an icon is that he died young and in "weird" circumstances! So did Kurt Cobain... Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Kurt wasn't a huge influence on people or that his music didn't mean shit!  Nirvana was a great band and I like their music, I just think that they are a bit overestimated (*ducks for furious Nivana fans*) Face it, if dear Kurt hadn't died (killed himself or not) he would still be a huge influence yeah, but kids nowadays wouldn't know him anymore, just like they don't know Guns n' Roses anymore :'(
So that's what I meant by comparing him to Kurt Cobain, Kurt also lived dangerously and died very young and in suspicious circumstances and the whole mystery around his death only makes everything about him more magical... while if he hadn't died (then) he'd just be that smack junk who was lucky enough to record a few albums and score some hits ages ago ::) Even though he's more than that! It may not sound like it but I do love and respect Kurt! : ok:

Oh and I when i sugested to open up a thread about this I didn't know you were actually gonna do it! :hihi:


Joe Strummer kicks ass! :D : ok:  no really, I love that guy and to me he's also a great punk, I'm glad you brin him up, he was very important and made some huge changes too! :D and no doubt he was (technically) a better musician than Sid!




are you saying I'm a "fashion punk"?? I'm not even punk! Ok some people would label me one but I tell you I'm not! I don't have a mohawk (ok i have bondage pants and a leather jacket but I just like those ;D I have bellbottoms too and my jacket has Pink Floyd pins, I'm pretty sure Sid wouldn't be caught dead with a Pink Floyd pin :hihi:) and I'm not punk, but that doesn't mean I don't know/respect their culture, punk ahs had a huge influence on my life and I do look up to Sid, not as being a super icon or anything, but I repsect him and what he stands for and I won't go around denying his legacy, that's just impossible to do!




May I correct you there and say that he was CHARGED for killing her, the case was never really solved. It's a bit like Kurt Cobain's (yes him again :P) suicide... it's generally assumed that he killed himself but nevertheless there are tons and tons of arguements about it, remember the whole "dead men don't pull triggers" thingy?
His "suicide" isn't a real fact, noone really knows what happened. Same with Sid, things with Sid and Nancy were even much more confusing! I personally believe in the suicide pact-theorie, i think it'd make perfect sense, espeically seeing the way those two lived, and it'd explain a lot about Sid's own death aswell :yes:  but you are free to believe what you want, if you wanna say that he killed her that's fine but by the sound of it a lot of people here don't know that much about him so don't tell them things that aren't true!

Ok and now to explain why so many people love Sid Vicious:


there's your answer...

Let's first get to the basics: what's "Punk"? A music genre? WRONG!!!
Punk my dear is a lifestyle. It was a respons to the 60s hippies. Everyone says how revolutionary the 60s were but fact is that the biggest changes happend in the 70s. The 60s were more for the upperclass, the real lowlifes were still breathing hate and anger, and that whole revolution only made them more and more agressive, they lived of hate!
Then at a certain moment everythng exploded... no more love and peace and understanding, but a big fuck you to everyone, fuck the corporate suits, fuck the hippies, fuck you all!!! Punk was very agressive, it had breeded for so long and now it came out as a powerful beast, destroying everything on it's way. Punk was not sweet, it wasn't pretty, it was nasty, gritty and dangerous. You couldn't get around it, you were either 500% punk or you were 500% against punk, no going in between, exactly because it was so agressive and radical. Punk was all over the place, it was a true lifestyle, involving a.o. MUSIC!!!


But can you really call Punk music? Punk bands weren't friendly musicians who wanted to write songs and touch people, they wanted to get on stage to spread the anarchy that ruled their lives... No more sweet words, hard action! Punk had set all the confused teenagers, all the oppressed people, all the poor, all the outcasts free and they were gonna kick everyone on their way in the head to get back at them for discriminating them and holding them down for so long, they were strong and they couldn't be stopped, not on the streets and not on stage! The Sex Pistols are one of the early punk bands, they were not the only one, but they were for sure the sickest one! An early Motley Crue you could say. They look like trash, they sweared, they caused riots, they were criminals, they spread their hate throughout their "songs"... they were the ultimate punks. Something to look up to? Doubtfully. If a band like the SP would excist today they would get locked away and noone would pay any attention to them. But they don't live today, they lived in the 70s, when "the times are hard and thrills are cheaper", a time full of anger and fear and the punk movement (with its clothes and music etc) fit right in...


Why did the SP get big? Why of all bands the SP? They were the sickest! They lived punk, they were as bad as it gets and that's exactly what punk was all about. But (other than most punk "bands") they had a way of getting their point across. This combined to their "horrible" shows (think of jumping in the audience, throwing up all over them, at least ten fights every night, burning flags etc) made them notorious, and noticed by record compagnies... Now the real sick punks would just get kicked off their label after one stunt too many, but the SP (eventually) signed with Virgin Records and they wouldn't let them go no matter what! They insisted on getting the SP known worldwide (Richard Branson was a fan, that's right ;D) and they did. The SP were a huge influence, that's why they are so big, even still today...
But then why aren't other bands like The Germs (amazing Punk band! check em out ;)) and the NY Dolls so big? Well they are, to tons of musicians (GnR too) credited the Dolls and the Germs, IMHO Johnny Thunders is just as important as Sid Vicious, only he isn't famous and honored by so many people... so why is Sid?


Now the answer's simple; the SP were HUGE, everywhere! and Sid embodied Punk... he was probably the worst of them all, the fact that he can't play isn't a reason why he shouldn't be an icon, it only makes him more important! The SP were everywhere so Sid was everywhere... if you compare him to GnR you could say that Sid was like Slash... he wasn't the main person and it wasn't HIS band but he put the guns in it, he was in the spotlight, and hell he was loved! Punks all over the world found an idol in him, for the way he looked, talked and behaved, much more then the way he played the bass, because he sucked at that ;D Add to all that that Sid created one of the most beautiful, sad and mysterious lovestories ever (with Nancy!) and the fact that his death has such an aura of mystery around it and you have the perfect legend : ok:


anything else you needed to know? ;D

SP got big because of Bill Grundy. No matter what, without the low intelligence, and utter control the press have over the british, they wouldn't have been fuck all. Rotten even said 99% of the stories are untrue.

They were carefully marketed by Malcolm. He blew off other punk bands who didn't fit into the elite, ie: Who he could not control or try to pass off as a product. He was in control of all the big punk gigs at the time, The Clash, Pistols and Johnny Thunders, he blew off other punk bands who did not want to be controlled by him. He was a tyrant. When the Clash decided to go off on their own, he, and Rotten tried their upmost to upstage them, and promote them as a right wing group. What is punk about anything the Pistols ever did? What is punk about that?

And let's make it clear that The Pistols were never part of the punk movement ever. Why? Because they were never a true punk band, they couldn't give a shit about punk. Punk to them was the spotlight, and a cheap thrill, a five minute escape from the lower class regions of London, and when the going got tough, they fucked off.

Punk has not, and will never, EVER be about money and popularity. Those who believe so are idiots, and have missed what the true spirit of punk is.

Read up on the UK punk scene at the time, ask the Damned what it was like back then.



Bullshit. It took them over 10 years to shift half a million copies worldwide. Where did you pull that one from? The TV?

because he was a "fantastic disaster" that's why......... nothing more.

If Anthony Keidis or Jon Bon Jovi were to die today people would say oh....that guy was great too..... :no:

Oh god... I mentioned Keidis and Bon Jovi in the same sentence with Sid - I'll ask the priest how many hail-marys it will take to save me tomorrow......

Here's to ya Sid - I apologize  :beer:

I guess it's cos of his rebellious image that people looked up to him. People see someone with an image of being a rebel and doing what they want and they think "oh man that dude rocks, he totally does what he wants and doesn't give a shit, that dude deserves respect...i'm gonna act just like him".

But also i don't care what anyone thinks, the Sex Pistols were a good rock band. Never Mind the Bollocks is a good rock album. They might not have been the most technical rock group but they pulled off a few good rockers.

I've read a lot of crazy shit on this board, but the idea that the Sex Pistols weren't a punk band, that they weren't part of the punk movement, is the craziest of all.  They had all the elements of punk - the look, the buzzsaw guitar, the snotty vocals, the fuck-you attitude, the insane live shows.  And yes, they had the attitude.  It doesn't matter whether they were manufactured or not.  The point is that they were the ones who wrote "Anarchy in the UK", "God Save The Queen" and all those punk classics.  They personified the anger of lower-class British youth (which is what they were), against government, against society, against 70s dinosaur rock acts that had no meaning for people anymore.  They were not just a punk band, they were THE punk band.

I just don't understand the punk ethos that popular=bad.  The fact that the Sex Pistols were huge in their day doesn't make them any less of a great band.  On the contrary, the fact that they were so popular at the time of the British punk explosion is what made them so influential among the next generation of rockers.

No they weren't. Punk would have existed without them. As I said they were a great band, but the way they went about things was not punk in any way. Saying "fuck you" is not punk, unless you're a 15 year old virgin. You've just wrote a pile of steaming horse tripe without arguing any of the points I made. Bob Dylan has been saying fuck you for years to the system, is he a punk? Stop watching shitty punk documentarys and get out there in real life and see for yourself.

How were the Sex Pistols part of the UK punk movement, by the way? You said they were. Name one instance they ever stood for punk? It may be a crazy comment, as you said, so crazy infact that I don't think you'll be able to prove me wrong.



Right. So here we go. I posted what, twice, and already you're making stuff up. I never said that. I said the way they went about getting popular was not punk. If they want to make money, I don't give a fuck. The way they pissed over the punk scene, and bullied bands out of gigs, and tours because of their popularity after the Bill Grundy show, was nothing short of disgusting. As I said before, do some research on the UK punk scene.

I realise it may not have been the Pistols themselves, but they allined themselves with Malcolm, and that proved their downfall. A punk band with a fucking manager, haha.

The press made the Sex Pistols, they're the people you should thank for your idea of "punk".

Before there was British punk, there was the American prototype.? The Stooges, the New York Dolls, all those arty bands that played at CBGB, and the Ramones.? The Ramones were probably the most influential of these on the British punk movement.? So why are the Pistols so important?? Simple - they were the FIRST significant band in the British punk movement.? They were the ones who played around Britain in 1976 and inspired groups like The Damned and The Clash.? They were also a heavy influence on DIY post-punk groups like The Cure and Joy Division, but that's beside the point.? Basically, the Sex Pistols in their early touring set the standard for punk - the look, the attitude, the basic sound, the speed.? People who saw the Pistols thought, "hey, those guys only know a few chords, and the frontman can't sing, but they ROCK.? Maybe I can do that..."

That's the primary reason why the Pistols are so important - they were the primary immediate influence on the first wave of British punk rockers, not counting the Ramones.? And isn't that what punk is really all about, in terms of the musical aspect?? Where you don't need a whole lot of skills on your instrument, what you need is something to say.? The Sex Pistols had those qualities.? Their instrumental ability was basic at best, but they could play what they needed to express thier anger and rage.? What's not punk about that?? See, your problem is that you get so into this vague concept of "punk" as an ideology that you forget what made it matter in the first place - the music.


They pissed all over the punk scene exactly because they didn't give a fuck.? And that's really a punk attitude, isn't it?? Who cares if they had a manager or not?? Do you think those guys would have been able to pull themselves together and manage themselves?? Why is it so un-punk to have a manager?? To the best of my knowledge, the rise of punk wasn't inspired by a generation of spiky-haired British kids going, "Dammit, you shouldn't NEED to have a manger to form a band!"? It was more like, "we don't need to know classical scales to play in a fuckin' rock band!"?

I think you're really confusing the issues here to fit in with your vague concept of what it means to be a punk.? You can talk all you want about how the Sex Pistols weren't the real deal because they had a manager or because they didn't play nice with other bands.? Whatever.? But the Sex Pistols inspired a great number of the first wave of British punk bands, and set the standard for punk's look, attitude, and basic sound.  For you to say, then, that they had nothing to do with the British punk movement is either stubborn ignorance or sheer stupidity.

nah im not saying that...i mean they feel the need in order to be punk they need all those

Each of those bands were inspired by MC5, New York Dolls. They had nothing to do with the Pistols. Pistols may have been playing gigs, but the Damned were the first to play across the UK and even across the water, and the first to release anything.


I cannot ever remember stating that the Pistols could play. I don't think I ever brought into question the fact, they didn't have what it took to be a punk band. I said their attitute towards money, fame, and other bands was un-punk. Punk is not about who can make the fattest cheque, the biggest tour bus, and have the most fans. But that's what the Pistols were all about. Glorified pop stars who used curse words to win over a nation of prats.



I believe it's the music that matters, I own over 400 punk albums, have spent thousands supporting punk, and travelled all over europe. Hence the reason I  am so pissed at the way the Pistols treated other punk bands, and are glorified by the media. For if it were not for the media, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

What I understand as punk is not something that can be bought, or something that can be sold. And it's not a fucking lie either. So it's therfore not the Pistols.


Haha. What? How is it punk to destroy your own scene. Punks stick together. See, your problem is you've been reading too many magazines that glorify ANARCHY and CHAOS. One word ryhmes that supposedly desribe a whole scene.


As I said before, prove me wrong. I bet you'll go a long way before you find a band from that era, that states that the Pistols did any good for the punk movement, or had any involment in it (unless it's the fucking Jam). What's sheer ignorance is the fact that you disregard my opinions, without actually taking into consideration the ACTUAL UK PUNK SCENE.

By Gypsyeyes^^^^

Ok. Why was Glen kicked out? Because Sid had "the attitude" that sounds pretty manufactured to me. Rotten and Glen now admit that Malcolm stirred shit between the two of them, to get Sid in the band, because he knew that Sid could sell. That is manufactured.

Well, if you'd actually read what I wrote - about the Sex Pistols setting the archetype for British punk - you'd know why.? But if you want more evidence...Joe Strummer was playing in a Pub Rock band called The 101'ers until, after seeing a Sex Pistols gig, he was inspired to form The Clash.? Indeed, the first public gig of the Clash was supporting the Sex Pistols.? The Buzzcocks formed after they saw the Sex Pistols in High Wycombe, February 1976.? The Damned were early supporters.? How is there no influence there?

You keep on telling me, "oh, this isn't punk" or "that isn't what punk is about."? You know what?? I would LOVE to hear you tell me what punk IS all about.? So tell me, Mr. Musicology: what is punk, according to you?

oh goodie ::)


i mean that the SP weren't manufactured in the beginning, where they came from, they were real! Sid did get in because he had the attitude yeah, not because he could sell though but yes he had "the right attitude".... nothing to do with music but with the fact that the whole band (and the whole punk scene) was about? ATTITUDE!!!


Does that mean that the press didn't jump on the SP like hungry animals? That they didn't make them big and gave them such a badass reputation? That noone managed and promoted the SP? of course not!
They were huge and they wouldn't get that way without the press and all that shit, but that's the case for any punk/rock/rap/pop star! Once you get on that train to succes it's out of your hands, even for such dangerous punks... but the beginning of the SP was real, they weren't picked up from the streets, put together in the studio and told "ok from now on you're a band, play these songs and look dangerous" like is the case with some of those "punk" (and other) bands nowadays ::) if you're gonna deny that the whole punk scene was so big and influential then i think you have a serious problem and you're the one here who doesn't know what he's talking about!


Another thing you said here: the SP weren't that big because they didn't sell so much and didn't tour around everywhere... well duh they got banned from most places... you have to understand that times were VERY different back then, try reading up on the UK punk scene ;) :P? but they were huge and a great influence to many musicians, there are enough bands who paid tribute to them to prove that if you won't take my word for it!




And Mattman (at least i think it was you who said it, sorry if it was someone else), I know you love the Ramones by now but the NY Dolls were at least as big, they also got boycotted and everything but they were very important to the whole punk scene! Check out the song "New York Boys"... guess what band they're singing about? :D : ok:

Look, man, I've tried this several times, and whatever I write you're just gonna rip it apart with "That's the Sex Pistols". ANd you'd be right. But what I'm saying is the way they went about things was not punk.

And don't even fucking dare question my musical knowledge. Ever.


Where did I say that. Look, this has happened three times in this thread. Do not make stuff up. I never said that.


It was about attitude. I didn't fucking say it wasn't. I'm really getting sick of this shit. READ WHAT I FUCKING SAY. Yes.

So they were at one point, not manufactured, as you said "in the beginning" but yet the Pistols have stated Sid was drafted in because he could pull a crowd.

I don't find much wrong with having the attitude, the bells and whistles, on top of having the ability to draw a crowd as well, though...

The Sex Pistols where just a bunch of people assembled by their manager and who where "anarchic".

And on topic, Sic Vicious was a prick.  Nothing more needs to be said.


The only thing I'm left wondering is how old Gypsy Eyes is...

No.  You haven't said anything about what punk IS, just stuff that you think is NOT punk.  This is less of a challenge than a genuine question...I really want you to tell me about your definition of punk.

Anyway, you cleared things up a little bit by saying that it was the way the Sex Pistols went about things that was not punk, not the band itself.  Okay, maybe.  To be perfectly honest with you, I never really thought that much about the Pistols' dealing with success, outside of trying to shock everybody and doing killer live shows until Johnny Rotten got annoyed with the whole thing and quit.  But you say that they made things more difficult for other bands, etc.  Well, technically I would say that that's more the fault of Malcolm McLaren than the band itself.  Then, of course, we'd get dragged back into a debate about whether the Sex Pistols were manufactured.  But ya know, whether they were or not is really beside the point for me.  I don't really care if they were manufactured or not...all I know is that they were fun live, they influenced a lot of bands, they shocked many Britons at the time, and Never Mind The Bollocks is a kick-ass album.  That's really all that matters for me.

But come on, give me your definition of punk.  I really am interested.   :yes:


There's no real point in trying to sound tough on an internet message board where you don't know anybody.  Easy does it there, Chris.  ::)

Punk is  lower - middle class people playing basic, fast rock n' roll music. It is a retalation to whatever popular culture produces. It's honest and direct, made by the people, for the people. It is supporting yourself, the scene, your friends without faliure.  It's a stand against everything you yourself dislike, and being able to alike mided people in a world where you thought there were none.



Wise up. I don't give a fuck if you think I'm a cunt or whatever. But you've taken what I said the wrong way. I was not trying to act or sound tough, I would never do that. Although, it's not the first time I've been accused of it. But I honestly wasn't.

The Pistols were definitely manufactured from the way they were promoted to their fashion.   But that doesn't necessarily make them "not punk".  I think the band's intentions, although nihilistic, were pure.  I have a problem with the supposed punk ethos of popularity equals sell-out.  Anything that becomes anthemic like that and speaks to a lot of people cannot be bad imo.  Of course, it is short-lived. 

I think anybody who stands on a stage and wants people to hear their music, is commercial, period.  That's not a bad thing. 

What makes Sid Vicious such an icon is just the timing.  He was a bloody, charismatic mess and of the moment.  Live fast, die young and leave a sexy corpse.  His short life totally represents that willingness that a lot of young people have to be fearless.  His musical ability is really besides the point.

Having read John Lydons book- i like hearing from the people themselves not just read general articles ect. But He hates the whole labelling thing, he hates being considered Punk.  He hates the way Sid bought into the image and became another tragedy - come hero - rock star. 

The Sex Pistols were important and Nevermind the Bollocks will always be seen as an important album.  Doesn't matter what you want to label it.  It has some great rock records on there with real gritty snarling - sit up and listen - lyrics.

I think the manufactured label is a bit over blown.  Yeh they had a manager and they looked for a singer and they found one. Whats wrong with that?  Doesn't take anything away from their impact as a band they had on the media and society.  It's easy to be cynical in this day and age and look back at this and that with todays attitudes.  But they really shook things up big time. They were chaotic, nasty and in your face.  And people were scared of them - kind of like the reaction Marilyn Manson had at around Portrait/ Antichrist. They caused outrage and they fucked the whole system.   

But they had a couple of great songs and that's the important bit. They captured the young minds of britain.  Don't forget they were in/around their late teens early 20's themselves.  So they were expressing what their generation were thinking.  And of course the media helped blow it all up and label it and the general idiotic public bought into it all.

But look as close as GN'R, history repeats itself.  GN'R were considered too cool for Metal and to Metal for Pop and to successful to be Blues or Punk lol.  The news reports that have been written about GN'R over the years have been just as outrageous. Some people believe it all and either love them or hate them on that media hype basis alone.  And some take what they hear with a grain of salt and make their own minds up after hearing and seeing the band for themselves.  Those people "fans" who buy into the whole image media hype thing always sound like idiots anyway.  Like the goth scenes and what they call Punk these daus !? Makes you sick man. lol  But you will always have the purists and the commercial side to fans won't you?

If your a fan of music and have looked into the history of music you'll know that "New Rose" by The Damned is considered to have been the first "punk" single of that era and what an awsome song that is!  So of course the Pistols weren't pioneers or anything. But they helped blow it all up and alot of bands got more exposure from it. 

Sid - i can't help but like him.  I think his version of "MY Way" is sheer class, you can't help but smile when it comes on.  It musically massacres and  stamps on what's considered a golden crooners classic - it's fucking fantastic statement lol 

He was a prick and of course he was  - you wouldn't have said it to his face because he would have smashed your face in.  And he could take it back, if you have seen the footage from their US tour that bottle that hits him in the face, he doesn't even flintch then starts cutting into himself - he was fearless.  It's not cool and it has nothing to do with music. But its iconic and it's tragedy, he was in the Pistols for less than a year and didn't record a note .  But embodies the whole rock star - live fast, die young image that remains a strong statement throughout rock history.

   

 

Personally, I think that a musician that doesn't write music shouldn't be treated with any respect. Yes,including Elvis!

I wouldn't totally disagree with you on that point.  Although personally i have a new found respect for Elvis. I have been giving him my time lately.  I bought the '68 comeback DVD,  just a few weeks ago  and man it is really really good. He had such a rock star presence and was an important part of Rock history.  Ok, i wouldn't go out and buy everything to do with him. But i can appriciate a good performer or singer or songwriter. Very rarely  do you get all three qualitites unfortunately. 

"Suspicious minds" is a great track to.  The fact he had little songwriting input doesn't really matter. His ideas in his performance were still his and he lived the rock star life to the full, which many have followed.

But as everything i guess it's all down to taste but aslong as you have given it your time  and made up your own mind, then cool.   

a million artists have written crap songs...

the interpretation of a song by a singer who sings it like they mean it is far superior to an average singer who writes his own songs

the sex pistols made people sit up and listen to punk...unfortunately punk doesnt want any fans...thats why only a few people care for that genre any more...

What do you mean by that?


Only a few? That's fucking insulting. What independent genre sells more records? 5,000 people come from all around the world for the HiTS festival every year. Punk is bigger now than ever. And I ain't talking about Green Day fans.

Just because you don't see it on your TV screen, doesn't mean it's not there. I expected a bit more intelligence from you Q.

I think what he's trying to say is that punk doesn't like itself to get too popular.  Whenever a punk band starts to sell too many records, people immediately yell "sellout!"  Q's got a point there.

Name one punk band that sell records, that people call sellouts?

The Sex Pistols.  :hihi:

We're having this discussion. aren't we?

No. I ststed the way they went about selling albums was not punk. I never said they sold out. They were never in to be out.

Now, name some bands.

hey mate i meant no offence...its just the way i see it

5000 fans really isnt a lot of people for an annual festival is it? i admit its more than i thought it would be...but when you compare it to say, the darkness, a single band who sold out the 10000 seated SECC in less than a day...

the "punk doesnt want any fans comment" was similar to what mattman said (although i dont think most punk bands are sellouts), plus i think punk tends to push people away from its genre...if you really do want fans but you push them away at the same time then you really are fighting with yourself arent you...its just an observation over many years...no offence chris, i respect your passion, i doubt there is anyone more knowledgable about punk on this forum

you say punk is a rebellion against popular culture, so therefore punk doesnt want to be popular does it? but i sense from you that you want punk to become popular...i see all the conversations about the work you do to promote it...but isnt that in itself trying to popularise punk? where does the boundary between punk and popularity start and end? needless to say i dont get it...why is popularity so bad? i can understand if it was mass marketing...popularity is a good thing imo

Yes, but we're talking about something that is independent. 5000 is a huge number for something that is promoted by word of mouth. I ask you, name one festival in the world that can draw those numbers without media assistance.



In a way, but not by money, not by forcing it on people.By giving people more of a choice. Of course, I'd love to see the bands make a living, but it won't sell out.



I mean, there's so many factors. A band cannot be big nowadays without signing a major deal. A major deal means they're wanting you to be a product, and that doesn't go.

Popularity is great. No doubt. And me and many other will fight for bands to have somewhere to play, somewhere to sleep, somewhere to record. But that's it. Why does it need to be on TV? To be respected? Balls.

The Dangerfields sell 7 records everyday in the UK. Totally DIY, there records are not in stores. That's pretty impressive. But why bring in a record company? Because then you're a product. Plus, you get no money. So the Dangerfields keep it small and make money off their music.

Plus they can sell an album for 3 quid and profit, whilst other bands waste their time trying to be cool.

Well, I've always thought punk-pop was a good example.  Bands like Blink-182, Sum 41, New Found Glory, are met with disdain in much of the punk community, even though their music is almost exactly like what the Ramones were doing 25 years ago.  What's the main difference?  The Ramones never sold a lot of records.  The bands I've just mentioned, though, have.

I was wary of mentioning those bands, because I figured that, you being a real hardcore punk fan, wouldn't consider them punk.  But then I realized...WHY don't you consider them punk?  After all, even the Ramones did punk-pop, and they're legends.  So why not Blink, et al?  Could it be because they sell a lot of records?

I'll tell you why. Because it's a tired trend, and sound. It's worn out. The whole skatepunk/So-Cal/Fat Wreck bullshit is looked upon as fake because the whole scene was formed by rich college kids, who want to be funny, Piss off their mummy (seriously, you're gonna compare shitty childs humor with the Ramones) and wear expensive desinger shorts, t-shirts and pull funny faces at every opertunity, because it's RAD.

Where is punk in all of this? The mad shows that the Ramones got famous for had have been replaced by ?40 stadium tours. The ripped jeans from oxfam have been replaced by desinger ripped jeans at ?85. The raw energy of great production of Ramones CDs has been replaced by crystal clean CDs with expert production, so every note is crisp and clear and absolutely on key. The long hard tours and support for local punk promoters have been replaced by CLEAR CHANNEL.

Do I really, really, need to go on?

IT'S FUCKING CORPORATE.

Fact is, loads of punk bands have been on majors. SOIA did two records on a major in the 90's. Big deal. Nope. Because they didn't go corporate.

PS - I've never called any or even discussed those bands with other punks, in regards to their music. Simply because their music reeks of money.

I do love a good pop-punk band though. See Green Days first two albums, Undertones, Ramones, Groovie Ghoulies. EVE6, Co.UK.

Can everyone pay attention. I have, again and again stated on this board, so many times, I'm so sick of it. I am trying my best not to throw a fit here. But I don't know how many times, I have stated "THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SELLING RECORDS. IT'S THE WAY YOU GO ABOUT IT" or words to those effects. I am seriously pissed off at the "....You think selling records are bad, blah blah blah" . It seems you have a conception of me, or punk, and you really have to get over that

ok i must admit i cant name another festival ...i guess thats impressive...i think


ok i see what you mean...choice....ok
this is something that doesnt sit well with me...there are thousands of new bands every year...im sure ive seen many on tv radio wherever...there are only a few i like, most bands i can listen to but wont buy their records...i think i have a good range of music to choose from dont i?, sure some of it is corporate, but most are people who want to be singers, writers, guitarists etc

when you look back 10 or 20 years ago there was only 1 or 2 cable stations...now there are a dozen or more...radio stations were few but now there are thousands available right across the world playing just about everything including punk...isnt that choice?



i wholeheartedly agree with you, some would say living that hard life of living rough while gigging is a great life though and im sure many here look at that life and wish they could live it...

tv, yea...but it has to be somewhere though doesnt it?


ive seen their website, its not very good...theyre redesigning it i see...if you know they need help with their site then id be happy to help...

Of course there's plenty across the internet. But on british radio there's not much. Radio 1 might have their punk show, but they'll only play stuff that is on major record labels. Which again, I don't have much of a problem with, because they're there to make money. That's their agenda. You do get the odd song on the radio that isn't off a major, but 99% of the time, that band is only on the radio to see the reaction they get from listeners. IE: The agent for the record company doesn't want to take a chance: That is why bands like the Hives, Lostprophets, Terrorvision and many other bands re-release singles.



It's been like that since for at least a year. I don't think they're too bothered. Touring is the main plan.

And rightly so, if your not gonna get air time, then you tour like a motherfucker for god knows how many years and let people hear your music that way. Call it old fashioned but i fucking love The Dangerfields and for what they are doing with their own music.

Fuck off back to belfast you bastards
Only if you come too

I fucking love those cunts

Yep me too...if u havent seen a real punk band in a while and u live near a pub or a park anywhere in the UK..The Dangerfields will probably play there at some point in time.

achwell i assume that not accepting a freebie is part of the punk attitude....lol

I agree with everything else in this post, but what do you have against the music being in tune?  ???

Nah, I'm sure they have someone doing it. I'm just not sure how sober they are. I've offered to do things in the past, and have spoke to them about using the internet to it's full potential, but they don't seem bothered.


You're taking what I said out of context. What I mean is, it has to be perfect by commercial standards.


I still await the names of all these punk bands that are labelled sell outs.

And in response to what Q said about more record stations ect, There are more bands now than ever. One out of 10,000 get a major (when I say major, don't think that means they won't end up in debt) record deal, the dream. Record agents come and go like yo-yo's, IF you're fortunate enough that your agent stays with the company long enough, you'll get airplay. If not, you'll probably get shifted to some minor label that works on behalf of said major label. Work hard enough (IE: Make the company money without them spending) and you'll be brought back up. That;s if they remember about you.

Everyone thinks that punk destroyed record labels and stations, it didn't. It made them aware that they can be shafted. Remember how many novelty punk bands were signed towards the late 70's, early 80's? They shafted us straight back, by selling us a watered down form of something we created. Where are they now?