Punks Show How Unpunk They Really Are

[Fuggle]

Punks Show How Unpunk They Really Are

March 12, 2006
Scott Butki




Oh, John, you have let your fans down again.

I have debated with others at Blogcritics about the Sex Pistols. Personally I'm a Clash man, preferring a band of musical quality and integrity to the manufactured crap that was the Sex Pistols. To me, the Sex Pistols were all about marketing and getting lucky. Frankly, I wondered if they would even be remembered if Sid hadn't offed himself.

When I wrote my list of annoying overrated bands, I made a point of including the Sex Pistols, which some disagreed with.

Earlier in the month there was much talk about a note — exact author unknown — from someone representing the Sex Pistols saying they would not play at the Rock and Roll Induction. As usual, some say it's a punk move while others said it smelled of marketing and posturing.

Which brings us to the latest comments by John Lydon - formerly Johnny Rotten.
Johnny boy went on the radio show of Steve Jones - the Sex Pistols former guitarist and the one member who seems to be living a DIY lifestyle rather than just talking the talk. While on his show Lydon brought up the topic of spitting and throwing things at the performer.

A Dummies Guide to Spitting and Punks

One of the odder trends to come out of the punk movement was the habit of some fans to spit at singers. A disgusting habit, that. But it's hard to get more punk than to spit gobs at a singer, right?

I just googled "Sex Pistols spit" to see what came up and the first item was this headline: "Sex Pistols spit on Hall of Fame honor." The second Google item was about the awful movie The Filth and the Fury, and a review of it begins this way: "The 25-year hissy fit between Malcolm McLaren and the Sex Pistols continues to rage in Julian Temple's engaging documentary about everybody's favorite spitting, puking punk band."

I could go on. I did the Google search because I wanted to make sure I was not going crazy as thinking the Sex Pistols — the "original" punk band — would be pro-spitting. I mean what can be more demeaning or disgusting an act for a fan to do than to spit on a performer?

Here is what Lydon said that has my saliva gobbing up and ready to spit on him: The fans that throw things at him - let alone spit at him - are the "fans we hate the most." This from a guy who previously would brag about how he'd act exactly that way to others. Meanwhile, the band has sold their back catalog for use in advertising and there are rumors of Sex Pistols action figures being in the works.

This seems to me an odd way to acknowledge the coming 30th anniversary of the seminal album. But maybe it's appropriate since they always seemed more interested in selling products and making money - the reunion tour was evidence #8,988 of that - than of actually taking ideological stances.

Lydon complained on Jones' show that the band has to fight allegations about the band. "We're Sex Pistols; we ain't fake," said Lydon. Methinks he doth protest too much.

John Lydon — now a property investor with a portfolio of over $1 million — I spit in your general direction.

Oh and if you have read this far and are hoping for news of another Sex Pistols reunion I have more bad news for you: Lydon says he could not do it because of stage fright. That's right, Mr. Performance Artist, part of such stunts as cussing on live TV and causing a spectacle during the Queen's Silver Jubilee, is scared to perform.

If you want to listen to good current punk check out Bad Religion or Anti-Flag.

Scott Butki was a newspaper reporter for more than 10 years before making a career change last year into education. He is presently in a master's program so that he can teach elementary or middle school.

[Fuggle]

#1
Dave Nalle
URL
March 12, 2006
12:19 PMI think you missed the context of Lydon's comment about the fans. The Sex Pistols ALWAYS made a point of hating their fans. The despised and derided them from day one. That was part of their charm. They were such absolute dickheads. For them hate was how they expressed themselves.

As for a reunion or a performance at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, there's no way it could happen. They could barely perform when they were young and in practice. There's no way they could bring themselves up to even that level of minimal two-chord viabilitty today.

Dave
#2
A.L. Harper
URL
March 12, 2006
01:44 PMScott I have to agree with Dave here. They always made it a point to hate their fans. When I was 16 that was one of the things I thought made them so cool. Too cool to care kind of a thing.

I also agree with you however in that they really sucked. Now I look back on them. I always did prefer the DK.


#3
Vern Halen
March 12, 2006
03:59 PMNo, I don't think it can be said they sucked. They were a "tightly sloppy" li'l rock 'n' roll unit, if you get my meaning. Musically, just listen to that 4 note guitar solo in "God Save the Queen," or that pause & chuckle before the first verse of "Anarchy." Lyrically, there's the disturbing "Bodies" (which ought to be the final word in the prolife/prochoice pair of monologues), or that insane song about going on holiday to Belsen to see the gas chambers. I like the Clash for other reasons, but the Pistols didn't suck - mostly because they didn't care if they did or not.
#4
Scott Butki
March 12, 2006
04:07 PMDave and A.L., you're right I did miss that important point. They probably could care less if their fans threw cds at other artists - they are just making a point of insulting their own fan base.

But yes, musically they are quite underwhelming.
#5
Scott Butki
March 12, 2006
04:54 PMWell, that explains why most media focused articles lately about the Sex Pistols on them selling out by putting their catalogue up for sale by advertisers.
#6
LiamFan
March 12, 2006
08:21 PMPersonally, I've never heard a Pistols song used in an ad, but I've heard numerous Clash tunes used on commercials.

And Joe Strummer himself would disagree with your putting quotes around "original" when describing the Pistols. If it weren't for the Pistols, there would have been no Clash, not to mention any of the "new" punk bands mentioned.
#7
Scott Butki
March 12, 2006
09:49 PMI just got an email about your comments.
I'll go post this over there:

You may be right that there would not be a Clash without the Pistols but that doesn't change whether the
Clash were more talented, had more integrity or were interested in ideas more than money than the Sex Pistols.

I put "originals" because there were U.S. bands like the Ramones that could be considered precursors to the Pistols.
I lost a lot of respect for the Pistols when they did their reunion tour.

To me comparing the two are like comparing the Beatles with the Monkees... except if the Monkees came first.


#8
LiamFan
March 12, 2006
10:17 PMScott, you're younger than I am if I remember correctly. The Pistols came out when I was 19 and Rick was 17. You might feel differently had you been there at the beginning. Hearing 'Anarchy in the UK' for the first time was, quite simply, a life changing experience. In the midst of the musical wasteland that was disco, there was suddenly something exciting and completely different from anything that came before. While the Ramones had what would later be labeled the punk sound, there was no political agenda, and to pretend that the Pistols had no political bent is naive, despite the marketing that surrounded them.
#9
T
March 12, 2006
10:41 PMScott, i think the other point you missed is that John and the boys were all about screwing the system for cash. They took EMI, they took A&M, they took their fans money and did nothing in return..that's what it was about. The music was a sideline.

You have to remember music at that time was dominated by Gary Glitter, Bay City Rollers, and other glam rockers who were completely out of touch with the immense poverty that was going on, not to mention the garbage strike that went on for years--that's why john wore trash because that's what he knew, that's what he saw everyday. They should be remembered for the truth that they lived, adn brought to the stage.

Malcolm was the ass who screwed them over with the bullshit marketing and taking more than his share of the dough. The boys were broke at the end of it all.

So, my point is this, if John wants to make some dough then he's got my support. Maybe their music wasn't great but they did us all a favor by bringing back the spirit of music being raw, emotional, and three cords of pure anger.

What we need now is another band like them to rid us of the Gary Glitters of our time and boy there are a million of them----if I ever see any band claiming their punk when they are pop---I will spit in their face and scream Pistol's lyrics as I laugh and walk away...
#10
Vern Halen
March 12, 2006
10:51 PMLet me throw a tip of the hat to the ORIGINAL original punks - those garage bands of the 60's that really didn't care about fame, fortune or music, because they didn't know any better. All hail the Kingsmen, the Seeds, The Count Five & The 13th Floor Elevators and all those cut from the same cloth - could the Pistols have written something as vulgar as Paul Revere & the Raiders' "Crisco Party?"
#11
Scott Butki
March 13, 2006
12:03 AMThanks for all the comments.

---------------


Telling people to have anarchy - yes, that's a message.
Taking the record companies money -yes, that too is a statement.
But I get rubbed the wrong way when they tell their fans how they should act at their concerts. That to me is suggesting submission to rules, not anarchy. That may be because of their weird relationship with their
fans but to me that reeks of hypocrisy - be tough and rebel.. just don't be so tough and rebellious at our concerts that you hurt us..


Ok, nuff said by me on this. I'm headed to bed.

Good nite.
#12
A.L. Harper
URL
March 13, 2006
05:23 AMScott -

Who knew this would be such a contentious issue. I didn't know there were that many old punks still hanging around out there.


#13
Sister Ray
URL
March 13, 2006
07:36 AMI was a teen when the Pistols came out in the 1970s, and my suburban high school peers could not have been less interested. For me, punk rock was something you read about in magazines but never heard on the radio. Bands like Boston were much more popular at school.

I enjoyed some disco and liked the idea of punk, even though I didn't hear much of it, so Blondie was up my alley.

Vern Halen, I hadn't heard of "Crisco Party." Sounds wild.


#14
Scott Butki
March 13, 2006
08:32 AMA.L., I sort of suspected I was going to hit a nerve on this.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me.

I had my Sex Pistols stage during college orientation when I wrote a t-shirt that said anarchy and said what I most wanted in college was chaos and anarchy.
And then there was a point where I realized that wasn't really a clear path to follow.
Then I went back to fighting the isms - racism, sexism - and started listening to more Clash, U2, Peter Gabriel - and others who were also political but with more of a message about what to do with that anger we all have.

And with that I'm off to what will be my final student teaching class for many months due to some problems I won't go into here publicly.
#15
Barry Stoller
URL
March 13, 2006
09:23 AMThe reunion tour was a big disappointment, a false (possibly desperate) move, but let us remember that Lydon really did the unthinkable back in the day: He broke up the SP right as they stood on the edge of the big time. Who else did that?

And then followed it with PiL, which delivered the goods (at least for a few albums).

He's OK with me.
#16
J. P. Spencer
URL
March 13, 2006
10:18 AMI have to agree with Vern regarding '60's garage bands. I'd also add the Stooges, the MC5 and the first incarnation of The Modern Lovers to that list.

I have to give Scott credit for stating the obvious too; the Clash were a much better band than the Sex Pistols, but remember that the Clash were one of the exceptions, not the rule. Of all of the bands from the first wave of punk, maybe ten lasted more than 18 months together, and the ones who did radically changed their musical approach in later years. I can think of The Damned, The Clash, Wire, The Ramones, XTC (do their first two records count as punk? hard to say) The Jam and The Fall from those first days. If you wanted to reaaaallly stretch it, you could throw New Order and Elvis Costello in there.

DIY is and was a wonderful thought and a cool approach, but unless there was the underpinning of either adventurous songwriting or instrumental talent, you didn't last. A good example is X-Ray Spex, who had one great album in "Germ Free Adolescents", and that was it.

Even with all of that, I miss it. It helped wash the taste of disco out of my mouth permanently, for which I'll be forever in their debt.
#17
Pete Blackwell
URL
March 13, 2006
03:35 PMBad Religion were "good" "current" "punk" 20 years ago.

The Pistols were ok. At least they had the good sense to die quick and painless-like, unlike your beloved Clash. Sure, there's not a $1 million portfolio amongst those guys.

Every time one of those awful lite-rock stations plays "Rock the Casbah" one more unbearable time, they make a nickle. Since that song is undoubtedly playing somewhere on the radio at every moment of every day...well, you do the math.

The most punk quote of all time was said by Lemmy of Hawkwind/Motorhead fame: "We're the kind of band that when we move next door, your lawn dies."
#18
T
March 13, 2006
03:55 PMTo me, punk was an idea-it was a deconstruction of music, tearing away what the pop groups of the day had built. I would say that rap went through the same stripping. People were sick of hearing about things they couldn't relate to. So that's when music becomes real.

As for talent, well that is subjective as it is with any form of art. But I'm all for washing away that which is unrealistic and out of touch.

Mainstream music today blows, but i am all for the internet and the indie bands who are producing the next great wave of music. Maybe this way, the public will tell radio what we want to hear instead of the record companies...anyway I digress

P.S Lemmy rules!
#19
drzej
March 13, 2006
04:25 PMI remember hearing "Anarchy in the UK" for the first time at age 10 and it was as if someone opened the door and yanked me into the music world by my shirt collar; it was that dramatic.

A similar feeling was hearing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for the first time at a nightclub and people literally stopped dancing to watch the video, and the DJ even replayed it. You knew something big had just happened.
#20
Scott Butki
March 13, 2006
05:03 PMI hate "Rock the Casbah."
It figures that my least favorite Clash song was their biggest hit.



#21
Guppusmaximus
March 13, 2006
08:09 PMI was never a fan of The Sex Pistols either and I agree that The Clash were way more talented, maybe not Punk they way I think of it but I wasn't old enough in the 70's to have a clue.
I think maybe you are a little to harsh on The Sex Pistols but it's nice to read an opinion that isn't sucking the teet of popularity...

Some great Punk bands(That lasted or not):
U.S. Bombs-"The World"
The Showcase Showdown-"Permanent Stains"
Darkbuster-"22 Songs that you'll never want to hear again"
Meat Depressed-"Deface the Nation"
Choking Victim-"Crack Rock Steady"
Rancid-"Rancid[2000]"
Dropkick Murphys-"The Gangs All Here"


#22
Mark Saleski
URL
March 13, 2006
08:14 PMsorry, but using 'talent' as a factor when comparing punk bands just completely misses the point.

#23
Guppusmaximus
March 13, 2006
08:20 PMI forgot.... Cock Sparrer


Yeah...Maybe not "Talent" in the sense of Buddy Rich or Yngwie Malmsteen but there were bands that had great Punk sense and could fucking rip R'n'R style. I think the notions that playing punk didn't take any talent are the ones from people who can't play their fucking instruments to begin with... AND if anyone mentions Nirvana as a punk band than you're a bigger fuckwad than Johnny Rotten,er,um...Johnny Lydon ever was!!
#24
Vern Halen
March 13, 2006
10:55 PMNo, I woudn't say Nirvana were punks, but what is the chord riff from "Teen Spirit" except the Kingsmen's chord riff from "Louie Louie" in disguise?
#25
Scott Butki
March 14, 2006
01:00 AMDon't forget Seven Seconds, Minor Threat and
All/Descendents.

Was just watching the Colbert Report and he worked a Sex Pistols reference into the opening: "Never mind the bollocks this is the Colbert Report" and later used their note to the Hall of Fame as part of his campaign to get some jazz guy inducted.
#26
Hunter
March 14, 2006
01:08 AMThe Sex Pistols occupy one of those strange spots where the band is far more historically important than they are musically important as far as the history of rock and roll is concerned. The Sex Pistols deserve to be part of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame because they inspired other, better, and, most importantly, less contrived groups to form. Much like Nirvana was important because they started the commercial breakthrough of alt-rock and grunge, not because their music (which was pretty great) particularly groundbreaking.

In any case, the Ramones and the Clash were far more influential artistically than the Pistols, without question, but the Pistols deserve to be enshrined for their commercial influence. Yes, the Sex Pistols were the punk rock Monkees, but imagine if the Beatles had not gained commercial appeal and it took a rip-off band to start the British Invasion. That rip-off band would certainly have gained inclusion in the Hall of Fame. So should the Sex Pistols.
#27
Brady
March 14, 2006
04:13 AMThe Sex Pistols are a (mostly) living, breathing, walking (somewhat), and fascinating paradox. In the beginning - as any fan would know - they were brought together by a brilliant svengali (Mclaren), who alas (or perhaps at the same time auspiciously) was a servant to his most superficial urges and desires: Basically a style over substance man in the guise of a political/social provocateur. However Malcom had not counted on or underestimated the trenchant wit and intellect of Mr. Lydon. The other four were either rockers with good taste (Jones, Cookie), talented enough to string together a pretty fair tune (Matlock) or doomed to one-dimensional rock iconography (Sid). The reason I bring this up is to illustrate that although the band was prefab (ala Monkees) they were also very aware of that fact and able to inject enough of their own personalities into their one and really only recording - Never Mind the Bollocks. The band (sans Sid) has had to cope with something Kurt Cobain never had to: life after Punk Rock. I argue that as soon as one reaches the point in his/her life where they decide that there are enough pros to outweigh the cons in this world to keep on living they start with the "portfolio" if they are lucky enough. Sure Leonard Cohen can go to Tibet or be a busboy in a restaurant but he's still got royalties from his book and "Suzanne" to fall back on. I'm as ashamed as anyone that I wasn't able to turn back the tide of capitalism with my guitar and usher in an age of egalitarianism ( I still try). However, we must recognize that point in our lives when we believed with all of our fucking heart that we could. That's what the Sex Pistols represent to me, even after the stupid quotes and contraditory statements by Rotten et al. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame might be bullshit, that is very arguable but not the passion in Lydon's throat in 1977. If he was bullshitting us then kudos for his acting because they should give him a belated Oscar (surely over Crash but that's another story). The Clash do rule as a fuller realization of the power of Punk Rawk but they had issues with stardom and money too. If the Clash are in then the Pistols should be too. Let them say contradictory things and talk alot of shit 'cause if the Pistols were prefab and still made an album that rocks like Bollocks well then never mind the bollocks 'cos noone has made one yet that outrocks it.

[Fuggle]

#28
Guppusmaximus
March 14, 2006
06:03 AMAlot of these people always have to incorporate some sort of History lesson to stick up for garbage... The Beatles broke through commercially, tell me what exactly did that do for Punk? or for music in general because I think music history always leaves out the important stuff. Maybe it generated a life for pop music but Punk wasn't about being popular. The Sex Pistols may always be a historical figure but I believe Scott's point is that they were really never punk... Just like The Beatles were really never Rock n Roll, just emulations.
As for Nirvana... Great,So Nirvana ripped off The Kingsmen...Who gives a shite. "Teen Spirit" was their only song that will ever be remembered because the mainstream got tired of Glam Rock. Again, that doesn't mean they really did anything for music they were just the "Flavor of the Week"..
#29
Matt Largo
URL
March 14, 2006
10:51 AMThe Sex Pistols did the right thing by not accepting an award from the Establishment. They are true punks. All of the shit that people call Punk Rock today is just a bunch of 25-year-old, faux poor rich kids whining about their girlfriends and homework that they never did ten years ago over the sound of their hyper-trebly, overdriven Paul Reed Smith guitars.

Never Mind the Bullocks...The Sex Pistols Rule.


#30
Vern Halen
March 14, 2006
12:09 PMI guess I didn't get that across right - "Teen Spirit" as a grandchild of "Louie Louie" is a good thing - it shows that Nirvana wasn't just trying to cash in on being "punks" which is the category in which some people mistaken place them. Whether they intended to or not, they connected to a time when you could make a joyful noise just because you felt like it. And The Kingsmen were from up in the Northwest US too, so there's a regional connection as well.

The Monkees - it's well documented that they knew they were prefab too. That's why they fought to play on their own albums, play their own instruments live & write their own songs. There's some good stuff there if you have time to look for it.

As for the Beatles not being rock 'n'roll - a discussion for another time.
#31
zingzing
March 14, 2006
12:24 PMguppus--yer crazy. early beatles--not rock n roll? ever heard "twist and shout?" sure, it was a cover... what wasn't back then? but listen to his voice (it's shredded), listen to that rhythm (it's brutal)... you've got tin ear. the beatles saved rock n roll. name one good rock album released between 1958 and 1962 by a new artist. just one. do it. it's far more difficult than it should be.

the sex pistols defined british punk. their best songs (anarchy, queen, holidays, bodies) are perfectly good punk songs, but that doesn't, in the end, really matter. the sex pistols were a blueprint. even if they weren't as good as the clash, or crass or the fall or the buzzcocks. but they were there first. they were loud, both on vinyl and in the media. and rotten's vocals can't be argued against, as someone stated above. if the sex pistols had only put out anarchy and queen, they would still be one of the greats.

nirvana isn't glam rock. define glam rock. it's not nirvana. i don't even like nirvana, or grunge, much at all, but i can remember quite a few of their songs. go listen to louie louie if it's so grand. actually, i listen to louie louie as much as i do nirvana, but i don't tend to reduce nirvana to two chords and some mumbling (hmm...)

punk was about starting over, returning to roots, because rock music was really starting to stink. it was dead. within a couple of years, punk became post-punk, which splintered into several different genres, spawning duran duran, rem, black flag... it was a great explosion, which, like it or not, the sex pistols (and their songs) ignited. the ramones/cbgb crowd certainly influenced a lot of what became punk, but without the sex pistols, it would have come to nothing. it was the english punk movement that changed music. and the sex pistols started the english punk movement.

grovel at the feet of the sex pistols, otherwise, you'd be still be listening to yes or genesis or the bee gees. ugh. the bee gees weren't so bad.
#32
Mark Saleski
URL
March 14, 2006
12:35 PMone extremely import thing about the Beatles was this: they shifted the paradigm of bands-playing-songs-of-others to a band writing, recording and playing their own material.
#33
Vern Halen
March 14, 2006
01:09 PMAnd there you go. The Beatles, Pistols & Nirvana each came along at a time when rock needed a good kick in the butt. And Louie Louie really is the ultimate rock song - three chords & some mumbling that means both nothing & everything at the same time. I don't know of any other song that so easily transcends genres as well as history. SO basic it's almost impossible to screw it up.
#34
Mike Kole
URL
March 14, 2006
01:41 PMWhich is more unpunk? The band that takes itself seriously enough to receive an award at a Hall of Fame, or the one that isn't interested in the pretense?

I'll go with that latter.
#35
zingzing
March 14, 2006
04:22 PMi think you meant "punk" instead of "unpunk..." right?


#36
El Bicho
URL
March 14, 2006
06:53 PMso then is David Bowie punk since he refused his induction years ago without all the fanfare?
#37
drzej
March 14, 2006
06:59 PMWell, and the riff from "Mr. Moustache" sure enough is the same as "Hungry" by Paul Revere & The Raiders (another Seattle band). They got sued for borrowing the riff from "Come As You Are" from "Eighties" by Killing Joke. They were smart enough to borrow from many influences but somehow come up with something fairly unique - not really punk, or '70s rock, or pop, but somewhere in between. Plus, Cobain loved Abba. How punk is that? (hehe)

And Steve Jones' guitar idol was Jimmy Page, hence, the Gibson Les Paul. Furthermore, I'd argue that "Rock and Roll" isn't all that far removed from punk, especially the tone of the guitar that Jones borrowed five years later. Rock music went through many more permutations after 1976, so the Pistols probably sounded more "unique" than Nirvana did in 1990.

Everything came from somewhere.
#38
zingzing
March 14, 2006
07:33 PMbowie is so punk, he didn't even have to sound punk. the man is a god, all knowing, all consuming. he is everything.
#39
Guppusmaximus
March 14, 2006
09:13 PM1st- I never said that Nirvana was glam rock... I think we need to get people's reading skills up to par before we discuss such an important topic(No, not Nirvana) Nirvana got popular because people got sick of the Glam Rock coverage that was given by the shittiest station of all... MTV!! It's always the way.. People who hardly do any research for music from the underground always point to the mainstream for saving some sort of genre. I have a tin ear?? LOL!! How could I name one rock album from a new artist in that era?? I'm 31..duh.. Did you research any underground talent from 1958-1962?? OR did you follow the hype from the media? Most people love The Beatles from that era because they were a F*cking Boy Band!! If I recall, alot of the video footage from that time showed a bunch of chicks fainting. Maybe that's rock... I don't think so... I think it's pop. That's all for now...I will have to pick it up later... Good Night!
#40
Vern Halen
March 14, 2006
10:13 PMWell, pop & rock intersect in places. Pop is what's popular - Sinatra in his time, or Madonna, and even the Beatles & Stones. And yes, even Nirvana are part of pop history. Forget the fainting girls, the suicides, the funny suits, all of which were pop trappings on some pretty good rock 'n' roll bands. Nowadays pop is more easily identified as a genre, and rock still positions itself as rebellion personified, but didn't Korn just cut some kind of deal where they sold shares in their next album? How rock and roll is that?

Culture vs. Business vs. Music - we could be here all night trying to sort it out.
#41
Michael Heumann
March 15, 2006
10:46 AMScott,
In Johnny Rotten's book, he goes to great lengths to point out that the Sex Pistols were a band well before Malcolm McLaren had entered the picture. He also points out that they'd hated the whole spitting thing from the get-go.

Musically, you can argue about the Sex Pistols' originality, but it's hard to argue that their songs sucked. They didn't. Never Mind the Bollocks is one of the great albums of all time, and I'd argue that it's superior to anything the Clash ever did, though the Clash obviously had a longer shelf life and managed to develop their music and message in more mature and interesting ways.

Finally, you can't dismiss Johnny Rotten as a hack who got lucky when he went immediately from the Pistols to form PiL, one of the more influential musical groups of the post-punk era, a band whose influence is still felt in electronic music today.
#42
Scott Butki
March 15, 2006
11:10 AMHi Mike!
You make some good points which I'll have to think about.

#43
zingzing
March 15, 2006
12:01 PMyeah, guppus, the fainting girls, that's pop. the music, however, was rock. please, please list off some great talents from 58-62. something that lasted. the beach boys, although they weren't really that grand (yet). there's one. i'm thinking hard here. i'm not researching, i'm just trying to search my own mind for something that i listen to that came out of that era. there was lots of r&b coming out, but very little was happening in rock between elvis' enlistment and the beatles debut.

sorry i misunderstood about the "glam rock" statement. it was confusing.

i think that you are really trying hard not to like the beatles... maybe you just don't like them. but, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they weren't the jesus christs of rock n roll. they saved the thing. compared to nearly everything else from the era, they were sloppy, rough and loud. if you were to read up, you'd see that their manager cleaned up their image (suits instead of leather, no smoking, cursing on stage), they were alcoholic speed-freaks by 1961, and they fucked their way across europe and america. their music was similarly tamed a bit compared to the hamburg days, yet lennon would pretty much constantly curse at the screaming girls, because they couldn't hear him anyway. whenever he was confronted by large crowds in europe, lennon would flash nazi salutes. the only clean thing about the beatles was their suits. they were not a boy band. their studio goofs became subgenres. did you know that "flange" as a recording term is just a bit of nonsense that george martin said to lennon one day? they changed the way music was recorded. they changed the way it was listened to. you cannot deny their talent, or their influence.

and the fact that you are 31 is no excuse. i'm 27. any album you want is available. also, i listen to mostly "underground" music, so don't accuse me of listening only to mainstream stuff. i don't remember the last "top 10"... or 20... album i bought. there is too much good music out there to bother with the charts.

michael h-- actually, lydon must have been lying. (no surprise.) the pistols were put together by mclaren. mclaren may have been slime, but he was a very smart man well ahead of his time. lydon auditioned for the pistols by singing some alice cooper (i believe) in mclaren's shop ("sex") in front of the rest of the group that mclaren had already found. "england's dreaming" is a really great book about the british punk movement. it starts with mclaren in the early 70's and uses the sex pistols' history to touch on lots of other music, including american punk, and some sociology... i think the author was named savage.
#44
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
01:37 PMJon Savage.
#45
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
01:48 PMUnderground talent from 1958-1962? In rock? There wasn't any. At least, not in the sense of being part of an alternative or countercultural movement. Even Frank Zappa was producing doo-wop records and writing film music during that period. The music of the underground was folk music until about 1966.

If you're talking simply non-Top 40, well, there were tons of local bands, garage bands, etc. Which, during the period 1958-62, is what the Beatles were.
#46
Mark Saleski
URL
March 15, 2006
01:52 PM>> Underground talent from 1958-1962? In rock? There wasn't any.

Link Wray
Duanne Eddy
Dick Dale

#47
zingzing
March 15, 2006
02:03 PMgood job, mark s. all of them actually debuted between 58 and 62. signs of life...
#48
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
02:24 PMYes, every one of them debuted between '58 and '62. ON THE CHARTS. All three of them had major national chart hits, and Eddy's "Rebel Rouser" went Top Ten. They were hardly underground. (Dick Dale you might be able to argue for, but he was such a huge success in Los Angeles that it'd be hard to say he wasn't mainstream, at least in the second largest U.S. city.)
#49
zingzing
March 15, 2006
02:42 PMunderground or not, even though that's the way mark responded, it's nice to see that something came out that was at least somewhat good.

something interesting... 3/4 of the beach boys debut (1962) is made up of original songs... i didn't know.
#50
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
02:46 PMIn that case, you should also include Phil Spector. His first release was in 1958.
#51
zingzing
March 15, 2006
02:53 PMreally? hrm. when did the ronnettes come out?
#52
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
02:56 PM'63.
#53
zingzing
March 15, 2006
02:58 PMand did he do much that was important, other than that first single, before that?
#54
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
03:49 PMThe Ronettes weren't his breakthrough, mang. The Crystals were. And "He's A Rebel" was July '62.
#55
zingzing
March 15, 2006
04:05 PMi see.
#56
Guppusmaximus
March 15, 2006
04:36 PMDude...if you're 27 then you don't know!! All you can do is buy what the media tells ya... I'll explain...In 1991, Nirvana had their breakthrough and everyone proclaimed that "Metal" was over but in 1992 a little known band Dream Theater came out with the most pioneering metal work in a 10 year span...Did the media pick up on that? NO!! Blind Guardian was still releasing some great work in 1990, Fates Warning released "Parallels"(1991),Death-"Human"(1991),Iron Maiden-"Fear of the Dark"(1992). So while all the power chord jockeys were praising heroin addicts I had to go underground to find some real music!! My point? Everyone here in the US thought Metallica kicked the music scene in the pants with their shitty Black album(1991)...FALSE!! Nirvana..Raw??LOL, Megadeth's Rust in Peace(1990) had more ballz than that POS band!! They use a sales chart and go from there to crown the saviours of the genre at that time!! It's bullshit!! Fuck the charts!! If you weren't alive then you couldn't possibly know about any underground bands!! As for the Beatles... I like em, but I don't buy that they were the saving grace for anything but the charts!! They saved a record company from going bankrupt....That's all.
#57
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
04:51 PMNow, see, Guppus, have you noticed you're accusing the music industry and media of manipulating rock history to serve their own ends, and yet here you are manipulating it for yours?
#58
Michael J. West
URL
March 15, 2006
04:58 PMAnd as for this silliness:

If you weren't alive then you couldn't possibly know about any underground bands!!

Well, now, the thing about bands, underground or not, is that even when they cease to exist, they tend to leave behind evidence that they once DID exist. Recordings or sheet music or someone who can attest to seeing an underground play. Without any evidence of ONE SINGLE underground rock artist in that period, I conclude that they were none.
#59
zingzing
March 15, 2006
05:13 PMman, you're nuts. all i can do is buy what the media tells me? um... yeah...
dream theater isn't exactly "little known." weren't they on a major label anyway?
i'm not much for metal... except for some of the crazier stuff... i won't name names unless you ask me to...
if by "underground" you mean some local band's stuff that was never released, then sure, i'm not going to have heard of it. but, if you mean iron maiden... i don't know where you are going with this.
like i said, i don't pay attention to the charts, i never really liked grunge... in the early 90's, i was a pre-teen, so i wasn't really listening to much... but i've got plenty of stuff from that era that certainly wasn't chart music. most of it wasn't. a few bits were, i'm sure.
we won't argue about the beatles. it seems pointless. you believe what you want.
that said, you're preaching to the choir about this "underground" stuff... but there was plenty of "rawer" stuff out there than the bands you mention.