Pauly T

Couldn't have put it any better myself! May I also say that I'm not anti-Malcolm, his colourful version of events is all part of the tapestry that is the Sex Pistols story. He was the 5th Sex Pistol. He did contribute. He got the record deals & found ways to capitalise on extreme events that would've sent most bands under. What he DIDN'T do was put the band together or write any of the songs.

Hey, you asked the question & I gave you MY answer. I don't care if punk's dead or not. I had MY fun back in the day! If punk to you means the heroin addled New York art scene of the '70s then, yes, the Sex Pistols probably DID kill YOUR idea of punk, but there are as many ideas of punk rock as there are punk rockers & there are millions of them world wide. Try telling THEM punk's dead! If it's important for you to believe the Sex Pistols were manufactured then fine. I couldn't care less.

Punk rock started as an intelligent alternative to rock'n'roll conservatism. Sid Vicious, or more accurately, his perceived legacy, turned punk into the very thing it set out to destroy.

Much of the Sex Pistols received history is bogus. Written & re-written, mangled beyond recognition. The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle, a work based, if not entirely in fiction, then surely only in semi-truth has become Malcolm McClaren's "official" version. The rascally Svengali manipulating a band of ragged guttersnipes to achieve his own (in)fame(y) & (mis)fortune. Oh PLEASE! Come on, that's straight out of some Dickens novel. It's a lovely story & one that Malcolm was trying to propagate before the band split in '78, but that's Malcolm for ya, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story my dears" he would no doubt say & we should love the old goat for it. Malcolm's as much a part of this story as the band itself. The Sex Pistols were not a punk band. There, I've said it. The Pistols & the scene they spawned was up & running in London some time before the British press, with it's usual desire to label & pigeon-hole decided to use the term "punk". The term had been coined to describe a variety of American bands centred around CBGB's in New York, not forgeting The Stooges from Detroit & of course the Dead Boys were from Cleveland but the point is that the British press spotted some obvious similarities & HEY PRESTO!!! British punk was not so much born, as synthesised in the NME's handy test-tube. It's a convenient label, granted, & one that the British bands, although initially reluctant to adopt, admittedly made little attempt to abandon once it had stuck & had afforded them a degree of success. Did the Sex Pistols kill punk rock? Johnny Lydon (nee. Rotten) would no doubt say "If I had anything to do with it, YES!, I effin 'ope so..." but for the rest of us Johnny-come-latelys for whome "punk" has become a life style & way of thinking that defines much of our existence, no, the Sex Pistols ARE punk rock. Without them punk rock would be a fondly remembered foot note in American rock history. The Ramones, The Heartbreakers et al had to come to Britain to get any real recognition. The world wide phenomenon we call punk today would not have happened without the Sex Pistols. Did Sid Vicious kill punk rock? That's a better question! Debate.

Good question. Firstly you need to know that I regard the Sex Pistols as the greatest band ever & NO-ONE will sway me from that. I like, nay, LOVE many other bands & genres of music but for me, the Pistols are way, way out in front. Did they kill punk rock...? The obvious answer is no, of course not. The thing known as "Punk Rock" is, in 2006, alive & in the rudest of health, thanks by & large to a bunch of commercially motivated accountants who don't know the first thing about it. But, ok, I've read the rest of the comments & what we're REALLY discussing here is whether the Pistols were the real deal or just some manufactured coat hangers to sell McClaren & Westwood's latest clothing collection. Don't get me started. Too late. Hi Doug. See next installment.