Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulEdwardWagemann

13 essential Rockism albums:

Recommended Posts

"Talking Book" is fantastic; so are "Innervisions" and "Songs In The Key Of Life". I think "Fulfillingness' First Finale" is my favorite, but you can't go wrong with anything he did in that period. "Songs In The Key..." is a true study in diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so my essential 13-album list would look a little like this:

- Big Science by Laurie Anderson

- The Crackdown by Cabaret Voltaire (found this at a bargain bin years ago)

- The Day The Earth Stood Still by Bernard Herrmann

- Gentlemen Take Polaroids by Japan

- Madonna by Madonna

- Master Of Puppets by Metallica

- The Man Machine by Kraftwerk

- Per Qualche A Dollaro In Piu by Ennio Morricone (or any from the trilogy)

- Piper At The Gates Of Dawn by Pink Floyd

- Purple Rain by Prince

- Roxy Music (or For Your Pleasure) by Roxy Music

- The Velvet Underground by The Velvet Underground

- Ziggy Stardust by David Bowie (although I'm really tempted to say Aladdin Sane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why that is essential--I think you know what I think of the sex pistols, but I'm open-minded. Perhaps you can convince me.

Well, putting it into its correct historical context: around the mid 70s, "rock" was moribund. It had been taken away from "the people" and become monopolised by elitist cliques of University-educated knob-twiddlers and virtuosi, (many of whom had their heads wedged very firmly up their arses), and bloated rock legends increasingly out of touch with reality and what had once made them special. At ground level, the "live" music scene was dominated by "pub-rock", good time but essentially conservative bands peddling their trade in retrograde 60s r'nb.

Whether or not you like The Sex Pistols- and I know you tend towards "not"- it appears foolish to deny their significance in the evolution of "rock", given that they almost single-handedly provided the "shot in the arm" needed to revive "rock" as a vibrant living entity. Not only did a plethora of exciting rock bands form in their wake,who owe their very existence and (some very lengthy) rock careers to The Pistols initial thrust, but they also kick-started a scene of remarkable creative activity,(unprecedented since the mid /late 60s), advocating new approaches to music, leading to many diverse sub-genres which represent the punk diaspora. "Post-punk" didn't get the name "post-punk" for nothing, you know. And let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because some great US rock bands claimed the tag "punk" before The Pistols / UK punk exploded, that "post-punk" refers in any way to their existence. "Post-punk" refers to musics primarily influenced by and arising from the UK punk phenomenon, (albeit many "post-punk" outfits were not British).

I would concede that individually, The Sex Pistols were not the world's most accomplished musicians, but I would also argue that as "irrelevant" to this debate. "Never Mind The Bollocks" was much more than a vehicle for its musical and lyrical content, (which were however quite unprecedented at the time). Some albums are like that: carrying more significance than the sum of their parts. It undoubtedly and unarguably "created a foundation or erected a pillar" for Rock's evolution, which you cite as a significant criterion for "rockist" appreciation.

There is a wealth of documentary evidence and opinion to sustain this view; I am by no means unique in my perspective.

It's not that hard to grasp. I'm not a big fan of Led Zeppelin or whatever, but I can't see the point in denying their contribution to rock's evolution. That just reeks of... well... "denial".

The Pistols: like 'em or not, they did what they did and what they did changed the musical landscape immediately, inexorably and for ever. What more needs to be said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe the Sex Pistols provided a shot in the arm to Rock in England, but in the US they were barely a blip on the mass culture radar screen. Punk in general, wasnt much of an influence on US culture in the late 70s either. It was found in small local scenes, generally in industrial and urban wastelands. No one really paid that much attention to it until a few New Wave/art rock bands (who had happend to have played some of the same gigs as the punk bands) hit the big time: devo, blondie, talking heads, etc.

In the 1970s, Punk was just one of the many new dirrections music was splintering into in the US: there was a country resergence, disco, new wave, raggae, etc. Punk was probably the least influential of these at the time. ANd certainly less influential than the many Rock genres that were around; hard rock, heavy metal, yacht rock, singer/songwriter stuff, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, by including The Clash in your list, you're giving a sideways nod to the Sex Pistols. Joe Strummer was in a pub rock band called The 101'ers, but broke the band up after seeing the Sex Pistols and realizing the rock he had been playing was dead, and punk was the future. Sure, The Clash played completely different punk than the Sex Pistols, but there probably wouldn't be a Clash without them.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the sex pistols were just one band in a long line of prefabricated, cookie-cutter bands made by corporate bigwigs. In this instance, that corp bigwig would be Malcolm McLaren. sex pistols are no better than The Monkeys or NKOTB or Menudo, except for the fact those three bands at least had one or two songs which were not so bad - for prefab band songs. In short, they added nothing significant to the genre that other bands had not done better... and tastier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself agreeing with BF here. Perhaps its an English thing, but the Sex Pistols for all their 'cartoon' antics did change the face of popular music in the UK. Listen to interviews with many of the successful bands of the late 70s and they usually refer to going to some gig or other in Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow or London and seeing the Sex Pistols for the first time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to appearances, I don't actually give a monkey's chuff whether other people like The Sex Pistols or not. I happily co-exist, both in real life and in cyber-space, with people who fail to share any fondness I may have for them. Despite occasionally giving an outward impression of a certain intransigence and dogmatism, I am actually comfortably resigned to the notion that, on account of those slippery customers "personal taste" and "subjective opinion", a great many people, quite reasonably, do not share my world-view.

For this reason, I often turn a blind eye to the run-of-the-mill assertion of ill-informed opinions presented as fact: indeed it is a tactic to which I am no stranger myself. However, there are occasions when the fact/opinion expounded is so staggeringly ill-informed and misrepresentative of "reality" that I am vexed beyond my ability to keep counsel.

the sex pistols were just one band in a long line of prefabricated, cookie-cutter bands made by corporate bigwigs. In this instance, that corp bigwig would be Malcolm McLaren.

However far one bends "the truth" in order to accommodate subjective reality, there is nothing of accuracy in these statements at all. The Sex Pistols were not "prefabricated" in any way that resembles other bands renowned for being prefabricated. They formed and developed organically, along very similar lines to most teenage rock bands. Guitarist and drummer want to form a band, recruit a bassist, rehearse, need a singer, recruit a singer. Hand-picked by corporate committee to accommodate the demands of the target demographic? Nope.

"Cookie-cutter band" made by corporate big-wigs??? :confused: This bears no semblance to reality. Malcolm McLaren may have been many things, but "corp bigwig" wasn't one of them. Do you know anything at all about the history of The Sex Pistols??

At the time of The Pistols inception, McLaren was the owner of a small "alternative clothing"/fetish-wear shop. This was frequented by each of the eventual Pistols, which is how they came to find each other. McLaren wasn't employed by any corporate organisation; just a self-employed shop-owner. Steve Jones- the guitarist who formed the band- asked McLaren to be their manager, on account that he knew how to manage a shop. Having been in love with rock'n'roll since the days of Gene Vincent, and turned on by the romantic dream of returning some of the hip-thrusting swagger to the genre, catalysing a youth revolution, he agreed. Henceforth, he attempted to capitalise on the reputation the band earned itself and to secure them a record deal. Which is a band manager's job, I believe. Never, at any point, did McLaren exemplify corporate big-wiggery.

I find myself agreeing with BF here...
Diggs: you don't have to sound quite so surprised about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However far one bends "the truth" in order to accommodate subjective reality, there is nothing of accuracy in these statements at all. The Sex Pistols were not "prefabricated" in any way that resembles other bands renowned for being prefabricated. They formed and developed organically, along very similar lines to most teenage rock bands. Guitarist and drummer want to form a band, recruit a bassist, rehearse, need a singer, recruit a singer. Hand-picked by corporate committee to accommodate the demands of the target demographic? Nope.

"Cookie-cutter band" made by corporate big-wigs??? :confused: This bears no semblance to reality. Malcolm McLaren may have been many things, but "corp bigwig" wasn't one of them. Do you know anything at all about the history of The Sex Pistols??

At the time of The Pistols inception, McLaren was the owner of a small "alternative clothing"/fetish-wear shop. This was frequented by each of the eventual Pistols, which is how they came to find each other. McLaren wasn't employed by any corporate organisation; just a self-employed shop-owner. Steve Jones- the guitarist who formed the band- asked McLaren to be their manager, on account that he knew how to manage a shop. Having been in love with rock'n'roll since the days of Gene Vincent, and turned on by the romantic dream of returning some of the hip-thrusting swagger to the genre, catalysing a youth revolution, he agreed. Henceforth, he attempted to capitalise on the reputation the band earned itself and to secure them a record deal. Which is a band manager's job, I believe. Never, at any point, did McLaren exemplify corporate big-wiggery.

You are just as welcome to your opinion, but McLaren was/is a fashion designer and clothing-store owner. This sounds more like the people behind Internet Pop crap such as tila tequila. Furthermore, singer doesn't know how to sing and how they accepted vicious, who couldn't play worth a crap, is mind-boggling... this power music combo of fashion design and untalented performers sound about as "Punk" as the combined talents of ashlee simpson and avril lasagne. The funny coincidence is that, even if McLaren takes all the credit from them, the band's just as terrible lip-synching their own songs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but McLaren was/is a fashion designer and clothing-store owner.

Well, it was more his ex-partner Vivienne Westwood that was the fashion designer, but that's not really the point. It's not as if McLaren was the head honcho of some international fashion emporium. By all accounts, his shop was about the size of my front-room.

Furthermore, singer doesn't know how to sing and ... this power music combo of fashion design and untalented performers sound about as "Punk" as ....
I fail to see the relevance of these points. Thankfully, technical competence is not the only criteria rock music is judged by, otherwise what a tediously self-indulgent place the world of rock and pop would be. By my understanding, rockism appreciates those artists who have had either the creativity or the nerve to take "rock" into uncharted territory. That is what we were discussing. John Lydon clearly never possessed a melodious singing voice, but he certainly had the most bilious ever heard at that point, and one which complemented the band's (at that point) unique style. Whether or not one finds his voice pleasing to the ear, it was responsible for several significant classic "defining moments": most notably the opening "R-r-r-r-ight....now!" snarl of "Anarchy In The UK", the desperate babbling climax to "Holidays In The Sun" ("Please don't be waiting for me!"), the "No Future" refrain from "God Save The Queen", ".......And We Don't Care!" ("Pretty Vacant"), etc.

The funny coincidence is that, even if McLaren takes all the credit from them, the band's just as terrible lip-synching their own songs!

Do you have any idea what you're talking about here? 'Cos I don't.

There are plenty of valid reasons not to like The Sex Pistols. However "prefabrication" and "being managed by a corporate big-wig" are not amongst them. If you find them insufficiently melodious, too aggressive / harsh to the ear, not technically gifted enough for your esoteric tastes, then fair enough. But that isn't the subject of this discussion, which focusses on those albums which have had a significant role in the evolution of rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was just me, but I thought I saw someone lip-synching on their mockumentary years ago. That is what I'm referring to. I just don't hear anything evolve in their one album, either within the group or Rock in general - just a group of guys who suck. Everything you've outlined about the band can be attributed to someone else who came before them, or were their contemporaries. There's no magic bullet to their approach. Perhaps iff I hadn't finally gotten around to hearing and seeing old recordings of The Stooges, The Velvet Underground, Suicide, The New York Dolls, and The Ramones I'd still consider the sex pistols' debut something of a quintessential quality, even if I dislike every aspect of the band. It just doesn't work now that I've heard and seen better. To me, that's what they look and sound like: A warped version of The Monkees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was just me, but I thought I saw someone lip-synching on their mockumentary years ago. That is what I'm referring to.

If it was a "mockumentary", why take its content seriously?

Everything you've outlined about the band can be attributed to someone else who came before them, or were their contemporaries.

I haven't "outlined" anything about the band: in this thread anyway. All I have done is to provide some descriptive detail of the band's early history, to counter the misinformed opinion you presented earlier as if it were fact. If anything, this detail served to emphasise how similar The Pistols formation was to the experience of most rock bands, (famous or not), as opposed to your "manufactured/prefabricated" illusion. Then I did make reference to some specific "moments" which were, in fact, theirs and theirs alone.

To me, that's what they look and sound like: A warped version of The Monkees
Well done for spelling "Monkees" correctly on this occasion.

So that's what they sound like to you? That's fine: The Monkees had some great tunes. If you asked me, I could just as easily say that early Ramones stuff sounds like "a warped version of The Monkees". In fact, The Ramones themselves would probably have quite liked that, since that's arguably precisely the kind of vibe they were aiming for.

The New York Dolls were a pansified, pancake-make-up pastiche of The Rolling Stones: a fine band, and no mistake. However, it's commonly acknowledged that their recorded albums were below-par, failing to do justice to the band's explosive potential, hence their perennial exclusion from lists of classic albums.

Frankly, I'm already a bit fed up with this debate, having been here before.

It has become apparent that The Sex Pistols' enormous impact on the musical landscape of the late 70s/early 80s must have been most keenly felt on this side of The Atlantic; contariwise, on the other side of the pond, they and their "contribution" are accorded little or no respect whatsoever. Life is too short for making a list of bands/scenes who owe their existence to the direct/indirect influence of The Pistols, particularly as so many of this hundreds-long list would be unfamiliar to many having largely failed to transcend the trans-atlantic divide. However, off the top of my head, and confining myself to artists who are internationally-known, and known to you personally, here follows a small selection of bands who can attribute their very existence to a direct (i.e. not second or third-hand) influence by The Sex Pistols:

The Clash

U2*

Duran Duran*

Bauhaus

Morrissey/The Smiths

Joy Division/New Order

ABC*

Merely the tip of the iceberg.......

(*I never said it was all "good news", did I?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a "mockumentary", why take its content seriously?

Because it's still partly about the mockery known as "the sex pistols."

I haven't "outlined" anything about the band: in this thread anyway.

lol @ that. You have... in this thread

Well, putting it into its correct historical context: around the mid 70s, "rock" was moribund. It had been taken away from "the people" and become monopolised by elitist cliques of University-educated knob-twiddlers and virtuosi, (many of whom had their heads wedged very firmly up their arses), and bloated rock legends increasingly out of touch with reality and what had once made them special. At ground level, the "live" music scene was dominated by "pub-rock", good time but essentially conservative bands peddling their trade in retrograde 60s r'nb.

Whether or not you like The Sex Pistols- and I know you tend towards "not"- it appears foolish to deny their significance in the evolution of "rock", given that they almost single-handedly provided the "shot in the arm" needed to revive "rock" as a vibrant living entity. Not only did a plethora of exciting rock bands form in their wake,who owe their very existence and (some very lengthy) rock careers to The Pistols initial thrust, but they also kick-started a scene of remarkable creative activity,(unprecedented since the mid /late 60s), advocating new approaches to music, leading to many diverse sub-genres which represent the punk diaspora. "Post-punk" didn't get the name "post-punk" for nothing, you know. And let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because some great US rock bands claimed the tag "punk" before The Pistols / UK punk exploded, that "post-punk" refers in any way to their existence. "Post-punk" refers to musics primarily influenced by and arising from the UK punk phenomenon, (albeit many "post-punk" outfits were not British).

I would concede that individually, The Sex Pistols were not the world's most accomplished musicians, but I would also argue that as "irrelevant" to this debate. "Never Mind The Bollocks" was much more than a vehicle for its musical and lyrical content, (which were however quite unprecedented at the time). Some albums are like that: carrying more significance than the sum of their parts. It undoubtedly and unarguably "created a foundation or erected a pillar" for Rock's evolution, which you cite as a significant criterion for "rockist" appreciation.

There is a wealth of documentary evidence and opinion to sustain this view; I am by no means unique in my perspective.

It's not that hard to grasp. I'm not a big fan of Led Zeppelin or whatever, but I can't see the point in denying their contribution to rock's evolution. That just reeks of... well... "denial".

The Pistols: like 'em or not, they did what they did and what they did changed the musical landscape immediately, inexorably and for ever. What more needs to be said?

All I have done is to provide some descriptive detail of the band's early history, to counter the misinformed opinion you presented earlier as if it were fact.

That they sound horrible is a fact. That they are managed by a clothes-shop owner/fashion-designer is a fact. That they can barely play an instrument - and sometimes not at all - is a fact. That there's only one album to speak of is a fact. That Punk music existed before their single crappy album is a fact. That making a band of untalented kids into a Pop culture phenomena is equivalent to previous and latter undertakings is evident.

... "Monkees" correctly on this occasion.

I know how to spell the name just like I know how to capitalise proper nouns. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious.

So that's what they sound like to you? That's fine: The Monkees had some great tunes.

Did I say before they made bad music? If you read back, I said at least those other Pop bands made decent tunes.

If you asked me, I could just as easily say that early Ramones stuff sounds like "a warped version of The Monkees". In fact, The Ramones themselves would probably have quite liked that, since that's arguably precisely the kind of vibe they were aiming for.

... and were much better at it than the pistols, as I've been saying all along.

The New York Dolls were a pansified, pancake-make-up pastiche of The Rolling Stones: a fine band, and no mistake. However, it's commonly acknowledged that their recorded albums were below-par, failing to do justice to the band's explosive potential, hence their perennial exclusion from lists of classic albums.

Yet, by merely getting there first they exclude the pistols as bringing forth anything refreshing and worth mentioning to the scene.

Frankly, I'm already a bit fed up with this debate, having been here before.

lol... and...?

It has become apparent that The Sex Pistols' enormous impact on the musical landscape of the late 70s/early 80s must have been most keenly felt on this side of The Atlantic; contariwise, on the other side of the pond, they and their "contribution" are accorded little or no respect whatsoever. Life is too short for making a list of bands/scenes who owe their existence to the direct/indirect influence of The Pistols, particularly as so many of this hundreds-long list would be unfamiliar to many having largely failed to transcend the trans-atlantic divide. However, off the top of my head, and confining myself to artists who are internationally-known, and known to you personally, here follows a small selection of bands who can attribute their very existence to a direct (i.e. not second or third-hand) influence by The Sex Pistols:

The Clash

U2*

Duran Duran*

Bauhaus

Morrissey/The Smiths

Joy Division/New Order

ABC*

Merely the tip of the iceberg.......

(*I never said it was all "good news", did I?)

Moz was the club prez of The New York Dolls club. He also attributes 60s bands as his major influence. sex pistols probably land somewhere near the bottom. Perhaps my ear is untrained, but I don't hear any bit of "sex pistols" in music by The Smiths. Same goes for ABC. One would probably hear more Disco in their debut album ("Poison Arrow") than Punk to begin with. Vocals are very in tune with the likes of "Blue-Eyed Soul." There is nothing in their catalogue that would even hint at sex pistols. The Clash. They were better at it and they were contemporaries with the pistols. Their sound is better, despite naming them as their primary influence. The same could be said of Joy Division and NewOrder (esp. NewOrder). I mean, Jesus H., man. NewOrder's a band that has been in the music scene some 25+ years. You can pretty much pick any album from Movement to Technique and it can easily dwarf anything that inspired it. Sure, as contemporaries, or subsequent bands, they're gonna know about them, but they fall in a long list of other influences. You really think sex pistols would be above Bowie, Roxy Music, and Velvet Underground when it comes to Post Punk/New Wave influences? Come on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...in general they all have either created a foundation or erected a pillar for Rock to evolve so that it continues to be a relevent vehicle of expression...

Like "Never Mind The Bollocks", for example?

I don't see why that is essential--I think you know what I think of the sex pistols, but I'm open-minded. Perhaps you can convince me.

Well, putting it into its correct historical context: around the mid 70s, "rock" was moribund. It had been taken away from "the people" and become monopolised by elitist cliques of University-educated knob-twiddlers and virtuosi, (many of whom had their heads wedged very firmly up their arses), and bloated rock legends increasingly out of touch with reality and what had once made them special. At ground level, the "live" music scene was dominated by "pub-rock", good time but essentially conservative bands peddling their trade in retrograde 60s r'nb.

Whether or not you like The Sex Pistols- and I know you tend towards "not"- it appears foolish to deny their significance in the evolution of "rock", given that they almost single-handedly provided the "shot in the arm" needed to revive "rock" as a vibrant living entity. Not only did a plethora of exciting rock bands form in their wake,who owe their very existence and (some very lengthy) rock careers to The Pistols initial thrust, but they also kick-started a scene of remarkable creative activity,(unprecedented since the mid /late 60s), advocating new approaches to music, leading to many diverse sub-genres which represent the punk diaspora. "Post-punk" didn't get the name "post-punk" for nothing, you know. And let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because some great US rock bands claimed the tag "punk" before The Pistols / UK punk exploded, that "post-punk" refers in any way to their existence. "Post-punk" refers to musics primarily influenced by and arising from the UK punk phenomenon, (albeit many "post-punk" outfits were not British).

I would concede that individually, The Sex Pistols were not the world's most accomplished musicians, but I would also argue that as "irrelevant" to this debate. "Never Mind The Bollocks" was much more than a vehicle for its musical and lyrical content, (which were however quite unprecedented at the time). Some albums are like that: carrying more significance than the sum of their parts. It undoubtedly and unarguably "created a foundation or erected a pillar" for Rock's evolution, which you cite as a significant criterion for "rockist" appreciation.

There is a wealth of documentary evidence and opinion to sustain this view; I am by no means unique in my perspective.

It's not that hard to grasp. I'm not a big fan of Led Zeppelin or whatever, but I can't see the point in denying their contribution to rock's evolution. That just reeks of... well... "denial".

The Pistols: like 'em or not, they did what they did and what they did changed the musical landscape immediately, inexorably and for ever. What more needs to be said?

Ok, I think I see what you're getting at; maybe I did outline a little, in presenting a case for "Never Mind The Bollocks" to be considered in "Rockist" terms, as an influential album. Which it was, massively. Just not in the USA, that's all.

I was just bringing something to the table, ok? There have been plenty of things in Paul's list, in your list, in Batman (or whoever)'s list, that I might not personally care for a great deal. But did I launch in with a "that's just a load of crap" tirade??? No, I did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, by merely getting there first they (New York Dolls) exclude the pistols as bringing forth anything refreshing and worth mentioning to the scene.

getting where first? :confused: :stars:

It has become apparent that The Sex Pistols' enormous impact on the musical landscape of the late 70s/early 80s must have been most keenly felt on this side of The Atlantic; contariwise, on the other side of the pond, they and their "contribution" are accorded little or no respect whatsoever. Life is too short for making a list of bands/scenes who owe their existence to the direct/indirect influence of The Pistols, particularly as so many of this hundreds-long list would be unfamiliar to many having largely failed to transcend the trans-atlantic divide. However, off the top of my head, and confining myself to artists who are internationally-known, and known to you personally, here follows a small selection of bands who can attribute their very existence to a direct (i.e. not second or third-hand) influence by The Sex Pistols:

The Clash

U2*

Duran Duran*

Bauhaus

Morrissey/The Smiths

Joy Division/New Order

ABC*

Merely the tip of the iceberg.......

(*I never said it was all "good news", did I?)

Moz was the club prez of The New York Dolls club. He also attributes 60s bands as his major influence. sex pistols probably land somewhere near the bottom. Perhaps my ear is untrained, but I don't hear any bit of "sex pistols" in music by The Smiths. Same goes for ABC. One would probably hear more Disco in their debut album ("Poison Arrow") than Punk to begin with. Vocals are very in tune with the likes of "Blue-Eyed Soul." There is nothing in their catalogue that would even hint at sex pistols. The Clash. They were better at it and they were contemporaries with the pistols. Their sound is better, despite naming them as their primary influence. The same could be said of Joy Division and NewOrder (esp. NewOrder). I mean, Jesus H., man. NewOrder's a band that has been in the music scene some 25+ years. You can pretty much pick any album from Movement to Technique and it can easily dwarf anything that inspired it. Sure, as contemporaries, or subsequent bands, they're gonna know about them, but they fall in a long list of other influences.
If somebody is influenced by another artist, does that mean they have to sound stylistically similar? Obviously not, if ABC are anything to go by. When I was about 15, I was a regular reader of Smash Hits (glossy-pop magazine, edited for a while by Neil Tennent of The Pet Shop Boys, fact fans) It contained lyrics to current chart-hits, interviews, features, posters, etc. It had a reader's request feature, where you could request lyrics and accompanying poster to a song from yesteryear. For a while they ran this as a "celebrity" feature, where stars of the day chose the featured song/lyric and explained their choice. I loathed ABC at the time, perceiving it as superficial glossy pop, lame suits and all that glitzy crap, so was muchly surprised that their choice of song was "Anarchy In The UK". "People may be surprised, but this is the what made us want to form a band. With ABC, we want to be the point where Sex Pistols meet Chic". After which, i liked them a bit more.

Yes, Morrissey was the president of The New York Dolls UK fan club, (an organisation that held its AGM in a Wythenshawe telephone box); he was a fan, sat hours in his bedroom listening to them and writing pointless letters to the press and articles for his Dolls fanzine. But it took seeing the Sex Pistols "live" to awaken him to the possibilities of punk rock- to get off his moaning arse and be creative.

Re: your comments on New Order and The Clash. Undoubtedly there were many artists who, having taken inspiration from the Sex Pistols, moved off in different directions, to produce music which could be perceived as being much better(depending on one's personal taste), or in its turn, similarly influential (or moreso). That might well be the case with these bands.

You really think sex pistols would be above Bowie, Roxy Music, and Velvet Underground when it comes to Post Punk/New Wave influences? Come on...
Don't think I ever said that, though.

It would be foolish to deny that these were all very influential artists in their own right. I think throughout my contribution to Songfacts, I have consistently given Bowie & Roxy Music their due...Like The Pistols, Velvet Underground are another fine example of artists being inspirational and influential despite poor singing and limited technical competence. ;)

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been wracking my fingers keying in "Sex Pistols" at allmusic, Amazon, and wikipedia (thank bog for the powers the Internets gives!!). Around the time of Bollocks there were other - better - albums out there in the genre. Even bands that one would refer to as "Post Punk" were cutting a record or a single that same fateful year of 1977. I remember hearing and reading so much praise from music fanatics and musicians alike as to the impact Bollocks had on them to the point that this album became mythical before I had given it a chance to give it a spin. By the time I got around to it, it was anti-climactic; all I had heard up to that point were the two singles: "Anarchy In The UK" (actually saw the music video on MTV) and "God Save The Queen" (back when LA's KROQ played a variety of music). When I listened to the full-length album, I was left in want of this perpetual high their fans seem to be on when they reference this work. The only other song I liked was "E.M.I." and that was marginal. Everything else sounded like filler material. Up to that point, that was my full-exposure to the beginnings of Punk Rock. Nevermind that there existed other bands out there who were doing similar things before them, or the bands who were around the same time as Bollocks. As I was sayin' of 1977, that year Ultravox! and The Stranglers were also going full-force... and after listening to those albums I came to realise, "What's all the fuzz about Bollocks? These guys are evidently better." I'm looking at the track listing of Ha! Ha! Ha! as I type this and at least half the album is sonically rich with enough skill and raw energy to be thought of as a solid album. We could go track-by-track comparing 8 songs from one album to 8 songs from the other, and I cannot hear what makes the one of lesser-quality better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...