|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 17, 2005 11:50:34 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree the Pistols should have placed much higherAs a social phenomena, you can place them as high as you want... Musicaly, they don't even register on the radar !! Well... Maybe the knives, serynge needles,
metal studs and baby diaper safety pins did !! I don't think I even put the Pistols on my list, but I don't really think it's all that easy to separate the "music" from the "social phenomena" - and anyway, I think the latter is relevant to judgments about rock and roll greatness. When we think about David Bowie, we don't only think about the music in isolation from Bowie's numerous personas and self-recreations and fashion statements - that's all part of the package. Part of the greatness of the Pistols was their ability to define a zeitgeist - and I actually think that comes across in the music. It certainly comes across in live performances - when you see Johnny Rotten performing in The Filth and the Fury, for example, shit, there is a real intensity and iconicity there that helps to explain why the Pistols rate so high on such lists. And I'm speaking as someone who thinks they've only recorded about 2 or 3 great songs.... Nevermind the Bollocks gets nowhere near my top 25 greatest albums of all time list.... no future, M |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 17, 2005 11:55:11 GMT -5
actually Phil, though I'm not a huge Pistols fans, and yes one album hardly makes a legacy, and yes, it's hard to extricate the Pistols from their short-lived "social" impact, songs such as Anarchy in the UK, Pretty Vacant, God Save the Queen, etc are damn good rock and roll songs...whether that merits 34th best UK band in our very limited survey, who knows, but I do believe they were slightly more than just a social phenomonon...
...though I was looking at some pictures of the Pistols and Siouxie this past weekend, and again (as I"ve mentioned on these boards in years past) their cavalier and dismissive adorning of the Swastika drove/drives me batty...........they were not a particularly intelligent nor sensitive lot....
|
|
|
|
Post by strawman on Oct 17, 2005 12:53:33 GMT -5
...musically they don't enter on the radar?  ?...hhrruuummmppphhhh....sorry but IMO musically they more than hold their own...I think Bollocks sounds as fresh today as it ever did...and for what its worth they would probably have grabbed my #1 spot UK band...yes even ahead of The Jam which I do truely love as well....but really The Sex Pistols were all that...and more... |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 17, 2005 13:08:48 GMT -5
I would like to think that I've flown the punk flag as high as anyone, but IMO the Pistols at #34 actually sounds about right. They made two killer singles (God Save the Queen, IMHO perhaps one of the top ten or fifteen singles in rock; and Anarchy in the U.K.), and at least one more that was in the same league (Holiday in the Sun), a pretty good album, the most galvanizing set of rock and roll gigs in history (can any other band claim to have been so influential based on so few public appearences?), and (as Mary noted) some of the most iconic images and poses in rock and roll, or anywhere in post-WWII Western society. I simply cannot imagine rock and roll, or even pop culture in general, without the Sex Pistols. They were hugely important, and part of that is because they were a genuinely great rock and roll group.
That said, do I think they were better than Radiohead? Nope. Do I think they were better than the Kinks or the Jam? Of course not. They were the perfect band at the perfect place, and as soon as that "perfect storm" subsided, they blew themselves up. A second Sex Pistols record would have been pointless, but that doesn't diminish the value (both social and artistic) of their debut. I don't think Bollocks is a great album (though I have to agree with Strawman that at least the best tracks sound as fresh today as they did in '77), but the Pistols were (at least for a moment) a great band. The problem is just that there are so many BETTER ones from the U.K.
If the Pistols had been an American band, they'd likely have cracked the top fifteen ... think about that one for a moment!
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 17, 2005 13:26:06 GMT -5
Punk (or closely related) Bands that were truly better than the Pistols
(1) The Jam
(2) Stiff Little Fingers
(3) The Clash
(4) The Buzzcocks
(5) X
(6) The Ramones
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 17, 2005 13:30:37 GMT -5
Don't forget about Talking Heads (a surprise pick for America's second greatest rock and roll band!) or Television (who came in a respectable 28th on our previous poll)!
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 17, 2005 14:30:47 GMT -5
Yeah, a couple of killer singles, a handful of energetic live performances and a shitload of hype... you could just as well be describing the Kaiser Chiefs. The main difference being that the Pistols were (of course) operating in the stuffier climes of England 1977. Musically, there's little to choose between them if the Kaisers imploded and stopped recording (yes please!) right now.
The Jam, on the other hand... well, now you're talking about a proper band.
|
|
|
|
Post by tuneschick on Oct 18, 2005 13:06:29 GMT -5
Wow, thanks Ken! Interesting stuff, this list... I also find it interesting that of the top 10 bands, half of them didn't even make my list of 15. Wow.
Pulp landed waaaaay higher than I thought they would - very happy about that, since I've always held them in higher regard than any of their "Brit-pop" peers. (I don't normally consider them part of that genre, either, but for the fact that their popularity peaked during that era).
I agree it would have been interesting to see someone other than the Beatles land the top spot (though if it had been U2 I would have gouged my eyes out!) - but nonetheless, a pretty respectable (and fairly diverse) list.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 18, 2005 15:32:57 GMT -5
Tunes, I agree on Pulp....Different Class is just a stellar album, and though harder to digest, Hardcore was a fascinating follow-up.....Blur has never done much for me and Oasis have a couple of amazing albums, but I can't stand the self-absorbed, cognitively-challenged Ghallager brothers...
Ken, I didn't mention Talking Heads because I have never clumped them in with their punk brethren...though they were "of the scene' circa 1975-1977, their music is just so tangential to what I envisioned punk was....of course, as I type this, there really is no "one" punk sound....when you have bands as diverse as Wire, Magazine, Talking Heads, Fear, etc clumped (or influenced) under the punk rubric, the prototypical "faster and louder" orientation of punk (especially assoicated with LA punk) really doesn't hold.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Matheus on Oct 18, 2005 22:34:24 GMT -5
Greatest Band???
Take That. I was going to pick the Spice Girls, but they were way too manufactured.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 19, 2005 8:32:47 GMT -5
Oasis have a couple of amazing albums, but I can't stand the self-absorbed, cognitively-challenged Ghallager brothers... And this can be (and is) the only objection people can have to Definitely Maybe. Forget all the ignorant shit about copying the Beatles - fuck, the most blatant rip is from T-Rex, so what are people listening to? - the only real objection people raise is to the mono-browed ignorance of Liam The Cretinous. The fact that it's one of the best, most vibrant, most damn important albums in the last 25 years of British music will have to be acknowledged only after the brothers are dead, I suspect, and we've all forgotten our smug, middle-class prejudices against thick, boorish working class Mancs. |
|
|
|
Post by bowiglou on Oct 19, 2005 11:24:12 GMT -5
..and Whats the Story (Morning Glory) is literally a perfect album.......I can't think of one dud song on that LP..........but if you've ever read an interview with Liam or Noel..my gawd!!......they are a perfect example of an artist that should just let their art do the talking.........they make Ted Nugent look like a Rhodes Scholar!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 19, 2005 11:44:36 GMT -5
I love Morning Glory ... like Bow said, absolutely perfect LP. Definitely Maybe is nearly as good. But, like Macca, Noel should express himself through song, not through interviews. And Liam ... well the less said the better.
But damn, they can make a glorious racket when the mood strikes 'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by pattentank24 on Oct 20, 2005 10:35:27 GMT -5
Top 15
15. SFA
14. Primal Scream
13. Blur
12. The Smiths
11. The Who
10. Oasis
9. Pink Floyd
8. The Cure
7. My Bloody Valentine
6. U2
5. Rolling Stones
4. The Beatles
3. Joy Division
2. Radiohead
1. The Clash
NO Zeppelin, I know Just really doesn't matter to me these days and yet I have all the albums and find myself skipping the "greatest hits" am I alone in this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 20, 2005 10:57:12 GMT -5
Patten -- don't forget that the new poll is up: The 25 Greatest Albums in Rock and Roll. You've got 8 days to vote (polls close next Friday), and I'd love to have your input.
I'm not sure, but I think your vote would have had some effect on the final rankings. Obviously the Beatles still would have won, but this might have changed the status of Radiohead, the Cure, Oasis, etc.
|
|
?...hhrruuummmppphhhh....sorry but IMO musically they more than hold their own...I think Bollocks sounds as fresh today as it ever did...and for what its worth they would probably have grabbed my #1 spot UK band...yes even ahead of The Jam which I do truely love as well....but really The Sex Pistols were all that...and more...
