From: graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham)
Subject: Re: Ramones, punk rock, XRaySpex, others (lots)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:39:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.150154.28981@gdr.bath.ac.uk> mascdb@gdr.bath.ac.uk (C D Burdorf) writes:
>
>Perhaps, but do you know what they sounded like?  They could 
>have just been a glitter rock band or something.  Those three had
>little to do with the "punk" side of the Pistols'.  It was all
>Rotten and Viscious that were the punk element.  Cook and
>Jones were just backup musicians-- note what they've done
>since.

Yeah - and look at what Lydon has been doing for the past 8-9 yrs!
Boring generic rock. (He still does great interviews - especially on tv).

>Well,  two close friends of mine saw the Pistols tour during
>their US tour.  One saw them in Tulsa Oklahoma and said they
>sucked and were loud and boring, so he left early.

A matter of taste?  I find a lot of metal loud and boring.

>The other one saw their final show in San Francisco and said
>he wished he'd done something else that night, because the
>Pistols didn't have it together.  Both of them are avid music
>fans. 

Well 14 1/2 years may distort things (or not). I have an uncut video of
the San Francisco show and it is KILLER. I mean even *Sid* is hitting notes
(he even jumps an octave during New York and holds down the songs when Steve's
guitar cuts out 2+ times :) It is the best live show I have ever heard/seen
by them. Their encore of No Fun was unbeleivable - you could tell that Johnny
had had enough. Very intense.

(oops - lost the attribution)
>>
>>The pistols had some great lyrics, as do the Clash. I would suggest that
>>the two bands are quite different. You can't really compare them or their
>>lyrics. 
>
>I'd agree that the pistols had some really good lyrics, but 
>I think they were too much of a media product produced
>by and for Malcom McLaurin.  

Sure he was a great manipulator, but he didn't write any of the lyrics. He just
knew what would happen when these four guys who had nothing going for them and
were not exactly model citizens were put in the public eye.

You have to give the Pistols credit for breaking up before things became
like The Monkeys with an attitude.
---------------------------------
And as for the idea that the Ramones spurred on the Pistols or are comparable
in any way, I must completely disagree.

To me the Ramones were a great 3 chord Rock'n'Roll band. They sort of looked
punk, and they played faster than average, but they were *harmless*. They were
safe. Their lyrics didn't reflect society's ills - especially for UK'ers.
When the Ramones went to the UK, I would bet that the only thing that the kids
could relate to was the volume and speed at which they were playing.

The Pistols lyrics, on the other hand, were full of angst (most noteably "God
Save the Queen" (No Future), and "Anarchy in the UK" (Destroy). The British
system promised them nothing so theywrote lyrics about it and damned the
monarchy. The record companies were making shit music so they ripped them off
and slammed them in "EMI" among others. They pissed people off BIG TIME. This
is all cliche now, but not 16 years ago.

I've never heard of the Ramones getting any publicity for their violent attacks
on the US government (circa 1977). Maybe this was because they were just a fun
band doing covers like "Surfun' Bird".

mike (hasn't read England's Dreaming yet - waiting for paperback)


-- 
**************************************************************************
Bjork sounds so good, that if I were a singer trying to make a living today    
I'd shoot myself in desperation of ever equalling her  -  Barbara Ellen, NME
Organization: Senior, Social & Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA