Sid Vicious: What's the big deal?

[Mattman]

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.

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?

[gypsy eyes]

But you can't say the SP are manufactered! that's just bs (see Sid Vicious thread)

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.

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 ? 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?

[Chris Misfit]

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?

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.

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!

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

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!!!

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.

[the dirt]

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...

[Miz]

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...

[Mattman]

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.

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.   

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

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. 

[Chris Misfit]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Freya]

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.

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.

[St.heathen]

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.

   

 

[MadmanDan]

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

[St.heathen]

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.   

[axls_locomotive]

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

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...

[Chris Misfit]

unfortunately punk doesnt want any fans

What do you mean by that?

thats why only a few people care for that genre any more...

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.

[Mattman]

unfortunately punk doesnt want any fans

What do you mean by that?

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.

[Chris Misfit]

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

[Mattman]

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

The Sex Pistols. 

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

[Chris Misfit]

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.

[axls_locomotive]

unfortunately punk doesnt want any fans

What do you mean by that?

thats why only a few people care for that genre any more...

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.

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

[Chris Misfit]

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Mattman]

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.

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?