Why are/were they so highly regarded? They only had one album. They sounded horrible. Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious are/were both wankers. I'm far from being an expert on early punk rock, but had they not been one of the first punk bands to make it big, at least 100 other punks would have taken their place.

British media and tabloids.

One of the most influential bands in the history of music.

^
Why? I maintain that any one of a number of New York or London punk bands could have taken their place.

Their fame has more to do w/ the stupid stuff they said/did, and the fact that Sid overdosed and his girlfriend was murdered.

I'm nothing close to being a Green Day fan, but at least you can say they have 100X more talent, and put out more than one album.

Not a fan but did gain an appreciation of the Pistols and their place in Rock history after seeing "Punk" - Episode 9 of the excellent PBS series Rock & Roll. It originally aired with the opening of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

quote:

---

Harold: Elvis didn't expectorate on his fans.
Sam: No. But he died on the toilet.
Harold: Well, that's paradise compared to where the Sex Pistols are gonna end up.

---

I never understood the fascination with them either. But then again, I don't care for punk music.

quote:

---

Why? I maintain that any one of a number of New York or London punk bands could have taken their place.

---

But they didn't. That's the point. They were first. By that virtue, they were the most influential punk band. Even moreso than the Clash. Yes, they weren't good and some of them literally didn't know how to play instruments, but that's not the point. Punk, even moreso than rap, is about image and the Sex Pistols had that by the balls.

That's like saying Grandmaster Flash was a better DJ than Kool Herc. True, but one did it first and gets the credit.

Their single (bad) album influenced a bunch of other short-lived, talent-free bands. The whole movement was here about as long as a firefly. You can only keep up a shrill temper tantrum for a little while before you need a nap.

They were an inspiration/influence to Joe Strummer and The Clash.

That's good enough for me.


TAF

quote:

---

Their single (bad) album influenced a bunch of other short-lived, talent-free bands.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/05/11/110506_sex_pistols_gig_feature.shtml

Hard to second guess a band's influence when one of their shows caused audience members to form The Smiths, Joy Division and The Fall.

C'mon, Head Ninja, how can you leave off the Buzzcocks??


Big Smiths fan, Joy Division, and Buzzcocks fan here.

TAF

They were great and their life was short. Typical Punk!

Not a big fan of Punk and just learned that John Lydon was part of P.I.L.(never heard of this band until a week ago) while doing some research. ctclafdofaomdner







[This message has been edited by Bullmoose (edited 8/22/2010 2:51p).]

There's actually some good songs on the "Bullocks" album. Really good ones. "EMI", "Holidays in the Sun", "Pretty Vacant" and I never get tired of the opening riff to "Anarchy". The songs were there, the longtivity was not. Neither was Guns or Nirvana. But all 3 shook the foundations of rock music...for the better.

Why are/were they so highly regarded?
****************

i wonder the same about nirvana

quote:

---

Why are/were they so highly regarded?
****************

i wonder the same about nirvana

---

Why? Nirvana was awesome. They were so much more than just "Smells Like Teen Spirit"

i just don't see how they broke any new barriers in rock music..... except bringing back some anger into rock music

Because they killed the crap fest that was the 80's

I found a website that has all the correct answers to all the questions above. It confirmed that the Sex Pistols did suck, and Nirvana was overrated. It was all proven with numbers and objective data that can't be argued.

I'll try to find the web address and post a link.

Hey, numbers and objective data are what rock is all about! Bring it on!

quote:

---

Their single (bad) album influenced a bunch of other short-lived, talent-free bands. The whole movement was here about as long as a firefly.

---

Sorry Buck, but this is just laughable. As I sit here and listen to the latest DKM live album, the legacy of the Sex Pistols is readily apparent in every track. There are countless other bands thriving today who have owe a similar debt, and this just in - they'd almost without exception agree.

Totally think the Sex Pistols suck, but you cannot argue the fact they were the first. Bad punk band, but first nonetheless. There is something to be said about being the first to do something.

quote:

---

That's like saying Grandmaster Flash was a better DJ than Kool Herc. True, but one did it first and gets the credit.

---

True.


____________________________________
I have seen the enemy, and he is us.

quote:

---

but you cannot argue the fact they were the first.

---

Didn't the Ramones put out their debut album first?

Yes, they did. The Sex Pistols were just more notorious because of their lifestyle. The Punk Rock label got hijacked by Malcolm McLaren and it really became more about image than anything else, and the Sex Pistols personified that image McLaren was pushing.

I wouldn't necessarily call them talentless, aside from Sid Vicious who was there mostly as a sideshow. Johnny Rotten did some pretty good work with PiL and Steve Jones is a passable punk guitarist. I just think that their footprint in history has more to do with their image than it does with their music.

This is why the whole music industry is a joke. Who cares if it "sounds good" all that matters is if you are a freak enough to "push boundaries" or somehow become "influential".

What do the Pistols have to do with today's music industry? Besides, you think there wasn't bands in the 50's and 60's that tried to "push boundries" with their look or schtick? Wake up.

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, I think the music on their one album was pretty damn good. Not great, but beats 95% of today's aggressive music.

I was a little youngish when punk broke, but I remember plenty of bands in their wake that made really crappy music. Waaayyy too much into the "look", and not enough about the music. Much like how things shook out after Motley Crue hit it big...stupid bands thought it was all about the look, when "Too Fast for Love" and "Shout at the Devil" were great rock albums with great songs. It's all about the songs in the end.

PIL song in Miami Vice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBj0XNgt-IM

Sid Vicious did it his way.

Long live punk.

They were not the first, not even close. But they were the first band to grab attention outside of punk clubs. It wasn't favorable attention, but it put punk on the map. That was first time that 90% of people heard the music. That created a tidal wave. After Sex Pistols hit, everybody had mohawks, diaper pin piercings, leather, etc.

They were louder than anybody. Their behavior was shocking, even by rock n roll standards. Johnny Rotten was/is a damn good musician. Other guys were garage band caliber.

Sid Vicious had no talent. But he was very good looking and had charisma. That's why he was hired.

People don't realize that Sex Pistols were N Sync or Backstreet Boys. A music mogul liked the punk scene. He wanted to create the most notorious band in the world. So he hired punks. Afterwards, they were taught to play instruments. They were hired because they looked the part. Rotten was only guy with credentials when they started.

quote:

---

Johnny Rotten was/is a damn good musician. Other guys were garage band caliber.

---

Really? Rotten was/is a great musician? What instruments does/has/can he play? How come his song writing was NOTHING without Glen Matlock. How come PIL has rested on the "reputation" of Rotten and has done nothing except pander to punk snobs and critical wannabes?

quote:

---

Rotten was only guy with credentials when they started.

---

Really? His credentials being that he wrote messages on t-shirts? Hung out with a bunch of other guys named John? Had had a bad attitude? The other guys in the Pistols had been in bands and Rotten had done nothing except hang out.

The Sex Pistols werent the first punk band. In fact the Ramones were around quite a bit longer and were touring before the SP were formed.

The Sex Pistols became notorious not only because of their eff you attitude and their "working class" message but more importantly their lyrics of their songs that went after the Royal Family. They were the first to really go after the Royal establishment deliberately and viciously.

While the Ramones wrote songs like:
Sheena is a Punk Rocker
Blitzkrieg Bop
Teenage Lobotomy

The SP wrote:
Anarchy in the UK
God Save the Queen (the fascist regime)
Liar

While the Clash became more politically oriented and more popular because they were better musicians the SP had a harder edge making them more of a sideshow act.

SP never wrote any great songs without Matlock and they never recovered after he was out of the band.

Public Image Limited was a damn good band. "Rise" is brilliant song. I think it's one of best songs of the 1980s. And there were plenty more great songs from PIL. He wrote the lyrics for most of Sex Pistols material. Johnny Lydon could play guitar, piano, etc.

LOL! Laughable.

The Runaways were 10 x better! They have songs that actualy sound good and hold up over time and they lasted only about a year and had only one album.