Jump to content

did the sex pistols kill punk rock?


PaulEdwardWagemann
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Make your mind up, sunshine-boy. All throughout this thread, you've been insisting that The Sex Pistols were mere copyists. Now you're saying that they introduced a factor that distinguished them from all their antecedents, namely "political consciousness".

First of all, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Sex Pistols changed England--and dont give me this ******* to go read England is Dreaming and it will explain it to me, because I've already read it, and it doesnt give a single example of how the Sex Pistols have changed England. Besides, don't you have a mind of your own? Cant you answer for yourself, without blindly repeating whatever the textbooks tell you to repeat?

Second of all, what's wrong with revising and elaborating on my opinions of the Sex Pistols. WHy is it impossible that they did both? They ripped off NY punk AND they were political? The world is not always black and white friend. Stop arguing in absolutes and try to see some of the nuances, because that's reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Sex Pistols changed England

Why? I've already explained my position on this.

Sod this for a game of soldiers. There are two main problems....

a) is not "lack of evidence", but "where to start?". This question requires a thesis for an answer: chapter, verse, bibliography, the lot. I have two jobs, a wife and three kids to support.

B) what would be the point?

You have already read "England's Dreaming"; or I assume so, since it has been recommended by you at least twice... ...You appear to have read this book with blinkers on, choosing to believe only those features which lend support to your pre-existing and entrenched views, whilst ignoring the rest. This despite it having been authored and researched by a highly intelligent and skilled writer, who was also actively involved in the London punk scene from its earliest days. Why should I assume that any argument I put to you, however coherent and insightful (having experienced our changing musical, social and cultural landscape at first hand), will not be disregarded in the same manner?

I might have been prepared to go into painstaking detail to do this subject justice, (to the detriment of work and familial responsibilities) if I thought there were any prospect whatsoever of my opinions and insights being valued. However, since there is no indication that this is likely, why bother putting myself through it? Unfortunately I struggle for conciseness, even to convey the merest trifle, so "the matter-in-hand" would likely require several weeks of hard graft (not to mention "alienation from Mrs Fitter"/disciplinary action) until I were satisfied. :blush:

Besides, don't you have a mind of your own? Cant you answer for yourself, without blindly repeating whatever the textbooks tell you to repeat?

None of the texts from which I have cited urged me to go forth and use them as source material, so nobody told me to repeat any of this..."blindly" or otherwise. :confused:

Since most of this discussion rests on "matters of opinion", I have attempted, where possible, to support my arguments by citing from relevant sources. In academia, supporting one's arguments by use of literary references is not so much "common practice" as "obligatory". Personally, I don't think that my use of selected quotes to evidence/support my points is necessarily indicative that I lack a mind of my own. But hey, ho...

Luckily I'm not a particularly sensitive soul, and do not feel totally crushed by your remark.

I'm (perhaps naively) assuming it may have been intended in a spirit of jocular badinage, rather than as a metaphorical kidney-punch.

Edited by Guest
Add extra sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just drop it will ya...the guy's an oaf! ;)

Well, that may be so, but I kinda like him.

We need a bit of spunk round here from time to time. :P

And let's face it: when it comes to oafishness, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I've been there, done that...wear the T-shirt. :smirk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I've pointed out several reasons why IMO the sex pistols killed off the initial punk rock movement. The fact of the matter is that after their fabricated brand of nonsense was taken to be the example of what punk is, the real punk bands (who avoided the limelight) were now burdoned with the SP dumbass stigma--and in effect it ruined these authentic punks bands chances at getting solid gigs or other support.

But maybe it was inevitable. The good thing that came out of this was that since no punk bands could get a record label to produce them, they had to go DIY. Ofcourse the Sex Pistols never purposely set out to accomplish this, so I can't even give them credit for that. All I give them credit for is causing the demise of the initial punk rock movement and tainting a good thing with their bullcrappie!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An excerpt from "So Bored With The USA?: Reflections on a TransAtlantic Divide", in which respected academic and music-writer, Simon Warner, examines the differing manifestations and perceptions of "punk" in the US and the UK, and traces the origins of transatlantic tensions generated by the disputed terrain of "ownership".

Difference and divergence: an overview

In fact, there are a number of points to be made about the contrasting structures of British and American society which helped to shape punk's presentation and reception in the mid-'70s:

Britain is small and relatively homogenous; America is vast -- the state of Wyoming alone is the size of the UK -- and heterogeneous.

Britain has a national press read avidly from Glasgow to London to Belfast and Cardiff: the outrage that punk raised was reported daily in its pages, on national TV and national radio. It became a headline grabber.

America had no authentic national newspapers: the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend to play that role but are actually quite parochial.

Britain has a national weekly music press which was read determinedly by hundreds of thousands of music followers every week. Every new stunt, every shimmy of the punk beast was recorded by NME, Melody Maker, and Sounds.

America had a far less significant weekly music press; the main magazines Rolling Stone, Creem and Crawdaddy gave virtually no attention to the Bowery scene, Heylin states (1993, p244). Publications that did try to cover the punk scene included Rock Scene, essentially a picture-oriented mag spun-off from the long established Hit Parader, and New York Rocker which only first appeared in 1975.

There were fanzines like "Punk", a genuine Manhattan voice-piece, but Britain had its versions too, and many more of them, across the nation -- irreverent paste-ups like Sniffin' Glue in London, City Fun in Manchester, Wool City Rocker in Bradford, among dozens.

Broadcast media in the States have a different role to play. Radio is localised, niche-targeted, advertising driven. In the UK the BBC public service pop station, Radio 1, through the influential DJ John Peel particularly, made punk accessible and available to millions.

Television played a part in the UK, too, and, significantly, regional TV: think of "Today", the Bill Grundy-fronted show on Thames; think of "So It Goes" on Granada. Material aired in those programmes attracted national press attention. America had no media network that would have picked up on such stories, turning the apparently local into the national.

Vast America has two, four at most, key foci of cultural shift -- New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago. Even if New York City and Los Angeles pick up on a band, a film, a play, there is no guarantee that the 3,000 mile gap between that country's ears will also tune in.

In tiny Britain, London isn't the only mover and shaker. During punk, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Belfast and other cities danced to the same dangerous tunes and attitudes, and actually brought their own ingredients to the party. In the US, New York was the overpowering focal point, even if Cleveland and Boston had some say.

Britain is a more politically attuned state -- whether we are talking clashes between the SWP and the NF in the '70s, or good old-fashioned rows between Labour and Tories, we differ from the US where two capitalist-oriented parties run the show.

Britain appears to exhibit more sub-cultural inclinations. From Teddy Boys to mods to skinheads to punks to new romantics to goths to ravers, our music fans have either determinedly aped or actually influenced the styles of the stars they fawn over. Punk, its look, its stance, was heartily adopted by tens of thousands of fans.

In America, youth styles and sub-cults have played a less potent part: they have been few and far between and much more conservative -- if we step out of the ghettos. Thus, in the mid-'70s, in America there were reports of long-haired, check-shirted audiences at the new wave gigs of the time; in the UK, the audiences were quickly as punk or new wave as the artists. Long hair and flares disappeared almost overnight.

Age difference is another factor to point up -- British punk was younger, more adolescent than its American counterpart. Caroline Coon, quoted in Heylin, says: "While New York cultivates avant-garde and intellectual punks like Patti Smith and Television, the British teenager, needing and being that much more alienated from rock than America ever was, has little time for such aesthetic requirements. British punk rock is emerging as a fierce, aggressive-destructive onslaught. There's an age difference, too. New York punks are mostly in their mid-20s. The members of the new British punk bands squirm if they have to tell you they are over 18" (1993, p245). Mary Harron, who wrote for Punk, backs up Coon's position. She remarks: "I felt that what we had done as a joke in New York had been taken for real in England by a younger and more violent audience.... What to me had been a much more adult and intellectual bohemian rock culture in New York became this crazy teenage thing in England" (McNeil & McCain, 2000, p303)

Charting punk's progress: Top 40 indicators

It is also interesting to make some assessment of how punk was being received beyond the rather narrow world of the media, beyond the sub-cultural underground, in both countries.

The actual impact of the punk explosion is usefully tested when we consider the records that made the charts of the time. Singles and the Top 40 are no water-tight barometer of a social moment but I do think these statistics are revealing, especially because punk gave a vital shot in the arm to the 45 rpm/7" format, long regarded to be in terminal decline as the LP became rock's main currency from the late '60s.

Between 1976 and 1980, an apt time-span which covers the commercial breakthrough of punk through to a point when the new wave had pretty well superseded it, there are revealing details.

The US in that period saw a mere eight records with punk associations enter the Billboard chart, seven by American acts -- six by Blondie and one by Talking Heads -- and a single entry by a UK band -- the Clash. In the UK, of the eight key punk acts chosen, all but Talking Heads enjoyed UK chart success during the period of the survey. British acts were responsible for 41 of the 61 hits, yet Americans enjoyed a favourable rating, with 20 single hits.

The general, mainstream recognition of punk in the UK was massive by comparison with the States. Punk was successfully projected, marketed even, in the UK; in the US, its connotations kept it off the radio, out of the national press, and out of the charts. After all, Blondie had to deny its associations with punk with Peter-like determination, to achieve that run of half a dozen hit singles in the US. The Ramones, the most archetypal US punk combo, never touched the American Top 40 during this time, yet had a credible six entries in the UK.

If we make our definition of punk more restrictive and drop the pop sensibilities of Blondie and the mod revivalist tendencies of the Jam (by far the most successful act in the survey), the figures are still compelling: 30 hits by punk groups in the UK (the Pistols, Clash, Damned and Ramones) to one in the US (the Clash).

We should also bear in mind, however, that different methods of calculating charts in the two countries can also be blamed for discrepancies. The UK chart is, and was, sales based; the US chart has used a fluctuating range of indicators, marrying sales and airplay. Without airplay, punk releases would have been unlikely to make a chart impression. Yet this fact in itself says something important about the status of punk records within the American system.

Perceiving punk: the US problem

The US -- from its artists, to its critics, to its public -- had a real problems assimilating the punk phenomenon. It seemed to have too many difficult, negative connotations for that nation. Hilly Kristal of CBGBs had dubbed the NY movement "street rock" but by the start of 1976, punk rock was being used by that venue. Yet John Rockwell of the New York Times, cited in Bowman, objected to the description, saying that what he was hearing was not punk rock. He pointed out at the time that "NY rockers are cool, detached, alienated -- even in the profession of passion. Long gone are the explicit political enthusiasms of the '60s or the summer-of-love sentimentality, or folk-based humanism or even the glitter outrageousness of just a few years ago" (2001, p74).

David Byrne of Talking Heads seemed even more uncomfortable with the messages filtering through from the UK. Says Bowman, Byrne's view of the Sex Pistols' music was deeply suspicious. "They're something that was put together by Malcolm McLaren. The people fell for it hook, line and sinker. To me, it was like, once again, here comes the rock'n'roll image of bad boys in black leather. It used to be bad boys in drag, and now it's bad boys in ripped clothing. It's just another romantic notion that Europeans like to go for: The drunk on the corner has more wisdom than the guy in the ivory tower" (2001, p115).

Heylin also points out that there was a time gap in the US between punk's rise and the media truly engaging with it. He refers to different "gestation periods", explaining: "The British weekly music press was reviewing Sex Pistols shows less than three months after their cacophonous debut. Within a year of the Pistols' first performance they had a record deal, with the 'major' label EMI. Within six months of their first gigs, the Damned and the Clash also secured contracts, the latter with CBS. The CBGBs scene went largely ignored by the American music industry until 1976 -- two years after the debuts of Television, the Ramones and Blondie. Even then, only Television signed to an established label" (1993, pxiv).

Once the damaging effects of punk and its image had been conceded by the US rock business, a fresh spin was put on the movement -- new wave. Shuker says that new wave "in part provided a convenient marketing label for record label A&R people, journalists and DJs to distinguish music they did not want identified as punk, owing to punk's negative marketing connotations, especially in the US" (1998, p213).

Heylin offers a specific example. Blondie "had to play the game of accepting their new wave status in England and resisting it in the US where, throughout the late '70s, punk was treated as some kind of malignancy in modern music" (1993, p309). He also quotes Chris Stein: "The stigma of the word punk is something that could not be absorbed into today's American culture as representing anything remotely positive. And that's one of the things that held Blondie back so long" (ibid).

Conclusions

In short, a wide range of factors -- geographical, cultural, social and demographic -- affected the way punk was conceived, propagated and perceived in the US and the UK. The media played an important part in this: Britain had specialist music publications which nationally trumpeted the arrival of the style; this wave was aided by the shock-horror reporting of the mainstream national press and, at grass roots, by the spontaneous fanzine culture which unfolded. National radio, unfettered by concerns over advertising revenues, and local television also aided the explosion.

In the US, a lack of national newspaper exposure, an absence of influential and established music weeklies and relatively few fanzines, plus a radio system that felt unfriendly to the movement, conspired to marginalise punk; when the media did eventually take notice, it was merely to vilify it. Even if acts like Television and Blondie were musically distanced from the musical structure of punk, they were still tarnished by its reputation, herded into the same musical corral, and found their homeland a much tougher nut to crack than the British marketplace.

When the Clash told us a quarter of a century ago that they were bored with the USA, perhaps it was America's dyed-in-the-wool conservatism they felt most aggrieved by. If not, their complaints were prescient, for they would soon encounter it first hand. Certainly the punk insurgency, most vociferous in the UK, was resisted with fervour on the other Atlantic shores. The linchpins of information control and management -- the mass media -- under-reported the American activities, then demonised punk in its British guise. The result was that while punk in the UK became an overground powerhouse, in the US it remained, in its first wave at least, an esoteric slice of subterraneana.

Simon Warner: Senior Teaching Fellow at the University of Leeds

BA, Modern History, Sheffield

MA, Popular Music Studies, Institute of Popular Music, Liverpool

NCTJ, National Certificate for the Training of Journalists

For more further evidence of Mr. Warners "credentials" as a guy who knows his musical onions, you could visit his web-page:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/simon_warner.htm

To view the full paper, which was originally presented at "No Future?", a conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of punk, held at the University of Wolverhampton,UK, September 21st-23rd, 2001.

http://www.popmatters.com/music/features/011018-25up1.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I've pointed out several reasons why IMO the sex pistols killed off the initial punk rock movement. The fact of the matter is that after their fabricated brand of nonsense was taken to be the example of what punk is, the real punk bands (who avoided the limelight) were now burdoned with the SP dumbass stigma--and in effect it ruined these authentic punks bands chances at getting solid gigs or other support.

But maybe it was inevitable. The good thing that came out of this was that since no punk bands could get a record label to produce them, they had to go DIY. Ofcourse the Sex Pistols never purposely set out to accomplish this, so I can't even give them credit for that. All I give them credit for is causing the demise of the initial punk rock movement and tainting a good thing with their bullcrappie!

Hope you had a decent birthday. Pleasantries over...down to business.

How can you seriously use the word "movement" in conjunction with mid-70s US punk? At a stretch it could be described as a "scene", but "a movement"??! Hardly. As you yourself pointed out, US punk was already well on its way out before the UK punk explosion occurred...The MC5 had packed in years previously, the NY Dolls had already shot their bolt, etc. Leaving what? What kind of weakling "movement" is killed off by the arrival of one band from overseas? A movement implies "unity" and "progression towards a goal/destination". I suggest that this "movement" of which you speak didn't actually exist (if it ever had), by the time The Pistols/UK punk happened.

Of the remainder of the bands you previously mentioned that constituted "the best of US punk", The Ramones and Iggy Pop benefitted enormously , on both sides of the Atlantic, from the kudos accorded to them by the new UK punk audience. Both The Ramones and Iggy Pop subsequently showed great willingness to embrace the music industry game and compromise their artistic integrity in pursuit of as big an audience as possible. They played big open-air festivals, (I know 'cos I was there...), and put out blatantly "commercial" records. Have you heard "Wild Child", Iggy's post Billy-Idol pop-rock abomination?

So, which bit of "the original" (i.e. US) punk did the Pistols kill then? The part that was already dead or the part that went "from strength to strength", commercially speaking?

Who were/are these "real punk bands (who avoided the limelight)"? They're a myth; a fantasy in your own mind. In any case: it's pretty easy to avoid the limelight, if that is what one genuinely aspires to....I can't imagine the existence of The Sex Pistols having any impact at all on bands who actively shunned the limelight.

It's a laugh to say that "no punk bands could get a record label to produce them, they had to go DIY". Over here, record labels went berserk trying to snag themselves a punk band, so as not to miss out on the action and appear "fuddy-duddy"/ behind the pace...(This resulted in alot of bandwagon-jumpers and the co-option of the more commercially accessible "new wave") The live music scene was never better. In fact, reports suggest there was only The Pistols that struggled to get gigs; banned nationwide because of their reputation. Everybody else did fine. Of course, many bands did take the DIY route as far as producing & distributing their music was concerned. Whilst this wasn't directly following the example set by The Sex Pistols, it was a direct response to the "get up off your arse and do something" spirit of the time, for which The Pistols were responsible to a significant degree. I know you don't believe this, apparently because you simply refuse to...

A week or so ago, you suggested I lack a mind of my own and accused me of "blindly repeating" what the text-books tell me to. I put it to you that, since you were only eight in 1976, ("the halcyon age of punk"), you can have no first-hand knowledge whatsoever of any of which you speak. Your entire understanding of the circumstances of punk is the result of your absorption of a revisionist, myopic and one-eyed (Americo-centric) view of "punk", which leads you to the habit of "blindly repeating what you have heard". As such, you appear to possess exactly the same "sheep mentality" you have derided elsewhere. Disappointingly, just another mouthpiece for the agents of social control, toeing the party-line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even when I'm not looking for it, evidence to support my position just pops up...

From The Observer Music Monthly, today, Sunday May 21, 2006

A northern soul

Thirty years ago, the Manchester music scene was changed for ever. Paul Morley revisits the city of his youth and recalls the sights and eviscerating sounds that transformed the lives of a generation

In 1976, if you were a teenager in and around Manchester, which was a city still covered in war dust and with streets seemingly weakly lit by gas and an economy financed by pounds, shilling and pence, and you a) read the NME; B) wanted to write for the NME, or just send them letters every week, signed Steven or Morrissey; c) were intimate with the Stooges, the Velvets, Patti Smith and Richard Hell; d) were poor but had a few pence in your pocket; or e) were bored with Dark Side of The Moon, which didn't seem as much fun as the dark side of the moon, then you'd go and watch the Sex Pistols twice at the Lesser Free Trade Hall on 4 June and 20 July.

Those two shows started the process that led to the actions that inspired the creative energy and community pride that pieced the city back together again and which led to it being filled - splendidly and somehow sadly - with light and lofts and steel and glass and sophistication.

Over a hundred years after the Industrial Revolution, which seemed destined to crush the area into dust and isolation as the world it inspired moved Manchester out of the way, an Emotional Revolution happened that would push Manchester into the 21st Century. This happened because Johnny Rotten showed Howard Devoto a way to exploit positively his interest in music, theatre, poetry and philosophy. Devoto, let's just say, for the hell of it because the story has to start somewhere, with a bang, or a legendary punk gig, was the man who changed Manchester because he had an idea about what needed to happen at just the right time in just the right place. He arranged for the Sex Pistols to play in Manchester before the rest of the country had caught up with the idea that there was any such thing as a Sex Pistol. In the audience for the shows were Mark E Smith, Ian Curtis, Morrissey and Devoto himself, four of the greatest rock singers of all time, directly challenged to take things on. Johnny Rotten was like a psychotic lecturer explaining to these avant-garde music fans exactly what to do with their love for music, the things they wanted to say, and their unknown need to perform.

Buzzcocks formed in time for the sold-out second Pistols show, and became where Beckett met Bowie, or so it seemed to me as I followed them from gig to gig in the new clubs mysteriously opening up underground in cramped drinking dives or overground in grubby pubs and decaying bingo halls. With Pete Shelley on cheap guitar and the viciously smart Howard Devoto singing songs that had already abstracted the idea of the Pistols' punk into something seething with thought, history and humour, Buzzcocks made a sour sort of brainy bubblegum pop. Our very own Buzzcocks joined the travelling carnival with the Pistols and the Clash and showed everyone in Manchester who a) read the NME and B) wanted to form a band, the route from nowhere to more or less somewhere.

1976 ended with the Sex Pistols' Anarchy tour playing Manchester twice when most places in the country wouldn't allow the group inside their boundaries even once. They played the Electric Circus, a heavy metal venue a couple of miles up Rochdale Road in Collyhurst, abruptly co-opted by a new scene that needed venues to cope with this new audience. The Pistols sort of felt like a Manchester band, and there was Buzzcocks, local lads, playing - plotting - with them as they invaded and outraged this dull, drab land.

Coach trips would be organised, leaving from Piccadilly Gardens in the centre of town, 75p a ticket, heading for places around the country where the Pistols would be playing under various aliases, to avoid the censoring wrath of local councils. Malcolm McLaren, the Pistols' manager, would put the whole coach load on the guest list. The young people of Manchester, including various Buzzcocks, would arrive to see the Spots - the Sex Pistols On Tour Secretly - in Wolverhampton, and walk straight into the venue and into the very heart of the deliciously forbidden action.

Just after Christmas 1976, using a loan from guitarist Pete Shelley's dad, Buzzcocks recorded their Spiral Scratch EP with producer Martin Hannett, a local lad from the dark side of Mars. He was the city's Spector, the region's Eno, the man who produced the sound of Manchester, forcing the spacey, twisted highs and thumping lows of his life into the local, cosmic and carousing music that would soon follow Buzzcocks. Spiral Scratch was released on the bands own New Hormones label at the end of January 1977: four brief songs, four monumental miniatures, four stabs in the light. It was meant merely as a memento of the adventure they'd been having, a way of recording this lively little local disturbance. They hoped to sell at least half of the 1,000 copies so they could pay Pete's dad back.

The Spiral Scratch sleeve was black and white, the music was black and white, the landscape their songs occupied was black and white and it was the last time Hannett's production would be so black and white. The vivacious intelligence and dry, saucy wit was smuggled in behind the austerity. It was as though the group was clinically scrapping bloated rock history, and finding a very particular position where things could start up again. Perhaps, if you like, Spiral Scratch was the first real punk record, the birth of alternative indie culture, the rich, compressed source, ideologically if not sonically, of punk, post-punk, new wave, grunge and so on.

Now...by imagining similar goings-on ("inspiration" leading to "action") in every town and city throughout our small nation, one might get to grips with the notion that, whether you like them or not, The Sex Pistols did have an impact on British youth culture that went a little further than "influencing a few bands"...it became a nationwide phenomenon, permeating the culture of society at large. Its legacy remains with us today in music, art, fashion, culture, film, television, media, etc.

To read the rest of this insightful article go to: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm and scrolll down to "A Northern Soul": click on link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now...by imagining similar goings-on ("inspiration" leading to "action") in every town and city throughout our small nation, one might get to grips with the notion that, whether you like them or not, The Sex Pistols did have an impact on British youth culture that went a little further than "influencing a few bands"...it became a nationwide phenomenon, permeating the culture of society at large. Its legacy remains with us today in music, art, fashion, culture, film, television, media, etc.

To read the rest of this insightful article go to: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm and scrolll down to "A Northern Soul": click on link.

So are you saying that England would be different today if the Sex Pistols never existed? If so, then what specifically would have been different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be advised folks, Wagemann is a messageboard antagonist, banned from several music forums;

Sound Opinions,

The Gear Page,

Bowlie.

As long as he is getting attention he is winning.

The best appraisal I have seen of him is he's "a Master baiter".

Your assertions seem to ring true. Even though Paul's left hand may not know what his right hand's doing, some folks here obviously have their suspicions.

However your own credibility on this matter would be enhanced by the choice of someone other than a world-famous fantasist as your nom de plume.

How do you come to be aware of Mr Wagemann's alleged dubious practices?

I'm astounded that there may be people with nothing better to do than drift from one message-board to another, getting themselves banned, just for the sake of stirring up an argument. What sort of a pathetic hobby is that?! :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blind Fitter

What's in a nom de plume on the net friend?

I assume you can actually see this. ;)

Being a musician myself, I am a member of quite a few music forums.

I have listed 3 specifics above if anyone wishes to investigate further. Alternatively, punch his name into google and see what it throws back.

I merely wished to save people a lot of keyboard time unwittingly satisfying someones perverse desire to distrupt for the hell of it.

It is, of course, a choice for the individual whether they wish to engage with him.

I only offer that they approach that with a skeptical mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I merely wished to save people a lot of keyboard time unwittingly satisfying someones perverse desire to distrupt for the hell of it.

Yikes! Have I been a sucker, or what???!

To think I've nearly lost my job and access to my children on account of this loser.... :doh: :blush: :crazy:

Thanks for the tip-off, Mr Mitty: I only wish you'd turned up about 6 weeks ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...