Talk:Sex Pistols

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Omnimusica-can

I will check this out, but I'm pretty sure the 'hip Young Gunslingers' ad was in New Musical Express to recruit young new journalists to write for that paper rtaher than to form the pistols. The 'hip young gunslingers' included Julie burchill and Tony Parsons, who were actively interested in and made their names by covering the pistols & punk, but the ad wasn't directly connected to the formation of the band. quercus robur

Have checked. This is definately the case quercus robur

D'oh! You're right. The Pistols ad ran :

Wanted: Whizz kid guitarist. Not older than 20. Not worse looking than Johnny Thunders

My memory is slipping -- User:GWO

This ad is covered in Jon savage's book 'Englands dreaming', Mclaren ran the ad, but the band was already formed by then... They auditioned some guitarists but realised that none of them were any better than the band line up as it already stood, so it doesn't really make a difference to the overall history of the band quercus robur

are they "The Sex Pistols" or the "Sex Pistols"? Either way, the page title should agree with the bold text in the first line. -- Tarquin

Well, Tokerboy just changed the text to The Sex Pistols, but I think he's wrong - I just checked in Jon Savage's tome on punk rock, England's Dreaming, and he indexes them as "Sex Pistols" (and he's not shy of the definite article, because the index also has "Buzzcocks, the", for instance).

One slight problem with this. The band insist they've always been "Buzzcocks", not "The Buzzcocks"... -- User:GWO

OK, so the fella's not perfect (it's still a good book, mind) - I think the index reflects common usage pretty well though, if nothing else: there are more links to Sex Pistols than The Sex Pistols after all. And he does list them as "Buzzcocks, the" rather than "Buzzcocks, The"... hm, why am I writing this? --Camembert

I don't suppose it's a big deal, however - I'll leave things as they are, for now at least. --Camembert

I had thought it was Sex Pistols too, but I typed it into the the allmusic guide and it redirected me to The Sex Pistols. I've checked the Pixies and it redirects "The Pixies" to Pixies, as is correct, so I figured it was reasonably authoritative. Jon Savage might be more accurate though. Tokerboy 21:13 Nov 17, 2002 (UTC)

Yeah, I like allmusic, but it has some appalling errors in it which means I can't bring myself to trust it entirely - just to give one example, it conflates two (maybe even three) different people called Alan Holmes - I know for sure they are not the same person, because one of the Alan Holmeses told a friend of mine himself that they were different. Admittedly, that's somewhat more obscure, but still - I filled in the form to let them know, but nothing changed - if they made it a wiki it might work better ;) So I tend to trust Savage more - I'll move the article to Sex Pistols, but as I say, it's not a big deal really - I'm just feeling awkward tonight. --Camembert

Again the band faced controversy when a record shop in Manchester was threatened with prosection for diplaying the album's 'obscene' cover, although the case was overturned when defending QC John Mortimer produced expert witnesses who were able to demonstrate that the word "bollocks" was of legitimate English origin.

Can someone explain the last statement? Surely being of legitimate English origin doesn't mean a piece of content is categorically not obscene? Is my issue with the word 'legitimate'? 66.153.56.194 16:51, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

. 144.177.0.6  asked  (Wally Nightingale? Who he?)

No idea, but according to Jon savage & John lydon and their respective books on the Pistols he formed the band in the first place, he's now dead by all accounts due to substance abuse. This is all verifable information in the various Pistols bios etc quercus robur 00:56, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The reaction of most visitors who know a little about the Pistols will be to say "Who?", and to click on the link... but we don't even have a little stub article about him to answer that question. After a little googling I'm far from convinced that he ever really existed, but if he did, it seems he was only a member of the band before they named it "The Sex Pistols". I might be persuaded that he maybe deserves a mention, somewhere in the depths of the article but he certainly doesn't merit the top billing he has now. I'm removing him. GrahamN 04:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Current edit reads;

Nevertheless, in the week of Queen Elizabeth II's Silver Jubilee, the record officially reached number two in some UK charts (although many people believe they acually reached number one and the charts were rigged to prevent them topping it), although the title and artist were replaced with a blank space in many publications.

As I recall it wasn't so much 'chart rigging' as refusing to acknowledge the record existed AT ALL, hence the blank spaces instead of the artist and title. I'm convinced that they were number one in some UK charts even if not the 'official Uk radio 1' chart, but this is based more on memmery than anything else, looks like I'll be digging out Englands Dreaming again to try & verify this....quercus robur 18:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have a growing suspicion that this "blank space" business may be either an urban legend, or something that happened, but not in as widespread a way as is implied. I've never seen it given an actual source, e.g. "The Mirror printed the chart with a bank space at number two" or somesuch. (And actually, why not just omit the number 2 altogether and go straight from 1 to 3 rather than leaving a gap?) Bonalaw 12:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I clearly remember the blank spaces in more than one chart quercus robur 19:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seemed fairly widespread to me. I recall reading some pop magazine at the time showing the No.1 as a solid black line covering all of the text, and it also appeared that way in the Top 20's that were shown in a couple of tabloid newspapers, who had a habit of publishing the week's Top 20 singles in those days. Also, where I lived at the time (Portsmouth, UK) the local Woolworth's and Rumbelows stores had "Top 20" boards displayed on their singles counter, and both of them had No.1 followed by a blank space. Even at the time, as a 13 year old, I found the whole thing laughable. If you hate the Sex Pistols' "God Save the Queen" then fair enough, but it's fairly extreme behaviour to not even acknowledge that it existed!

Sid Sings

Have moved Sid Sings from pistols discography to 'Viscious solo album' as it's not a Pistols album. In fact should it be removed from discography altogether? Otherwise there is a case for also including PiL, Professionals and Rich Kids as these were all post pistols projects by ex band members? quercus robur 19:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Biggs?

I noticed someone added Ronnie Biggs as a member. He sang with them on only 2 tracks, I think, which I don't think qualifies him as a "member". If he's listed certainly Edward Tudor-Pole should be. I think existing mentions of them in the article were sufficient, but I will yield to people who know more about it. -R. fiend 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Biggs wasn't part of the Sex pistols but was just an old lag being used by Mclaren for novelty value once the Pistols were to all intents and purposes finished. quercus robur 19:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

post-pistols

I think records released under the Pistols name, post-Lydon, should be privileged (in this article) over other projects. The Cook/Jones pre-Professionals incarnation might not be the canonical Sex Pistols, but those singles had UK chart success and were released under the Sex Pistols name.

Agreed, post pistols projects, eg, PiL, The Professinals, Rich Kids, the rubbish Sid Vicious put out, etc, releases should go on their respective pages rather than here. But post-pistols projects using the Pistols name (ie, cash-ins, he said in amost non-NPOV fashion...) should be differentiated as such quercus robur 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check out my PiL article, btw. I wouldn't want it nominated for featured status because people tend to gang up and whack on the text of featured candidates (sometimes not for the better), but I think it's pretty comprehensive and colorful.

History Edited

I am an anonymous user who edited the History section of the Sex Pistols page. I have made it more true than the previous version. I used the Sex Pistols Box Set booklet to help me write this. Don't worry, I put it in my own words. 2 April 2005

Pistols manufactured? No. The Clash? Yes.

"Conversely, it can also be argued that the Sex Pistols were a manufactured pop act in the vein of The Sweet, Mud, and other early-'70s 'hard rock' singles acts, inasmuch as their look and sound were in part innovations of Malcolm McLaren's. Opinions, however, differ widely on McLaren's actual responsibility for the band's artistic and cultural relevance, with the evidence suggesting that McLaren was never fully in control of events, and played almost no role in creating the band's actual music and lyrics".

Nonsense. If you look at the FACTS, such an argument cannot be made. Half the band existed before Mclaren's involvement.One third happened to work in Mclaren's shop,the final quarter was spotted by Mclaren in his shop. The only solid Mclaren 'input' concerning the Pistols was that he introduced the first 3 to Lydon, and they wore clothes from his shop (which also, he apparently made them pay for!).

To compare that situation to a manufactured band is laughable. Using that criteria any band that has Manager who makes a decison which affects the band in anyway becomes 'manufactured'! What many people don'trealise these days, is that the 'manufactured' rumour ONLY exists because of a press smear campaign in the 70's, where the lie was spread that the band couldn't even play their own instruments and the 'Bollocks'album featured nothing but session musicians. Couple that with Mclaren's own (largely fictious) account of the band's history in the 'Great Rock And Roll Swindle' film...and you have a myth perpetuated to this day by people who aren't fully aware of the facts. If the press hadn't printed that lie in 1977 and Mclaren hadn't lied in the film in 1979 there's NO way there would ever be any discussion about the Pistols being a manufactured band.

Ironically, if you look at the early history of Pistols 'rivals' The Clash and their Manager Bernie Rhodes, they were very much manufactured in many respects...defintely moreso than the Pistols ever where...Rhodes introduced Strummer to the band (same as Lydon did for Mclaren)...but that's where the similarity between the two bands ends. Rhodes took matters even further, he told them what to write songs about, he told them how to think, he told them how to act, he even told Mick Jones how to cut his hair ....yet The Clash are seen as an honest and scrupulous band, always 'keeping it real'!

Don't get me wrong, I love The Clash. But if anyone is willing to consider the Pistols manufactured, then using the same logic that same person MUST have to consider The Clash as the new Monkees!

Intro section

Would someone who knows the Sex Pistols better than I do care to try making the intro section more neutral? "no other group better exemplified the punk movement's spirit and inherent contradictions" is anything but NPOV. The intro section isn't particularly informative, either; maybe mention Sid Vicious or something up there? I'd be bold and fix it, but I don't know a damn thing about the band. CDC (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you 'don't know a damn thing about the band,' then don't go all car-alarm on the opening paragraph. Sid Vicious was their second bassist, as the article makes clear, and contributed little to the band. Auto movil 05:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sorry - just trying to throw in a little constructive criticism from an admitted outsider. Adding Sid Vicious was just an off-the-top-of-my-head example. My point was that in the lead section, I wanted to know a little more about why the band was so influential, or a few key facts about its career (when? where? who?). Adding these things would make the article more accessible for someone, like me, who doesn't know much about the band, by telling me what's most important in the body of the text, and by giving me a useful overview if I don't want to read the whole thing just now. I was also suggesting that in my opinion the statement I quoted above, unsourced, isn't neutral. CDC (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CdC has a point- therefore I've modified the opening para to include a reference to the Pistols' lasting influence on popular culture, hope that helps without making the opeing overly-wordy. The reasons for their influence become clear as the article unfolds, and are many, eg, jamie reid artwork, the myth of Sid, God Save the Queen, Anarchy in the UK, the effect on UK music industry, etc, etc, etc quercus robur 20:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's important that the intro isn't wordy and that it--like the band itself--is to the point. It's fine the way it is.

Not sure about the statement that the Clash were more articulate, however. Seems a bit subjective and hard to verify. I also think Lydon has a lot to say and says it well when he chooses to do do. Perhaps it should say something like 'more willing to articulate' or simply 'more political'?--kingboyk 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I created a navigational template for the Dream Theater article, {{Dream Theater}}, that might be of use to the Sex Pistols article (and its related pages). The Iron Maiden and Rush articles use the same template style, and it seems to work well for bands with many members and releases. Someone with enough knowledge to complete it for Sex Pistols should consider doing so, it is very useful. File:Australia flag large.png plattopus^talk 02:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Other Members

There isn't even a mention of Steve New or Nick Kent

urm I don't recall them being members of the Sex Pistols- Sid V allegedly once hit Nick kent with a bicycle chain, but I don't think that constitutes being a band member.... quercus robur 00:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they were members it was before Sid. It might have even been before they took the name the Sex Pistols. I'm not positive but a lot of sources say they were members so they should at least get a mention somewhere.

What sources? Certainly not Englands Dreaming or No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish, which I would consider pretty much definitive. quercus robur 08:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fodderstompf says Bob New was a member "for about 15 minutes" [1] and this bio of The Damned mentions something about a baned called The Swankers with John Lydon, Nick Kent, and Steve New [2] Certainly not as good as the sources you mention but the fact that there are such sources at least leads me to believe the two should at least be mentioned in this article and there relationship with the band, whatever it was, be addressed.