Why The Sex Pistols Are Rubbish

There are certain things you just don't insult. Sacred cows. 40 to 30 odd years ago, one of those things was Queen Elizabeth II. But in 1977, The Sex Pistols released the most censored song of all time, coinciding with the Queen's Silver Jubilee Celebrations- "God Save The Queen". Four vile looking London "punks" were making an almighty racket, shocking the nation with frontman Jonny Rotten sneering "God save the Queen/She ain't no human being/There is no future in England's dreaming!"

Now, 33 years later, it's a pretty different state of affairs. You can slag of old Liz all you like. However, say a word against The Sex Pistols and anyone who thinks they know anything about music will usually be shocked and appalled. "How can you not like The Sex Pistols?!", "They're one of the most influential bands of all time!", "They embody what punk is all about!", "They're rebels!", "They're true rock n' roll!", "How can you claim to be a fan of punk?!" You get the idea.

Now I'm a big fan of punk music. From the dodgy late 60s, the classic 70s, the revivalist 90s and the underground hardcore 00s. And lots of people will say that The Sex Pistols are the greatest punk band of all time. That they totally embody the punk spirit. Well. They're wrong.

The Sex Pistols are not punk. If they are it's a pathetic and impotent breed that disgraces the name of the genre. The Sex Pistols are infamous for their violent and debauched (understatement right there) antics. They seemed like rebels, railing against the monarchy and yelling things like "I am an anti-Christ/I am an anarachist!" But they weren't rebels. Did The Sex Pistols ever try and make any kind of real protest against the government? Did they ever really have it in their interests to challenge a corrupt system and bring about some Che Guevara revolution? No. They didn't. Their "rebellion" was nothing more than getting obliterated on drugs and drink, smashing things up and being, without a shadow of a doubt, IDIOTS. They weren't rebels. They didn't try to change things. They didn't try to grow up. They didn't try to use their sudden fame and their brief career to make any kind of real lasting difference. They just did things in the name of "anarchy". You've got to be kidding yourself if you think anarchy (even if it's brought about by calculating, intelligent terrorists rather than promoted by malicious, spiteful thugs) is either practical or morally good. If that is what "punk" is, I want no part of it, and neither should you. They used punk as a licence to be morons. It remind me of one of Q's famous lines in the James Bond's films: "You have a license to kill 007, not to break the traffic laws".

Here is where I contrast The Sex Pistols with the real punk bands of the 70s. First and foremost is The Clash. The Clash were serious about what they were as a punk band. They released a string of politically provocative albums, protesting about stuff like the Cold War and the National Front- the infinitely more violent 1970s equivalent of the BNP. They played a big part in the 1970s musical campaign "Rock Against Racism", the forefather of today's "Love Music Hate Racism" campaign. The Clash used their commercial success as a political platform and embodied the real punk spirit. Sing with the people against the system.
The second band is The Stooges. The Stooges weren't as political as The Clash by a long way, but they were the REAL fathers of punk, and I think they have a bigger infleucen than The Sex Pistols. They broke up in 1974, before the big British punk movement took of in 1977, so clearly they were immensely forward thinking, and true revolutionaries and fathers of a genre. The Sex Pistols were actually a massive "jump on the bandwagon" effort. How so? Well...

The Sex Pistols were managed throughout their brief career by Malcolm McLaren, who passed away earlier this year. He's been heralded as "the Godfather of Punk". You get this impression with The Sex Pistols that, because they were "punk", they were this wonderfully oraganic and natural manifestation of teenage rage and rebellion. Lots of great bands are. But not The Sex Pistols. No. Malcolm McLaren, prior to being involved in the music business, was obsessed with classic 50s rock and roll. Then he encountered 70s glam punk group New York Dolls and became convinced that punk was the way to make his fortune. He spent months assembling The Sex Pistols, with a ruthless, business like efficiency. He decided on a sound. He calculated the band's controversies. He pulled every string like a little, fame hungry Gipetto. That's what McLaren really wanted- fame. At least, that's what the reports of people who regularly encountered in the 1970s say. Again, it wasn't about rebellion. The whole sordid episode in musical history was organised as a ploy to use controversy to make money and garner success. That is so at odds with what punk is really about. That, as afar as I can see, makes The Sex Pistols and their music as vacuous as any of the commercial, stale pop disasters in the charts today. Yes, the likes of Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, JLS et al. Puppets. Cogs in someone's fame machine. This side of McLaren is really well captured in Neck Kent's autobiography "Apathy for the Devil", and I'd suggest any fans of 1970s rock music read it.

I cannot see, really, a glimmer of light in The Sex Pistols. You can argue that tracks like "EMI" or "Bodies" aren't meant to be part of their punk rebellion, they're just songs that tells stories. OK, but their alleged priority at the time wasn't to be remembered for writing good tunes and stories. It was, supposedly, about rebellion. But it wasn't rebellion. It was just sheer vulgarity; pointless and nihilistic. They are the guys who just have so much to drink at a party that they become embarassing and you just can't comprehend why they've acted in such a selfish, idiotic way. A way that falls far short of being legendary, revolutionary, exciting or even worthy of any kind of begrudging respect.

World Cup Patriotism

The World Cup inspires all sorts of things. Yesterday, it inspired a bit of a debate between a few of my friends over Twitter, and I felt like writing down some of my thoughts on the idea of English "patriotism" during the World Cup.

Plenty of English people take issue with the sudden patriotic fervour that grips the country every four years. Flags in windows, on cars, painted on faces, England shirts left, right and centre, the pubs overflowing, the list goes on. Plenty of people think it's "fake" when this happens. We get all excited, realise our team is pretty shocking and then it all dissipates a month or so later. Clearly, one would suppose, that can't be real patriotism if it's only stirred up every four years by 11 modestly competent gentleman bashing a pig's bladder across a pitch.

But I would ask: do you really expect us to be frothing with patriotism throughout the whole year? If we follow the logic of people who make the criticisms I've mentioned, you get the underlying assumption/suggestion that all other countries actually have constant patriotic energy emanating from every orifice, that South Africans spend all year honking their vuvuzelas and that the Dutch wear orange indefinitely. Clearly that isn't the case. Neither we, nor other countries, spend the whole year incessantly celebrating our country. The World Cup is, however, a chance to do so. Just because it's only for a month every four years doesn't make it fake, there's no logic there. It's a time when a group of people from our country are representing us in a high profile fixture in front of the rest of the world. What better excuse is there for patriotism? It's not fake to get behind your country and claim you're "England 'til you die!" during the World Cup. It's logical!

I think we've also got to ask ourselves, when we look around at the rest of life in England, is there much else to be patriotic about? We had 13 years of a Labour government that ended in disgrace. We live in a politically correct, debt ridden, drunken, prematurely pregnant, celebrity obsessed, reality TV deluded, abortive nanny state. The World Cup is a brief respite where we can look upwards and recognise that whilst England is in a state and a half, we are still the English people and we have to club together, behind something, to have some visible, practical idea of our identity. Mark Twain said "patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” I think there's plenty we can draw from that. Patriotism isn't supporting the Queen. It isn't agreeing with everything the current government says. It isn't even always saying that the England team is worthy of our support or praise (especially after last night). Patriotism is about your relationship with the other people in your country. At the end of the day, they are the country. And the World Cup is often an incredible catalyst for improving our relationship with our fellow countrymen. We get together, we watch, we drink, we cheer, we cry, we transcend club boundaries, we bash out epic punditry that, after a few ciders, sounds about 67 billion times better than anything Edgar Davids has said so far this World Cup. We support each other, even if it's in criticism of a team who are at best lacklustre this time around.

Of course you will always get mugs who cause problems. Fights, riots, racist chanting. But is domestic football any better? No it certainly isn't. In fact I'm pretty sure that, proportionally, there has been more violence and conflict in domestic football throughout the years than with any international tournament. The idiotic actions of the few doesn't negate or compromise the enthusiasm of the many.

There are plenty of other things that give us cause for patriotism. Our armed forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (another example of where patriotism is support for the people in your country, not necessarily the govnerment). Then there are things like the Mercury Music Prize and the Ivor Novello Awards, that remind us of some of the brilliant music our country can produce. I'm aware that these examples apply to the whole of Britain, not just England, but the point still stands.

However, none of those example have the nationwide appeal and participation that we get from the World Cup. Yes our team has played absolutely appallingly this tournament. So what? That shouldn't stop us being able to get together, acknowledge that we are English and revel in the fact, and be united in it. Indeed, when our team let us down and we feel gutted or possibly ashamed, that horrible feeling is patriotism! Your mind and heart are saying "I am English and my being English has been offended by what I've just witnessed. I'm now going to unite together with other English people, even if that is in criticism of our national team".

This whole issue really comes down to what you think patriotism is, and whether you think it's an instrinsically good or bad think that we whip up national support for a few weeks every four years. I've explained what I think patriotism is and I think that, in light of that, it is a brilliant thing to be patriotic during the World Cup.

A Download off My Mind

Apple announced the next gambit of their universal conquest today- the iPhone 4. All of these increasing names and numbers are reminding me of Super Saiyans in Dragonball Z, but sadly that's not the focus for today. No; the new Apple release got me thinking further about some thoughts I've been having about downloading music from iTunes and downloading music in general.

Over the past several months I've been thinking a lot about how I relate to the music industry. This is running alongside a burgeoning desire to be a music journalist. One of the things that's occupied my mind recently has been the issue of whether I download music or buy the hard copy of the CD/EP/Single.

I have become incredibly averse to buying music from iTunes. Why? Well there are a few interesting reasons.Reading lots more musical press and following lots of the coverage of this year's Record Store Day on April 17th has gotten me to a stage where I'm really convinced that having the physical copy of an album is far superior to owning the downloaded tracks. Why? For one, lots of artists (I mean artists by the way, not acts and commerical popstars i.e. Bieber et al) put a lot of thought into the way their album covers are constructed. The way liner notes are put in, lyrics books are included, interesting little extras are added. An immediate example that springs to mind is how there are lots of variations of the inside cover art of Arctic Monkeys' second album Favourite Worst Nightmare. Discovering and appreciating little things like that are really exciting if you give music and musicians the level of respect and love they deserve. Also, there's an incredible feeling when you have an album you're really excited about held in your hand. It augments the already great music with something that makes it indelibly yours. I had that kind of excitement today. I ordered the Exquisite Corpse EP by this band from California called Warpaint (who I am utterly in love with right now, check them out: http://www.myspace.com/worldwartour) When it arrived I was abuzz! You don't get that with downloads.

Anyway, these are all old arguments, though still valid and I hope compelling if you haven't heard them before. As I've, said I'm really averse to downloading from iTunes, and yet I download countless (legally) free mp3s from other places all across the internet: Fluxblog, the NME website, Lauren Laverne's MPFrees on BBC 6 Music. Not whole albums, often mp3s given away by little know bands I haven't heard of. So why don't I mind downloading from there, but I do mind downloading from iTunes?

Maybe it's because on some level, iTunes has become "the man" in terms of online music purchasing. I'm not talking "you da man!" kind of thing. I mean "stick it to the man" kind of thing. Clearly Steve Jobs is the reincarnation of Mao and Bill Gates is quietly biding his time for an intense comeback (like Britney Spears. Or maybe not) But perhaps I just don't want to encourage Apple's monopoly. I don't know really. Maybe it's some (probably pretentious) desire to be non-conformist. I know that nearly everyone else I know is quick as a flash to get their music with a few clicks so maybe some stubborn part of me that wants to be weird and different all the time, sometimes just for the sake of it, is inspiring this desire to avoid iTunes at all costs. But yet I have an iPhone (and it really is awesome). So what's the deal?

Part of it definitely is a desire to support the lesser known avenues I mentioned earlier that give away free mp3s, like Fluxblog (incredible free mp3 blog for indie music. One a day, I've been downloading since September) I know that the people who run those things are definitely in it to share music and bands because they really like them, not because they will ultimately see a profit. When I download Lauren Laverne's MPFree EP at the end of the week I know that if I go and buy more of the music from the bands featured on it, oh so lovely Lauren (my indie crush...) nor the BBC will see a penny. Maybe that's it. iTunes ONE free mp3 a week and ANY band promotion they do is to profit them, not the artist. So it's not like there's anything intrinsically wrong with donwloading music, of course not. Nowadays a free mp3 can give a band lots of publicity, and lots of the bands I'm liking at the moment I have found out about through online mixtapes and downloads; which includes Warpaint who I've already mentioned. Downloading is totally neutral in terms of morality and its effect on the music industry. It's about where you're downloading it from, and the intentions that you and the people giving away the mp3 have.

I can't quite pinpoint it really. I dislike purchasing music from iTunes, but I think my desire to own physical copies of my music would have arisen independently. Please, try to buy more physical copies of albums. It makes that music that little bit more yours, and often not for a lot more money. Even if you don't buy it all from independent record stores (I try to but, the majority of the time I don't) I still think it's intrinsically better than downloading an album. I think. I reckon if you find a band who you just totally fall in love with and just want to be immersed in and just have as your own then you'll be compelled to buy CDs and you might understand more where I'm coming from.

If you've got any relevant feedback then please do speak up. This post didn't have a particular point or direction but I hope it's stimulated some thought.

Hate the Player, and the Game...

I've just been on twitter and the phrase "love JLS" is trending (which, for those of you not tweeting, means that it's being said by a lot of people). In what I can only assume is a direct response, "hate JLS" is trending slightly beneath it. Amused, I looked at some of the tweets about the latter trend. Plenty of people were outright hating. But then there were some who went for what they deemed to be the more perceptive and insightful approach. They said things along the line of "I don't hate them. They make bad music but hate should be reserved for the writers, producers and labels" or "don't hate the players, hate the game".

These observations/verdicts etc. seem reasonable and perceptive. We can't blame JLS, right? They're just pawns in the game. They don't write the songs, they just sing them. Don't blame the boys, blame the extortionate records labels. They're the ones creating, marketing and selling "music" devoid of all soul and meaning purely for monetary gain. If it wasn't JLS it would be some other bunch of talentless saps. Nah, we can't blame the kids.

I would disagree. HEARTILY. I think there's another level of perception about this kind of thing, beyond the "don't hate the players, hate the game" verdict. I have no beef personally with any of the members of JLS. I'm sure Aston, Marvin, Jonathan and Ortisé are all lovely guys (and no, I didn't just Wikipedia their names...) I don't want to rip on their characters. However.

The game these guys are playing- the game of shallow, musically, lyrically, spiritually bankrupt, repetitive, uninspired RnB/pop being glossed up, given obscene levels of advertising and forced down the collective throats of the nation- is a vile, disgusting and hugely saddening game. It is fully worthy of our condemnation. And so are those who willingly chose to take part in it. And that includes bands like JLS. They are fully culpable. They willingly become pawns of the record labels who don't give a toss about music or integrity and only want money. They do their dirty work. They're one of the small cogs that keep the machine grinding relentlessly on. Sure, the industry could survive without them. Sure, if it's not them it would be someone else. But that doesn't negate their responsibility. It's a matter of principal. They're taking part in and condoning a sickening industry that has no respect for music or those who really appreciate it. Saying they don't deserve blame is like saying soldiers involved in things like the Holocaust or the My Lai massacre in Vietnam don't deserve condemnation because they "were just following orders". An extreme, possibly hyperbolic comparison, but there's a similar principle. JLS and their contemporaries are just as responsible and worthy of condemnation and derision as are the label bosses, producers and media execs.

Also, it saddens me that, as far as I can see, they've been caught up in the dream of instant fame. X Factor runners up, snapped up by a record label, songs thrown at them to sing and immediately thrust into the spotlight. No graft. No heart, commitment or passion which can lead to artistic fulfilment. Merely instant superficial reward. Come on boys, can't you see how hollow that dream is? How perilous and brief the life of a popstar? It's sad and slightly worrying that these guys and their contemporaries don't seem to realise that in ten years time they'll be bitterly sat in the urine soaked corner of some dull, lurid London night club, bitterly listening to Bleeding Love playing over the jukebox whilst Pixie Lott is bawling her eyes out in the corner, Alexandra Burke is staggering around like an injured gazelle on dubious stilettos and Justin Bieber quivers in the loo with the intense signs of heroin withdrawl.

JLS et al may have been caught up in the dream and rush of fame, but they're still as responsible for the decline of popular music as the labels and higher-ups are. They may be pawns in the massive, sprawling game of monopoly that is the popular music industry, but they are willing pawns. They are active pawns who, though they are controlled by their labels, had the autonomy and free will to chose to enter into and continue their role. Like I said, I have no issues with their personalities. They're probably nice guys. But I have to say I utterly condemn their willingness to be cogs in the massive plastic behemoth of a machine that is dominating and defecating over the charts.