100% w**ker. However you are not allowed to slag him off as all the people who pretend they were punks in '76, like Jonathan Ross and a few on here, get annoyed.
The Sex Pistols were nothing more than a novelty act with him as court jester.
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]Oi thats my missus's cousin you are infering about he is a nice bloke really dont be fooled by the person you see on the TV.
Spoilt rich kid you couldnt be more wrong he came from quite a poor back ground as did most paddies that came over in that era
We can only judge on what we see can't we? He has never made any effort to portray himself as anything else but a tosser in my opinion.
He is coming across as a real tosser at the moment, he seems to think he is some sort of rock god and all others must bow at this feet, arrogant, self important tit.
Is he actually a musician, or did he just shout a lot back in the 70's???
"The Sex Pistols were nothing more than a novelty act with him as court jester." You were around in those days then chirpy? If you were ,then you will remember the state of the music, glam rock, actors making shiite songs, very poor, along with The Pistols came the punk movement, and how wonderful it was! It gave kids an identity and something to identify with., Britain was a crap place to live then. The amount of bands that were spawned on the back of the Pistols success was massive. Maclarens management/marketing was superb. Never mind the... is still a powerful album...Pretty Vacant is a great song. The 2 biggest events that shaped modern music:- Rock n Roll in the 50's and Punk in the 70s, all the rest are along for the ride. BTW I would suggest that John Lydon is one person, Johhny Rotten is another!
Oh, so The Beatles had no effect then Bibble, just along for the ride were they?? You had to be around then to actually realise just how huge they were,like it or not, like I say you just couldn't grasp it if you wern't alive or of age to appreciate it, huge ain't the word. The biggest band/pop group whatever you want to call them that there has ever been,anywhere in the world and I doubt there will ever be anything as 'scene changing' ever again. Punk music offered 'musicaly/creatively' absolutely F all.It was a force for distruction, Punks as a set of kids were all right as they were a social phenomina that were classicly of their era and portrayed how many of them felt but the music was simply attrocious, as indeed it was 'meant to be'. How the fook they got away with earning a living from it though is a disgrace to all pro musicians world wide then or since.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Oh, so The Beatles had no effect then Bibble, just along for the ride were they?? You had to be around then to actually realise just how huge they were,like it or not, like I say you just couldn't grasp it if you wern't alive or of age to appreciate it, huge ain't the word. The biggest band/pop group whatever you want to call them that there has ever been,anywhere in the world and I doubt there will ever be anything as 'scene changing' ever again.
Punk music offered 'musicaly/creatively' absolutely F all.It was a force for distruction, Punks as a set of kids were all right as they were a social phenomina that were classicly of their era and portrayed how many of them felt but the music was simply attrocious, as indeed it was 'meant to be'.
How the fook they got away with earning a living from it though is a disgrace to all pro musicians world wide then or since.
Have to agree with you, I can appreciate and respect the impact and the culture but the music was awful (as you said, generally the idea)
What have The Beatles got to do with it? They were a generation before. They'd split up before the Pistols came along. Bibble is right, at the time the Pistols shook music up and it needed to happen. I don't want to slate everything that came before it, but a lot of the glam rock stuff and psychadelic stuff that was popular at the time was just alienating, something had to happen.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Punk music offered 'musicaly/creatively' absolutely F all.
I think you have an erronous gap in there SoundAsa£, but you're right creatively punk offered The Fall. An absolutely cracking and extremely creative band that are still going strong today.
SoundAS..your not reading what have written. Without Rock n Roll there would have been NO Beatles, Lennon and Macca say as much. Same for Richards and Jagger (blues was their thing as well, but cos of the RnR coverage, blues became en vogue again), It was Rock N Roll in the 50s that was the kickstart for them, they heard this wonderful music and wanted some of that and went along for the ride, yes they developed later, even the look from the early 60s was an extension of the 50s look. Punk in the 70s did the same thing, nothing before RnR and after Punk has radicalised music as much. From your last sentence I take it you dont play, if you did play then you will realise what a crock that sentence is. I play and I know plenty of pro musicians (whatever one of those is) and all musicians take their influences from many places. So Yes The Beatles (as great as they were) came along for the ride! And they had a ticket!
Punk washed "rock" music clean in the same way that Elvis kicked down the door between blues, country and pop.
As bibble said "rock" music was so up it's own backside that it need shaking up but you as right Soundasa£ about the lack of musical ability but that was the whole point. Music was no longer the preserve of art students or people who had spent months copying Jimmy Page riffs. Learn three chords and you were in a band. I was. Nothing you want to read about. Start a fanzine. I did. So what if I couldn't play or write. It didn't matter.
Anyone could have a go and not only play music but make the records, own the labels, write the fanzines, organise the shows. 1977 was year zero. All bets were off. Anything good lasted but the trash was driven out. All the creativity and the do it yourself mindset that came afterwards was down to punk.
90% of it was rubbish but 90% of everything is rubbish.
With the amount of X factor and boy bands were are back to 1975. We need a new Pistols to shake it up again. They are out there somewhere, practising in the singer's bedroom or in a garage with the engine running.
SoundAsA£ i would agree that most of the "music" of the Punk era was pisspore. However I dont remember to many "pro musians" doing f**k all about the crap music that was about pre punk and i dont see to many pro musians saying to much about the huge amount of manufactured bands etc around now.
Standing on the beaches looking at the peaches !!!!!
Hi GH, are you talking about 'chart music' pre punk i'e 'Top of the Pops stuff, because yes much of it had become very stale and boring. However, there were still the 'super bands' around then that wern't so much chart orientated but rock concert/ stadium bands that incredibly would still sell out The Albert Hall for a week or Wembley for a few nights even to this day. There are at least half a dozen that spring immediately to mind and I resented then as I do now punks assertion that these bands were rubbish and needed to be replaced and by god knows what, they actualy had no idea. They just didn't want what their mums and dads or aunts and uncles had wanted or liked, and I suppose that's quite understandable but they tended to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in there supposedly biblical purge of British Rock Music, they of course never really succeeded from that standpoint, though to this day some of them like to think they did. They succeeded to an extent for a while but cream (now there's one for a start!) always rises to the top.
Henners i can honestly say he and the rest of his clan are fine people the thing with all acts like that their meant to act like arseholes as thats what is expected of them
punks were supposed to be diffrent they were supposed to be annoying and anti everything, they were meant to be brash and oppionated, i doubt if John is being any different to that i am unsure as to what he has done recently to annoy as i havent seen him for a while.
But most of those that he would want to purchase his records wouldnt apreciate seeing him having strawberries with sir cliff so if he is acting it up then so be it.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Hi GH, are you talking about 'chart music' pre punk i'e 'Top of the Pops stuff, because yes much of it had become very stale and boring.
However, there were still the 'super bands' around then that wern't so much chart orientated but rock concert/ stadium bands that incredibly would still sell out The Albert Hall for a week or Wembley for a few nights even to this day.
There are at least half a dozen that spring immediately to mind and I resented then as I do now punks assertion that these bands were rubbish and needed to be replaced and by god knows what, they actualy had no idea.
They just didn't want what their mums and dads or aunts and uncles had wanted or liked, and I suppose that's quite understandable but they tended to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in there supposedly biblical purge of British Rock Music, they of course never really succeeded from that standpoint, though to this day some of them fancied they did.
Go on then, tell who these bands were.
BTW SOundsas, I was born in 1961. How old are you?
I hate some of the shite out now the teeney pop cack but i like some of the urban ( i hate that term) music.
I hated the Jungle dance movement and i dislike the heavy MC garage music but i like 90's and early 2000 garage
but every generation trys to out do and over throw the music of their dads
I dont like Rod Stewart i dont like kenny Rogers but my old dear and old man swore by them and i would say their music is shite doesnt mean it is nor does it mean they were right and it was great.
Punks came revolutionised wether people agree or not as did the Ska bands of a skin head era
same as thrash metal and goth cack from now but it will give us influential bands in the future that grew up listening to it.
Music is the bollox i dont know anyone that hates all music and that is what makes it great we can all listen to differnt shit
Henry here are just a few off the top of my head. Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen. There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
I stewarded at Wembley back in the early to mid 90's (stop laughing Henry, I know its ironic), saw many a concert for free, Rod Stewart, although I would not buy his music was the best gig I saw there.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Henry here are just a few off the top of my head.
Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen.
There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
Nearly all terrible and prove just why Punk was needed.
Honourable exceptions to the Who who were very good even if they had lost the plot a bit, The Stones for being the best Rock and Roll band in the world but by '77 it had gone and CSNY who were good in about 1969 but by '77 Neil Young had gone and the rest were buried in piles of coke and booze.
All the rest were bad, bad, bad especially Queen who were everything that was wrong in the 1970s and justified punk all by themselves. How many 6th form boys doing A level physics used to love Queen and refused to believe that Freddie was as gay as Larry Grayson when I told them.
Yes, those terrible roger dean covers, ELP sub classical over indulgence, Led Zepp a good blues band gone wrong - who needs a 30 minute drum solo FFS, Cream had broken up in 1970, the Grateful Dead! Did they do anything after Working man's dead? Genesis. just no no and no.
There was lots of good music in the pre-punk 70s but not all that pomp/prog rock.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Henry here are just a few off the top of my head.
Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen.
There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
Thank God for punk!! Please don't come up with anymore :-)
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Henry here are just a few off the top of my head.
Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen.
There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
Nearly all terrible and prove just why Punk was needed.
Honourable exceptions to the Who who were very good even if they had lost the plot a bit, The Stones for being the best Rock and Roll band in the world but by '77 it had gone and CSNY who were good in about 1969 but by '77 Neil Young had gone and the rest were buried in piles of coke and booze.
All the rest were bad, bad, bad especially Queen who were everything that was wrong in the 1970s and justified punk all by themselves. How many 6th form boys doing A level physics used to love Queen and refused to believe that Freddie was as gay as Larry Grayson when I told them.
Yes, those terrible roger dean covers, ELP sub classical over indulgence, Led Zepp a good blues band gone wrong - who needs a 30 minute drum solo FFS, Cream had broken up in 1970, the Grateful Dead! Did they do anything after Working man's dead? Genesis. just no no and no.
There was lots of good music in the pre-punk 70s but not all that pomp/prog rock.
It's all subjective, if it floats his boat, it floats his boat, doesn't make him wrong.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Henry here are just a few off the top of my head.
Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen.
There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
Some of those bands you've mentioned were pretty good in their day, but they were all on the wane by the time punk came along. What good records did this lot make between them post 1977? As far as I can see, there's just The Wall and Nick Mason's solo album - and that was Carla Bley's work! As for the rest, they'd contributed their bit and could aford to retire without any great loss. Punk allowed a new generation of to take up music, rather than having the entire industry stifled by the big egos of the past.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Danny Kelly[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite] What good records did this lot make between them post 1977? [/quote]
Pink Floyd - Animals 1977
Their best album imo, & as dark and angry as any punk abum at that time...
Pink Floyd's The Final Cut - released in 1983 made a few trenchant comments about war and in particular the Falklands war. How many angry young punks released anti-war songs at that time? I can only think of Elvis Costello and Shipbuilding.
Comments
what a cock, always seemed like a spoilt rich kid to me. the pistols made some ok songs but he is a tit.
The Sex Pistols were nothing more than a novelty act with him as court jester.
Spoilt rich kid you couldnt be more wrong he came from quite a poor back ground as did most paddies that came over in that era
We can only judge on what we see can't we? He has never made any effort to portray himself as anything else but a tosser in my opinion.
Is he actually a musician, or did he just shout a lot back in the 70's???
The 2 biggest events that shaped modern music:- Rock n Roll in the 50's and Punk in the 70s, all the rest are along for the ride.
BTW I would suggest that John Lydon is one person, Johhny Rotten is another!
Punk music offered 'musicaly/creatively' absolutely F all.It was a force for distruction, Punks as a set of kids were all right as they were a social phenomina that were classicly of their era and portrayed how many of them felt but the music was simply attrocious, as indeed it was 'meant to be'.
How the fook they got away with earning a living from it though is a disgrace to all pro musicians world wide then or since.
Have to agree with you, I can appreciate and respect the impact and the culture but the music was awful (as you said, generally the idea)
I think you have an erronous gap in there SoundAsa£, but you're right creatively punk offered The Fall. An absolutely cracking and extremely creative band that are still going strong today.
Punk in the 70s did the same thing, nothing before RnR and after Punk has radicalised music as much. From your last sentence I take it you dont play, if you did play then you will realise what a crock that sentence is. I play and I know plenty of pro musicians (whatever one of those is) and all musicians take their influences from many places.
So Yes The Beatles (as great as they were) came along for the ride! And they had a ticket!
As bibble said "rock" music was so up it's own backside that it need shaking up but you as right Soundasa£ about the lack of musical ability but that was the whole point. Music was no longer the preserve of art students or people who had spent months copying Jimmy Page riffs. Learn three chords and you were in a band. I was. Nothing you want to read about. Start a fanzine. I did. So what if I couldn't play or write. It didn't matter.
Anyone could have a go and not only play music but make the records, own the labels, write the fanzines, organise the shows. 1977 was year zero. All bets were off. Anything good lasted but the trash was driven out. All the creativity and the do it yourself mindset that came afterwards was down to punk.
90% of it was rubbish but 90% of everything is rubbish.
With the amount of X factor and boy bands were are back to 1975. We need a new Pistols to shake it up again. They are out there somewhere, practising in the singer's bedroom or in a garage with the engine running.
Standing on the beaches looking at the peaches !!!!!
not a truer word spoken on this thread.
not a truer word spoken on this thread.[/quote]
never met him but that is always what I have imagined.
However, there were still the 'super bands' around then that wern't so much chart orientated but rock concert/ stadium bands that incredibly would still sell out The Albert Hall for a week or Wembley for a few nights even to this day.
There are at least half a dozen that spring immediately to mind and I resented then as I do now punks assertion that these bands were rubbish and needed to be replaced and by god knows what, they actualy had no idea.
They just didn't want what their mums and dads or aunts and uncles had wanted or liked, and I suppose that's quite understandable but they tended to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in there supposedly biblical purge of British Rock Music, they of course never really succeeded from that standpoint, though to this day some of them like to think they did. They succeeded to an extent for a while but cream (now there's one for a start!) always rises to the top.
punks were supposed to be diffrent they were supposed to be annoying and anti everything, they were meant to be brash and oppionated, i doubt if John is being any different to that i am unsure as to what he has done recently to annoy as i havent seen him for a while.
But most of those that he would want to purchase his records wouldnt apreciate seeing him having strawberries with sir cliff so if he is acting it up then so be it.
I can honestly say folks he is a nice guy.
Go on then, tell who these bands were.
BTW SOundsas, I was born in 1961. How old are you?
I hate some of the shite out now the teeney pop cack but i like some of the urban ( i hate that term) music.
I hated the Jungle dance movement and i dislike the heavy MC garage music but i like 90's and early 2000 garage
but every generation trys to out do and over throw the music of their dads
I dont like Rod Stewart i dont like kenny Rogers but my old dear and old man swore by them and i would say their music is shite doesnt mean it is nor does it mean they were right and it was great.
Punks came revolutionised wether people agree or not as did the Ska bands of a skin head era
same as thrash metal and goth cack from now but it will give us influential bands in the future that grew up listening to it.
Music is the bollox i dont know anyone that hates all music and that is what makes it great we can all listen to differnt shit
Led Zeppelin,Yes,The Stones,Pink Floyd, The Who,Crosby Stills and Nash,The Grateful Dead,Cream,Deep Purple and to a slightly lesser extent Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer and dare I say it even Queen.
There are quite a few more if I cared to think about it for a while.
I stewarded at Wembley back in the early to mid 90's (stop laughing Henry, I know its ironic), saw many a concert for free, Rod Stewart, although I would not buy his music was the best gig I saw there.
Nearly all terrible and prove just why Punk was needed.
Honourable exceptions to the Who who were very good even if they had lost the plot a bit, The Stones for being the best Rock and Roll band in the world but by '77 it had gone and CSNY who were good in about 1969 but by '77 Neil Young had gone and the rest were buried in piles of coke and booze.
All the rest were bad, bad, bad especially Queen who were everything that was wrong in the 1970s and justified punk all by themselves. How many 6th form boys doing A level physics used to love Queen and refused to believe that Freddie was as gay as Larry Grayson when I told them.
Yes, those terrible roger dean covers, ELP sub classical over indulgence, Led Zepp a good blues band gone wrong - who needs a 30 minute drum solo FFS, Cream had broken up in 1970, the Grateful Dead! Did they do anything after Working man's dead? Genesis. just no no and no.
There was lots of good music in the pre-punk 70s but not all that pomp/prog rock.
I take issue with Henry's comments about Pink Floyd and Led Zeplin.
It's all subjective, if it floats his boat, it floats his boat, doesn't make him wrong.
Some of those bands you've mentioned were pretty good in their day, but they were all on the wane by the time punk came along. What good records did this lot make between them post 1977? As far as I can see, there's just The Wall and Nick Mason's solo album - and that was Carla Bley's work! As for the rest, they'd contributed their bit and could aford to retire without any great loss. Punk allowed a new generation of to take up music, rather than having the entire industry stifled by the big egos of the past.
Pink Floyd - Animals 1977
Their best album imo, & as dark and angry as any punk abum at that time...