Yeah, so, on Sunday, while I was at work, someone actually put on a decent radio station that did not play R. Kelly or "Cameltoe", and strangely enough, the Sex Pistols' "Anarchy in the UK" came on, which, for the the US in 2003, in pretty weird. But, anyway, it made me think of that scene in 24HrPP and the fact that the Sex Pistols did influence Barney and Hooky into forming a band. However, in listening to that song, I came to the realization that, although this band inspired JD, which let to NO, that both bands were far better and NO had a more proflific career than the Pistols. Kind of ironic. But the song sounded pretty crude - not lyric-wise, but in terms of sound and instrumentation, and Barney eventually became a far better singer with later releases. Okay, so I don't seem to have much of a point, and the radio didn't play any NO songs, which was even stranger, since the station was playing the top 300 greatest rock songs, or something like that, over a week.
JD/NO vs. Sex Pistols
Archived11 replies · 325 views
well, i think no one would ever define the pistols as 'talented' musicians! i find john lydon very witty and humorous, but what made them so different is, i suppose, similar to what made jackson pollock so successful: the work wasn't pretty in the conventional sense...but no one had never done it before, it shocked 'the establishment,' and it was so refreshing because it was outside (and god forgive me for using this hideous cliche) the artistic box (even though the pistols were, essentially, masterminded by malcolm mclaren). to put it simply: the sex pistols were fun. the carpenters were not. hence they opened the doors for other young boys and girls to be expressive and noisy, whether or not it sounded pretty. such as joy division (much better musicians, for sure!).
i do rather like the carpenters, though, and i'm not a big fan of jackson pollock, as it is. :D
Originally posted by AgentWood well, i think no one would ever define the pistols as 'talented' musicians! i find john lydon very witty and humorous, but what made them so different is, i suppose, similar to what made jackson pollock so successful: the work wasn't pretty in the conventional sense...but no one had never done it before, it shocked 'the establishment,' and it was so refreshing because it was outside (and god forgive me for using this hideous cliche) the artistic box (even though the pistols were, essentially, masterminded by malcolm mclaren). to put it simply: the sex pistols were fun. the carpenters were not. hence they opened the doors for other young boys and girls to be expressive and noisy, whether or not it sounded pretty. such as joy division (much better musicians, for sure!).i do rather like the carpenters, though, and i'm not a big fan of jackson pollock, as it is. :D
No Jackson Pollock, why? Love his abstract expressionist stuff.
Unfortunately so much of the Pistols story is a myth created by McLaren...he neither controlled the band nor the media anything like the degree to which he later claimed (he was terrified of being arrested or something similar after the Bill Grundy incident). The other problem is that when the Pistols are described as not being unable to play, this really only applied to Sid. Have a listen to any of the pre-Sid recordings (studio or live) - if those aren't played by 'talented' (whatever that means) musicians, then I don't know what is. The Pistols changed so much in such a short space of time - or inspired others to change things. I can't think of any other band that has had so much impact in relation to the length of their existence.
Originally posted by Martin Davies > Originally posted by AgentWood> well, i think no one would ever define the pistols as 'talented' musicians! i find john lydon very witty and humorous, but what made them so different is, i suppose, similar to what made jackson pollock so successful: the work wasn't pretty in the conventional sense...but no one had never done it before, it shocked 'the establishment,' and it was so refreshing because it was outside (and god forgive me for using this hideous cliche) the artistic box (even though the pistols were, essentially, masterminded by malcolm mclaren). to put it simply: the sex pistols were fun. the carpenters were not. hence they opened the doors for other young boys and girls to be expressive and noisy, whether or not it sounded pretty. such as joy division (much better musicians, for sure!).> > i do rather like the carpenters, though, and i'm not a big fan of jackson pollock, as it is. :D
No Jackson Pollock, why? Love his abstract expressionist stuff. Oh god, don't get me started on an art debate. I don't know how many times I've debated the artisic non-merit of Pollock. The biopic of him with Ed Harris and the delicious Jennifer Connelly was quite good though.
Haven't seen the film. I did read a 800 page biography about him once, it was about a... drunk.
Originally posted by Martin Davies Haven't seen the film. I did read a 800 page biography about him once, it was about a... drunk.
Yeah, that's pretty much what the movie's about too. Not exactly a feel-good movie, but excellently acted. Did I mention that Ed Harris also directed it? Well worth seeking if you're a Pollock fan, or a movie buff in general.
Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope > Originally posted by Martin Davies> Haven't seen the film. I did read a 800 page biography about him once, it was about a... drunk.
Yeah, that's pretty much what the movie's about too. Not exactly a feel-good movie, but excellently acted. Did I mention that Ed Harris also directed it? Well worth seeking if you're a Pollock fan, or a movie buff in general. Didn't Ed Harris get an Academy award nomination for best actor for his work? I don't think this film even got a release in australia.
Originally posted by Martin Davies > Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope> > > > Originally posted by Martin Davies> > Haven't seen the film. I did read a 800 page biography about him once, it was about a... drunk.>
Yeah, that's pretty much what the movie's about too. Not exactly a feel-good movie, but excellently acted. Did I mention that Ed Harris also directed it? Well worth seeking if you're a Pollock fan, or a movie buff in general. Didn't Ed Harris get an Academy award nomination for best actor for his work? I don't think this film even got a release in australia. Yep, Harris got nominated. I would've liked to see him win that year instead of Russell Crowe for Gladiator, although if you listen to the pundits, the Academy awarded it to Crowe because they felt bad about not giving it to him the previous year for The Insider, which I think was a tremendously better job. Much more depth and emotional intensity than muscle-flexing and shouting melodramatically.
I agree, or an Academy award for "a beautiful mind" would have been more approriate, not "gladiator", it sucks. Oh, check the "silly pictures" thread. I put something up there just for you. Cheers.
Originally posted by Martin Davies I agree, or an Academy award for "a beautiful mind" would have been more approriate, not "gladiator", it sucks. Oh, check the "silly pictures" thread. I put something up there just for you. Cheers.
Ah, thanks. I done posted a response on that thread.
