Quote:
Originally Posted by right-track
The Sex Pistols didn't create the sound and philosophies of the punk genre, but were a product of a previous underground movement, consisting of a small number of bands, playing small pub venues to an equally small audience.
These bands, like their audience, were tired of what the mainstream music scene had to offer.
They couldn't play their instruments and were crap and knew it. What really mattered, was the philosophy that anyone with an attitude and something to say, could pick up a guitar and do their thing, without having to have a degree in music and a University background.
Enter McClaren and with it the Sex Pistols and with that, the media.
And with that, the end of an ideal.
It could even be argued 'logically' that the Sex Pistols, by default, were the opposite of the definitive punk band.
All McClaren and the Pistols really did, was borrow from an already existing musical subculture and bring it to a wider audience, packaged for the mainstream.
|
I said that they helped create the sound, and the chaos and impact they caused on England during the late 70's had only been rivaled with bands like The Beatles, and even then it was more because of the fact that The Sex Pistols did and said whatever they wanted and actually had a real message that they wanted to get out to the masses (at least Rotten did). Johnny Rotten was sick and tired of being looked down upon just because he was born into a lower class and rebelled against the separation of classes in England and thought that the whole idea of monarchy was bull**** and he basically helped start a revolution with his music. Who else used those philosophies as effectively as he had in their music pertaining to punk or pre-punk? The Sex Pistols started out like all those other bands, playing small pub venues and other small audiences; they didn't just become popular or mainstream overnight. And just because they were popular doesn't automatically mean that they "sold out" either. The Pistols did help get those philosophies of standing up for what you believe in and fighting inequality into the mainstream, and even if they couldn't play their instruments as you say they made some damn good catchy songs. I don't know where you've been getting your info from, but all of the original Pistols could in fact play their instruments (Cook and Jones weren't the best ever when they started but they got better as they progressed and they could play the songs that were put out in front of them); Vicious was the only one who couldn't play his instrument and that doesn't really count because his part was dubbed in by original member Glen Matlock anyway.
Using others to influence you isn't simply stealing and it doesn't make you a "fake", because if you go by that rationality then every punk band that came after the Pistols and (and after those so called small bands that played before them) weren't really punk at all. Again, you're not elaborating enough to be convincing or telling me where you're getting your information from, especially when a couple of things that you've said were downright false. You may not agree with what the Pistols did or like the style of their songs, but you can't deny the impact they had on punk and music in general.