I believe “Ballroom Blitz” didn’t come out until about '74.
Never Mind… is a very strong rock record. There wouldn’t be any “college radio” schlock like whiny, droney REM had there not been a punk explosion, and the Pistols were a big part of that. Better put out one great album and split than bore and annoy me for 30 years!
Steve Jones and Paul Cook were in a few bands after the Pistols and in fact backed Joan Jett on some songs that people who just said they can’t play likely know and enjoy.
Glen Matlock, who actually played bass on most SP recordings, in not at all a bad musician and his band The Rich Kids also had a great album. Of course Lydon was in PIL, not my cup of tea but he tried something different. Lydon & the others were characters in their own right long before they met McLaren, which is how they caught his eye to begin with.
I’d be disappointed in the band if they decided that the Hall of Fame thing was an honor that they needed to attend in order to curry favor.
Did someone actually suggest that Blink-182 is a better band than the Pistols? That warmed-over 23rd generation poorly photocopied suburban mall attempt to catch the excitement and danger that bands like the Pistols suggested 30 years ago? Wow…
It’s not clear what your exact argument is, but the two most obvious possibilities are unsound:
*Possibility #1
If a band lasts, then it has talent
The Sex Pistols didn’t last
The Sex Pistols didn’t have talent*
This argument is clearly invalid, since even if the two premises are true the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow. Even if it’s true that 1.) if it’s raining my car will get wet and 2.) it’s not raining, it doesn’t follow that 3.) my car is not wet. Perhaps I just washed it. Furthermore, the first premise is arguably false, since there are bands that have lasted which nevertheless lack talent. The argument is therefore unsound.
*Possibility #2
If a band has no talent, then it will not last
The Sex Pistols didn’t last
The Sex Pistols didn’t have talent*
This argument is valid—if the premises are true the conclusion must be true—since it’s an example of modus tollens. However, it is not sound, since both premises are demonstrably false: there are bands with no talent that nevertheless last, and the Sex Pistols have obviously lasted—at least in some respect (you denied that they have lasted “in any sense of the word”). Even if you qualify the second premise and claim that the Sex Pistols haven’t lasted musically, the first premise remains false, and you haven’t considered the possibility that the Sex Pistols will last in the long run. Furthermore, many will simply deny your claim that the band hasn’t lasted musically.
Now you may want to make the stronger, more controversial claim that a band has talent if and only if it lasts: if it has talent it will last and if it lasts it has talent. It’s hard to imagine this claim being true. And if you simply want to define a band that lasts as a band that has talent and a band that has talent as a band that lasts, then you’re simply playing with semantics and equivocating with respect to the common-sense notions of lasting and having talent (which imply no necessary connection between the two at all).
I’m not taking issue with your assessment of the Sex Pistols’ music. I’m simply pointing out your flawed reasoning. Then again, logic isn’t a part of popular culture.
Well now you’ve made me go and look it up. It was released as a single in the Uk in 1973. It was included on the LP Desolation Boulevard, released November, 1974, and was re-released in 1975. The performance referenced was in support of the first release, and aired September 13, 1973.
That nearly thirty years have passed? The English punk scene was about style and attitude and non-conformity*****. Which is why wearing punk stuff in 2006 is presumably post-retro-ironic or something.
***** back in the 70s at least, got stale fast.
Reread WordMan’s post with the brief history of punk, I haven’t the energy to reeducate you. You’re trying to reinvent the term. You are flat out wrong to say there was no punk before the Pistols, wrong.
Maybe I should’ve been more specific. What I’m trying to point out is that there were no English punk bands before The Sex Pistols. There was certainly no English punk movement. After the Pistols there were suddenly a lot of punk bands, a sort of Cambrian Explosion of punk rock.
The punk movement here was not just about the music. It was about self-sufficiency (loads of bands got their records pressed independantly and there was a huge fanzine scene) and the style which for the most part followed the Pistol’s (Jamie Reid/Westwood/Bromley contingent) mode. Playing fast angry music (usually badly) was only part of the requirement.
The American interpretation of “punk” seems to include bands that I don’t see as having much in common with the English “punk” bands.
Ask a British person (of a certain age) to name some punk bands and the list will go some thing like:
The Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Damned, The Stranglers, The Jam. . .
Don’t forget that Steve Jones produced a number of sessions with the emerging bands in California at the end of the 70s (A couple years ago, DBK Works rreleased the stuff he did for The Avengers), and was, as far as I can tell, the first one to break from the Dangerhouse sound. His work as a producer had the West Coast sound like you get later from Spot and Ray Manzarek.
Don’t forget that Steve Jones produced a number of sessions with the emerging bands in California at the end of the 70s (A couple years ago, DBK Works rreleased the stuff he did for The Avengers), and was, as far as I can tell, the first one to break from the Dangerhouse sound. His work as a producer had the West Coast sound like you get later from Spot and Ray Manzarek.
So, if we use your logic, they should stop giving out Nobel Peace Prizes. After all, since peace activism is mostly “anti-authority”, rewarding it and “solemnizing” it just cheapens the entire movement, right?
Puh-leeez!
I, for one, am glad there is a Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. And rock music is an institution, whether you like it or not, and deserves the “exaltation” its pioneers are finally receiving through their enshrinement.
As far as the Pistols go, if they wish to refuse or denigrate their award, they certainly have the right to do so. However, IMHO, Johnny goes out of his way to be obnoxious and contrary. And while that may work when you’re a rebellious youth, at his age it’s kinda ridiculous.
That’s a horrible comparison. Peace activism isn’t anti-authoritarian in the sense that it believes there should be no such thing as authoritarianism. At most, it’s a demand for a more responsible and moral authority. The driving ethos of most rock and roll has been a call for individualism and a defiance of authority regardless of the legitimacy or morality of that authority. There’s plenty of room to debate how much of this was empty posturing (My take: almost all) but it’s always been an overt part of the culture. As such, a Rock ‘n’ Roll hall of fame runs directly counter to that ethos, and comes across as empty, hypocritical, and incestously self-congratualtory, like virtually all industry-driven reward ceremonies.
Hey, don’t knock Cleveland: those folks have always been on the cutting edge of hydro-technology. For example, Clevelanders were the first to discover that water can be ignited. The process is called Cuyahoganization.
After hearing about being tapped for the hall of fame (and jerking off in the bathroom about it) Lydon HAD to come out fake swinging. I swear everything that comes out of that idiot’s face is bullshit shock-value.
I do get the feeling they don’t make any money off that album, so they might be a bit bitter.
