Poor John - Pleading poverty on Jools - Poor Soul!

Posted by: Tony2011 on 28 September 2012

John, go back to your pad in LA or the jungle! You bring tears to my eyes,....  You sad Sod!

KR

Tony

Posted on: 28 September 2012 by winkyincanada

John who?

Posted on: 28 September 2012 by Tony2011
Sorry, Winki. He was better  known as John Lydon or Rotten or something like that.
It just gets on my nerves when these so called icons start moaning about their financial situations.
KR
Tony
Posted on: 28 September 2012 by thebigfredc

I could be wrong but I think he was really alluding to the reasons behind his financial situation.

 

He refered to the debt which I think came about as a result of him losing court cases over the Sex Pistols with Malcom Maclaren, one of which centred around who owned the Johny Rotten name.

 

So I think he was making the point of the power and politics in the music industry which had prevented him from making more music.

 

I am not a big fan of PIL but I thought they were good on Jools tonight.

 

Ray

Posted on: 28 September 2012 by FangfossFlyer

And their album, for me, is one of the best releases this year!

 

Richard

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by dis

Sex Pistols -in their  day- essential !

PIL, on the other hand ( touted as the originator / saviour of post punk) were decidely over-rated, especially by the Brits. Name their legacy ?

0 - 0

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by Jasonf
Originally Posted by dis:

       

         class="quotedText">
       

Sex Pistols -in their  day- essential !

PIL, on the other hand ( touted as the originator / saviour of post punk) were decidely over-rated, especially by the Brits. Name their legacy ?

0 - 0




Hi Dis, for me I would swap that around.

I consider the SP to be a total Fad band, manufactured and marketed in Malcolm MaClarens fashion boutique in CarnabyStreet. They were an invention of a 'type' of punk, marketed to a very British audience at a time when social discontent was... needy. Punk had been around before then, just more subtle, the SP were deliriously bad and crass but good for the kids of the day. I would consider them a boy band in the same vain as what we see today, just marketed to a different sector of society.

With PIL, I consider them a mature exponent of 90's pop, just with John Lydon's SP style vocals. With PIL there is certainly better music and better song writing. But I don't think they were ever considered saviours of Post Punk in Blighty, it may have been a music press headline once but not in reality. You guys over the pond had a much better and more organic Post Punk scene going on IMO.

Cheers.
Posted on: 29 September 2012 by dis

Jason

Sure - agreed - SPs  were well marketed by McLaren, and of course bands such as eg Velvet Underground came before.

But, what they did was open up the whole lo-fi, diy ,real world style which still thrives. Mercifully, they (and others) checked the bloated pop of the mid 70s for the better.

Check out the BBC doco on post-punk if you want a fawning view of PIL.

Btw, I'm from south of the equator..  But agree with you that US bands did much more for post-punk.

Cheers

dis

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by Jasonf
Hi dis, yes I think we agree on the fact that PIL were not the saviours of Post Punk, but we come at it from different directions.

I have not seen the docu yet but will try to at some point. I guess then its a matter of terminology. For me, PIL were never an exponent of Post Punk Music more late 80's 90's pop, they included quite a lot of dance orientated sounds and samples into their better singles. I think the SP connection is a red herring when one looks at PIL's music partly attributed to the music press and media.

Of course you could always argue that PIL is Post Punk, but IMO they were a very good 90's pop and in some cases a very good dance band, in the case of 'Burn Hollywood Burn'.

I did not see the Jools Holland set, as I am now based in Oslo, so perhaps they have gone retro and John Lydon is attempting to squeeze the very last drop of spit out of that sudo Punk hair style he carried when I saw him last.

Where are you based dis?
Posted on: 29 September 2012 by BigH47

Pistols an irrelevance then and now.

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by Tony2011

 

Although  I've never been a great fan of SP,  PIL's  songs on Jools weren't half as bad and quite rock-ish. I find it interesting the comparison between VU and SP but cannot help thinking one was an exercise in creativity and the other just an exercise in egotism.

KR

Tony

 

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by dis

There are 2 threads here ..

 

1. A band's influence and legacy

My humble opinion - SP lots, PIL almost zero

 

2. Personal taste

Just can't argue with someone elses passion for music !

I don't like either of the above now - taste has changed ! But can remember when I did.

 

Cheers

dis (NZ)

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by Kevin-W

Liked the Sex Pistols (especially the four singles) but I LOVED PiL 1978-1981 (not a great deal after that). The magisterial "Metal Box" is, for me, one of the greatest albums ever made and is, along with "Unknown Pleasures", THE definitive post-punk album.

Posted on: 29 September 2012 by Gale 401

The Pistols were brilliant live.

As were/are PiL.

The first album Public image Ltd  is a masterpiece imo.

Some one posted above about Mal's shop

It was at the bottom of the Kings Road on the right just before it turns into the New Kings road.

It was called SEX Vivienne Westwood was in there every day designing for stage and screen even before the punk thing took off.

I used to go past it every day on the 22 bus on my way home to the Duke of Cumberland at Parsons Green for a few pints of Youngs Special.

Also used to sit with Viv on the train on my way to Eastbourne or Brighton from Victoria twice/three times a week.

She is one of the nicest people you could ever wish to meet.

My ex wife used to be one of her catwalk models of choice in the late 70s early 80s

Mal was ok and no worse than any other record company in the 70's that ripped bands and artists off.

 

 

 

 

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Redmires

They were ok on the Jools show. JL got his plug for "butter" into the interview. With that and Iggy selling car insurance, what is the world coming to.

 

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Steve J
Originally Posted by Redmires:

They were ok on the Jools show. JL got his plug for "butter" into the interview. With that and Iggy selling car insurance, what is the world coming to.

 

Like a 'Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac'. 

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Sniper

I think he should have been flogged in public. Total no talent. Total disgrace. Not even music. 

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Mike Hughes
The Pistols were presented as a year zero thing and the start of the DIY ethos. In truth their music was fairly standard plodding blues based stuff distinguished only by the vocalist and there was nothing DIY about them at all. However, that misses the point. It's a bit like Beatles v Stones. The perception was that one were nice boys and the other ruffians. That the truth was the exact reverse has no relevance to what history now tells us. The influence of the Pistols was massive but it was not musical. It was about being inspired and putting something out there that expressed a desire to help yourself out of your background. Exactly the kind of thing that some of the more pompous posters on here despise the young for not doing nowadays. PIL were post punk and were musically inspirational to many of that ilk and beyond in terms of conceiving what music could be. That they may not appear to have influenced much in your collection is a moot point. I thought they were average on Later and the new album is as poor and posturing as one might expect but to berate Lydon for having escaped his roots in exactly the way he aspired to 35 years ago strikes me as laughable. It's as equally poor as the thinking that says he can't advertise anything. Artists have been advertising since advertising began. Pull out any if your 1960s and 1950s boxed sets and look for those nice extras that include radio spots and jingles. The idea that you can't or ought not to do such stuff is based on the fake idea of authenticity about which many people have written far better than myself. I love Leadbelly but he played white boy chart songs of the day too. Authenticity goes out the window when you realise how Lomax stereotyped him to present an authentic image. Dylan has based an entire career on a fake voice. And the problem is...
Posted on: 04 October 2012 by thebigfredc

Mike, Thanks for a more rounded point of view on SP/PIL.

 

I have never owned any music by either band but IMHO it is a better musical world with them.

 

I like JLs vocal style,

 

Ray

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Jet Johnson

People can argue as much as they like but .....the first 3 Pistols singles were 3 of the greatest rock and roll singles of all time  (fact)

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Wugged Woy
Originally Posted by BigH47:

Pistols an irrelevance then and now.

Erm, I hate to be a party pooper here, but, BigH47, you are absolutely right. We (being pop/rock guys in the far 'Nooarth', aged 18, just laughed at the Pistols. I still do (aged 55).

 

Originally Posted by Tony2011:

 

Although  I've never been a great fan of SP,  PIL's  songs on Jools weren't half as bad and quite rock-ish. I find it interesting the comparison between VU and SP but cannot help thinking one was an exercise in creativity and the other just an exercise in egotism.

KR

Tony

 


Mentioning Velvet Underground and the Sex Pistols in the same breath is embarrassing. Tony is absolutely spot on.

 

Originally Posted by Sniper:

I think he should have been flogged in public. Total no talent. Total disgrace. Not even music. 

Harsh, but true.

Originally Posted by Mike Hughes:
The Pistols were presented as a year zero thing and the start of the DIY ethos. In truth their music was fairly standard plodding blues based stuff distinguished only by the vocalist and there was nothing DIY about them at all.
True. 
It's a bit like Beatles v Stones. The perception was that one were nice boys and the other ruffians. That the truth was the exact reverse has no relevance to what history now tells us.
Complete balderdash. Not true. My family knew both bands in the early 60's, the perception was true..... believe me.
The influence of the Pistols was massive but it was not musical.
True.
 It was about being inspired and putting something out there that expressed a desire to help yourself out of your background.
No. It was about making money.
 PIL were post punk and were musically inspirational to many of that ilk and beyond in terms of conceiving what music could be.
No, that's not true........IMO

 

Originally Posted by Jet Johnson:
 

People can argue as much as they like but .....the first 3 Pistols singles were 3 of the greatest rock and roll singles of all time  (fact)


Thanks for telling us this 'fact' JJ  . Jesu alleluya. Oh, by the way, I ain't arguing but......they weren't.

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Jasonf

I do remember listening to a 7 inch, 'Friggin in the Riggin' when I was a young teen...at the time I thought it was brilliant, punchy and with great humour in a very young teenager way.

 

For those that don't know it, check out the lyrics for 'Friggin in the Riggin', you also need the right tune.

 

Now, of course to some, it would be bragging rights to have that in your record collection......

 

Its really very difficult to take the SP seriously in any shape or form when one tries to wrestle oneself away from the music propaganda machine that is the music press. if one forgot about the titles labels, headlines etc, then they become another clever mans marketing/fad success, Malcolm McLaren the impresario. 

 

Cheers.

Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Mike Hughes
I rather think the first three Pistols singles were important rather than good. There is a difference. Enjoyable and controversial, truly memorable and divisive, even now but, those things are not the same as great music. What those singles stood for was truly great. The singles themselves??? Could start an entire thread and end up with around 500 singles way better. Not so sure I see anything wrong with mentioning the Pistols and VU in the same breath at all. The Pistols influenced an attitude and probably influenced more modern music in consequence. VU created a sound and that sound gradually established a foothold but could also be argued to have straggled creativity in much the way that the Beatles blazed a trail for something that was unique but sadly much imitated to the detriment of music in general. All are more talked about than listened to. Both contained members who subsequently fell out and produced generally inferior solo work although I'd argue Cale comes out way ahead of Reed, Lennon or McCartney on that front. Wugged Woy - I can't wait for this - who were the posh boys then? Just a wild guess but I fear you may have misconstrued that aspect of my post by about 100%. Your answer will be very revealing.
Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Mike Hughes
Oh and Jason, guess which song I have on a 7" single? It's a horrible offensive, crass, unsubtle thing. Momentarily amusing to a juvenile mind and symptomatic of how stunningly unoriginal the Pistols were when left to their own devices and unravelling.
Posted on: 04 October 2012 by Wugged Woy
Originally Posted by Mike Hughes:
 Wugged Woy - I can't wait for this - who were the posh boys then? Just a wild guess but I fear you may have misconstrued that aspect of my post by about 100%. Your answer will be very revealing.


It's more 'who behaved like prats' , Mike. That's what I was getting at

 

The posh boys were the Sex Pistols weren't they ? Pseudo working class ? I may be wrong.

Posted on: 05 October 2012 by Mike Hughes
Yes Roy, I believe we are at cross purposes. I was referring to your comment about the Beatles and the Stones. I commented that the perception of them was the exact reverse of the truth. You said that was wrong because your family knew both. Please explain who the posh boys were then!