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.