Talk:Sex Pistols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex Pistols article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Sex Pistols is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing of brilliant prose Kept October 18, 2006 Featured article review Kept Current Status: Featured article

A particular revision of this article has been selected as a candidate for inclusion in the Wikipedia OmniMusica.

Music Portal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Archives September 2002 – August 2006

Contents 1 References 2 Uncited opinion 3 "Previous challenges to the class system" 4 Never mind... section 5 Trilobites 6 Crass & John Lydon story 7 FAR 8 Citation: letter and spirit 9 Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols 10 Flag 11 The Small Faces 12 "We're Not Gonna Take it?

[edit] References

Seeing as this article has 'featured' status, why on earth were the very few citations and references stripped from it? Surely it needs more citations adding, not their removal, particularly as some of the assertions in the article as it stands seem quite questionable, particularly the early history?? quercus robur 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone has a copy of Pete Frame's Rock Family Trees, that probably will be a good citation for all of the early line-ups of the band. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it on interlibrary loan, cited a lot of this.

Frame gives a different version of some of the early chronology. He has both Kent and New in the band at the same time, both having responded to the "Wanted: whizz-kid guitarist…" ad.

Frame is a reference for the St. Martins' gig being November 1975, and for the gig causing "havoc and outrage", but not for them not even getting through one song or for the exact date. He also says that the 100 Club was the only place in London that would book them; he doesn't mention the Nashville. This may be a deliberate simplifying: the Pistols material is only about 8-10% of a very crowded chart of the interrelations among various bands. - Jmabel | Talk 02:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are still about eight or ten citation requests in the article. Does anyone have ideas where to look for the various uncited material? Especially, about half of the material on the pre-fame years needs citation.

Also, the citations from Jon Savage's England's Dreaming and Lydon's own No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs lack page numbers. I don't have copies. Can someone add those?

[edit] Uncited opinion

In an effort to keep this a featured article, I have removed the following, which was mainly uncited opinion; one sentence can be cited to Caroline Coon, but it doesn't really stand alone in the context, so I cut it, too. If someone can rebuild this as something citable, great, then it should go back.

The aim of shocking the establishment has always been a traditional goal for all groups who feel that a given music or art style is in serious need of renovation.^{[original research?]} The Sex Pistols emerged at a time when the economic boom had finished, youth unemployment was rising, and pop music was indisputably sugary. [ <ref name="coon2" /> ] Their aggressive lyrics and standpoints were taken literally by the conservative press but really can be seen as a form of theatre of rage.^{[original research?]} Making money was not glorified at this time.^{[original research?]}

- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, can someone please, please, find citation for the following? It seems to me to be entirely on the mark, surely someone citable has said this; I've left it in because I can't bear to cut it, but as it stands it is likely to cost the article FA status.

The Sex Pistols remain influential, both for their musical style and in terms of their effect on the British cultural landscape. Whereas previous challenges to the class system, and to the post-war British ethos of uncomplaining sacrifice, had come mainly from within, such as from the public school and Oxbridge dominated satire boom of the late 1960s and early '70s (including the Monty Python troupe), or from the social-realist novels and theatre of the 1950s and early '60s,^{[original research?]} the Pistols communicated directly with a much wider, more vernacular audience and, to some extent, the resulting shock waves can still be felt. ^{[citation needed]}

- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The only other uncited statement remaining in the article is:

Early in 1978 an American tour was booked by McLaren. They had originally been scheduled to begin the tour in December 1977, but due to the members' minor scrapes with the law, were unable to receive their Visas in time.

This should not be hard to cite; I assume the capital "V" in "Visas" is a mistake. - Jmabel | Talk 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Previous challenges to the class system"

Still trying to work out how to cite this; I think that there is still more to be said here, too.

I've added the "angry young men" of the 1950s and (of course!) trade unions; seems to me that we should mention hippies and maybe even mods, as well (rockers and Teddy Boys seem to have basically accepted the class system). Can anyone think where we would cite this, and in particular where we would cite for what was novel about the Pistols' attitude (distinctly working class, angry, politically vague but politically confrontational, sometimes witty but never overtly intellectual)? - Jmabel | Talk 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Savage's "England's Dreaming", if you have a copy handy, would be an excellent source for the section Coil00 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that this specific paragraph is one of the issues on the FAR, I don't think anything should be added there without a source. The page is tightening up otherwise. Marskell 11:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also angry young men points to writers of lower-class origin, so I'm not sure if the point really hangs together. Marskell 09:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cut it: "Previous challenges to the class system, and to the post-war British ethos of uncomplaining sacrifice, had come mainly from traditional sources, such as from trade unions with concrete political goals, or from the intellectual "angry young men" of the 1950s and the public school- and Oxbridge - dominated satire boom of the 1960s."

Well, to be honest, I'm not at all sure the point was valid, but to talk about challenges to the class system in the UK and leave our the "angry young men"—or the trade unions—is pure currentism. When I added them, I added the qualifiers "concrete political goals" and "intellectual" so as to try not to completely undercut the previous writer's point. But it is hard to say what was genuinely new about the punks, except a particular combination of elements coming together: working class base, working class anger, working class pride; primarily cultural rather than political expression (especially in the case of the Pistols; less clear in more politically engaged bands like the Clash); counterculturalism, anti-fashion, and anti-aestheticism (which, paradoxically, created a new fashion and a new aesthetic that are still with us 30 years later, but that's the way things go). - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple of small things needed as well (a critical reception sentence for Never Mind the Bollocks?) that can be mentioned at the FAR. Otherwise this is basically a keep. Marskell 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never mind... section

This is the only part I still think needs work. First, the cite request needs looking at (quotes must have citations); the last para could also use a citation. Second, the first paragraph: the Bruce Foxton bit is tacked-on and should be moved. Also, just one sentence on critical reception, maybe?

Removed the quote from Foxton, it doesn't belong here, but could perhaps be re-instated elsewhere, maybe in the actual Never Mind article> quercus robur 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have in fact moved the Briuce Foxton allegation to Holidays in the Suns' dedicated page quercus robur 14:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's it for me. I'll go keep if someone can do this, and maybe the review can be closed. Marskell 13:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trilobites

I think the comment about the Trilobites should stay in the article - I was unaware that trilobites had been named after Rotten, Jones, Cook, Matlock & Vicious until I found it in the wikipedia article, thought it not very credible and was going to delete it, then did a check and found it to be true! Maybe it could be moved to a 'trivia' section, but I think it belongs in the cultural legacy section as it shows just how far reaching their legacy actaully was... quercus robur 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not very encyclopedic, its trivial, its obscure, but its a nice little story, only one sentence and ref'd twice (!). I'd say keep it, though this king of thing should be kept to a minimum. Coil00 17:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is trivia, but just a tiny addition. Marskell 18:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I say keep: for once, let's have science trivia in a pop culture article, rather than vice versa! - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep for sure. Interesting fact, fully referenced. BabuBhatt 19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crass & John Lydon story

It would be interesting to include the following in the article regarding the meeting of Crass artist and film maker Gee Vaucher with John Lydon in New York during the period he was stranded there, but not quite sure how it can be worked in;

She (Gee Vaucher) also remembers bumping into a Sex Pistol during her time in the Big Apple. "I can rememeber picking up Johnny Rotten outside one night - he was absolutely paralytic. He was a total wreck, on his own, outside GBGBs. There were these girls trying to come on to him, it was just awful". So Gee hoisted him up and helped him back to the address he was staying at on Houston Avenue. "These girls kept in tow, and i thought, this guy is just going to b walked on for what he is. So I took him back to where he was staying, took him upstairs and laid him on his bed. And the girls were still trying to get off with him". So Gee ecided to sit guard until they left. "Then I write him a little note and stuck it in his jacket saying that if he ever needed any help, just to ring his number. I never heard from him - he proabably thought I was just another fucking wanker".

From The Story of Crass, George Berger, Omnibus Press ISBN 1-84609-402-X page 69

quercus robur 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

There are 3 tasks still outstanding, as I see it.

• The lead needs a third paragraph. Suggest it outlines the in-fighting that 'plagued' and eventually split the band, also the tension between Lydon & McLaren (which also needs to be inserted in the main text, I suppose).
• Spungens 'Yoko' like effect on the band should be mentioned
• The dreaded 'influences' section is still light.

Any help on these would be great. - Coil00 12:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm low on edit time right now, but quickly:

• I don't know if the lead needs it, but a couple of sentences describing the McLaren/Lydon thing specifically (rather than alluding to it in other contexts) belongs somewhere.
• How right is a "Yoko" like effect? She was apparently disruptive but for a band that was plagued by disruption regardless. Further, Vicious wasn't the band's Lennon; she was a sideshow to a sideshow almost. Anyhow, no more than one sentence needed IMO.
• I honestly think it's fine. We establish influence but we don't wander away into OR and over-contextualization.

Looks like this is heading toward keep. Excellent work Coil. Marskell 18:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've filled out the lead a little bit. All that was needed was to mention that the band broke up and reunited since the article goes into those bis in-depth later; that's it. Like Marskell, I'm not sure about having details about Spungen's "Yoko" effect. And the influence section is fine; what the article actually needs it mention of the band's musical traits and influences. We probably don't need a separate section like I drew up for The Smashing Pumpkins since I think most of those details can be worked into the biography (or are present, like the New York Dolls mention). For example, we can include Steve Jones' comment that he played primarily barre chords because that was the only chord shape he knew at the time. WesleyDodds 03:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation: letter and spirit

This and this strike me as a very poor approach to a legitimate problem. I agree that the linked sites were problematic in copyright terms. However, the citations accurately indicated the actual underlying sources of the material, and replacing that with {{fact}} without coming to the talk page and doing something like I'm doing now makes it much harder for someone to find those actual underlying sources. Clearly, you believe that the sites in question were reproducing these sources, or there wouldn't be any copyright problem. Your precise problem with the linked sites was that they took the material from elsewhere.

For the record, the problematic material was from reviews of Never Mind the Bollocks, respectively by Paul Nelson writing in Rolling Stone, issue 259, 1977 and Andrew Collins, in Q Magazine, 1998. At least the former should be reasonably straightforward to track down, since it is available on microfiche. - Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're referencing an article then it should be referenced accurately, there's no need to link to a web-page copy of a print article. I did not know myself if the cited magazine article actually does contain what that webpage does - that's why I labelled the edit "remove per WP:EL - "Sites that violate the copyrights of others", not a WP:RS", since the site appears to contain the copyrighted content of the magazine and I cannot verify the accuracy of it.

I agree that I could have left a note on the talk page, but I was working through a fair few of these and this article had the added confusion that two of us working through the list bumped into each other here! Thanks/wangi 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my approach to this. Any problem with this? - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols

Didn't that album sell over 20 million records?--Kingforaday1620 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel quite safe in saying 'no'. - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did man! So get over it!

Well, it's never been certified above Platinum. So no, it didn't. ~Switch ^t 10:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

Anybody mind if I remove this? I don't think it adds anything to the article. --Guinnog 18:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it for now. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. --Guinnog 21:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Small Faces

The Small Faces aren't an American band, as it says they are. ---Revolver66 22:49 15/02/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.223.47 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "We're Not Gonna Take it?

i keep hearing about a Sex Pistols version of this song, is it a real song? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.124.237 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Sounds like a The Who song to me. - Face 13:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)