i respect this. they never went out looking for fame (or so i’ve had the impression) and when given it, they kinda turned away from it. makes me wish that mick jagger would have done the same when he had the shiny biscuit of knighthood dangled in front of him. keith richards was pissed about “sir mick”, if my memory serves me right.
Johnny’s constant rebellion grates on me after a while. I saw SP with Bad Religion, Blink 182, Pennywise, Social D, and Offspring at Inland Invasion II a few years ago. The whole thing is organized by and is a big promotion from KROQ-FM radio, which is the grandaddy of alternative radio in southern California.
Everyone else was upbeat and thanking people for coming out (like 40K people!), and Johnny had to talk about the “Crock” radio station (Crock, not “K-rock”, get it?). Mind you, this was the only station for a radius of about 150 miles in any direction that played his band more than 1x every three weeks, and he still couldn’t act grateful at their promoting his band and making him the headliner.
The thing is, the Sex Pistols were basically a manufactured punk band. Malcolm McClaren was a very cleverl marketer the the lads lived up to the loutish image.
I hope you mean by this that the idea of inducting them alongside people who could actually play their instruments, and in the same year as Miles Davis of all people, is an insult to everyone in the history of popular music. I hope you mean that attitude should never be taken as evidence of talent or ability. I hope you mean that they should be in the same trashbin of cultural fads as the pet rock. I hope.
Exactly. The Sex Pistols were the epitomy of style over substance. They were all about the image and the rebellion; the music sucked. I can’t see why so many view them as a cornerstone of the punk movment. It’s an insult to bands like The Clash and The Ramones.
Good for them. The entire concept of a “Rock and Roll Hall of Fame” is an oxymoron. If there’s one defining concept of great rock and roll, it’s the individualistic, anti-authority attitude of the musicians. The willingness (and intelligence) to see through the prevailing wisdom and do your own thing, whether it’s Ornette Coleman’s Harmolodics or Black Francis screaming in 7/4 time. That attitude is what makes rock attractive, and that’s what makes some of the great innovators seem so much larger than life.
The thought of a “Hall of Fame”–of solemnizing, exalting, and institutionalizing the visceral, anti-establishment ethos–is ludicrous at best, offensive at worst.
Steve Jones could play his instrument quite well, as well as Sid’s. And Johnny played all the instruments Mick Jagger did. The idea that you think anyone belongs in a “Rock N Roll Hall of Fame” is probably an indication that you never got it in the first place.
I remember my active “search phase”. The “search phase” is what I and my music geek friends call the time of our time when we were going through and discovering all the classics – all the big names from Dean Martin to Frankie Knuckles and everything in between.
Anyway. I remember buying Never Mind the Bollocks. And I remember the total relief when I got to sell it. It was like I had been magically purged from evil demons, rinced with holy water and then given a massage. Best feeling ever. I am totally convinced that the Sex Pistols as a phenomenon and inspiration were needed, because the punk movement in itself led to a lot of interesting changes, but as a band they stunk.
Keep them as far away from Miles Davis as possible, please.
The thing about the Pistols is that they spawned literally thousands of bands. While their output was not much, they are getting well-deserved credit for their influence, not so much their music. Same with the Ramones or the Clash.
You could also say the same thing about R.E.M., which should be due for nomination in a year or two. They spawned literally thousands of bands, and they paved the way for “alternative rock” in the 90s.
False. So what if the Sex Pistols were all style and no substance? Punk was a reactionary genre. It’s point was that it valued the immediate over the revered. The best punk bands, The Clash and The Ramones included, understood this. Why do you think The Ramones tried to imitate girl groups and bubblegum? Why do you think the Clash ignored three chord simplicity in favor of ecleticism and experimentalism? They, like The Sex Pistols, knew that punk was a limited phenomenon based around creating entertainment for the now irrespective of what the excessively revered past thought of it. Bullshit like “It’s an insult to bands like The Clash and The Ramones,” is not only ridiculous, it is directly contrary to the irreverent nature of the punk period. You can try to turn The Clash into today’s Pink Floyd if you want, but it’s entirely against the band’s reason d’etre.