Talk:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Set Album to Class B & Top Importance Megamanic 09:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Bias
Is it just me, or does this part of the article seem a little biased and opinionated to you? "Rotten's bitten, over-articulated, angry vocals and his intentional avoidance of "good" singing were startlingly original in style, at that time, and his use of profanity and deliberately inflammatory language seemed downright shocking. He alternately screams and whines about corporate control, intellectual vacuity, and political hypocrisy, while guitarist Jones' multi-layered guitar tracks create a "wall of noise" to counter him. The solid rhythm section of bassist Glen Matlock and drummer Paul Cook provide an effective foil to Rotten's sneering, contemptuous delivery."
I'm going to change it, and someone can change it back if they disagree. 216.37.223.157 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Define "good singing". Oh, you mean "in your opinion". Sorry, your're mistaking me for someone who gives a flying fuck about it.
Removed
"Four songs previously appeared on 1976's live EP, The Mini-Album, which was recorded live from July 13 through July 30."
Michael, please do a modicum of research before adding to these entries.
There was no 1976 live ep, the mini album is one of a slew of 'semi official' and bootleg releases of recordings of demos and such like that appeared long AFTER the Pistols ceased to be a creative force (it's called 'cashing in', Micheal). The tracks on the mini album were in fact demo's recorded with producer Dave Goodman from July 76, October 76 and possibly Jan 77, BUT WERE NOT RELEASED UNTIL MUCH LATER AS A SEMI-BOOTLEG!!!
The Pistols did not release ANYTHING before the single "Anarchy in the UK" in November 1976, it was their debut, and much awaited and anticipated at the time, I remember, I was there!!!!! Their next release was "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, in between THEY DID NOT HAVE A RECORD CONTRACT!!!.
There may be a case for adding a page to wiki devoted to Pistols bootlegs, but these should not be confused with the band's 'official' output, which is what counts in terms of chronology and an understanding of the history and context of The Pistols and the wider punk movement in which they existed, and the sociology of what was going on in the UK in 70's.
Sorry for the shouting but Michael is really exasperating me with his attempts at rewriting the history of UK punk. quercus robur 11:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)
And by the way, the Mini Album is not live (but demos) and does not feature four tracks. Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Their next release was "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, in between THEY DID NOT HAVE A RECORD CONTRACT!!!.
Comment moved here from main article:
Ahem. Sholdn't this article be titled Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, given the fact that A) there is a space between the words NEVER and MIND on the album cover, and B) Nirvana notwithstanding, there is no such word as nevermind...?
- Actually, I don't see a comma either. :-) Evercat 01:55 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Google returns 10 times as many hits with the space than without. Notable among the spaceless: http://www.sexpistols.org . As for punctuation, at a glance usage seems to be split between a comma, colon, dash and nothing. How about we keep the comma and add a space? -- Tim Starling 02:03 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- OK -- Evercat 02:08 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)
There also seems to be a dispute over the track listing. I think that the UK version had Problems before God Save the Queen, but the US release shows those two switched. I personally think Problems fits better in the album before God Save the Queen, but I suppose the UK release should be considered the "official" version, correct?
Or perhaps the French release, which was issued first. Malcolm had a special relation to the French label. Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Have altered the track listing to refer to the original UK version, plus references to the original French version & USA/Canada variant. --DaveG12345 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the bit about Sid Vicious' contributions to the album; according to Clinton Heylin's book and the TV special, he plays on "Bodies". The article credited him with backing vocals, but none of my sources have ever said anything about who did the backing vocals, and the way they're mixed, it could be anyone. Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph in Overview beginning "Far more intense outrage was sparked..." Was it really? In relation to the album? This outrage may have occurred when the single's were released, but not when the album came out, by which time they were pretty much old news. If anything, there was dissent from critics that all the singles were on the album.
I think this paragraph should be modified to refer to the genuine lyrical outrage sparked by the album, which was the content of the new song "Bodies". --DaveG12345 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"opponents of this theory counter that it's actually Rotten's Irish brogue leading people to the misinterpretation"
Johnny Rotten does not now, and did not during the 70s, have anything like an Irish brogue; if you ask anyone Irish what Rotten's accent is, they'll say English. It's not even close to being an Irish accent. I don't want to edit this sentence out, but if you want to say that his pronunciation of "va-cunt" is a peculiarity of his accent, you might want to find a more accurate description of his accent. 213.131.238.25 12:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Dermot
[edit] My tracklist (as Amazon's) differs
Mine has twelve tracks, with Problems and God Save the Queen inverse from what Wikipedia currently has. If it means anything, my version also has a yellow cover, rather than pink. If this is an entirely new release, as I suspect, shouldn't its existance, and tracklist, be noted on this page? -- 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Ethan M.
- The track listing section relates to original releases. Yours is the USA track listing (alrerady noted in the article) with apparently UK-style CD artwork. So I would suggest, no, it does not merit any particular mention in the article. --DaveG12345 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The Cardinal, singer with punk band The Blood, identifies Never Mind the Bollocks as The Communist Manifesto of the 20th Century, arguing that it challenges both belief and class systems with the same ferocious imagination ...
... the above is what i the cardinal wanted to put in this article under the influence section ...if you read marx's communist manifesto ... it has all the bollocks and energy of the work never mind the bollocks ... my point is when you identify this type of work in a ... doldrumatic ... vapid ... sterile .... style ... it does not represent the work ... and is in fact an injustice to the people who created the work and in no way an encyclopedic reference ...
thereto ... the comparison i make between nevermind the bollocks and the communist manifesto is the kind of comparison that marx would have expected ... its about the people and the developing perception of the street ... and the worker against the establishment ... remember wikipedia is for every one in the world not just those who have been to university ... the cardinal The Blood
[edit] 2cd edition?
Would this be a bootleg? The tracklisting is here
- No, it looks like the limited edition 2-CD version put out by Virgin in the 1990s that included a bonus disc of demos.--DaveG12345 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- sure it is. i have it. definitely not a bootleg, but a doble cd version, with spunk and speeding sdemos being the second cd Sickboy3883 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NMTBlp.PNG
Image:NMTBlp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bollocksalbumposter.JPG
Image:Bollocksalbumposter.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Release date....
...was on Nov 4th. How is this so? It didn't chart til the week ending Nov 12th in the UK (when it entered at #1). Had it been released on the 28th of Oct, it would have charted the week ending Nov 5th. Case in point, "GSTQ" was released on May 27th and charted the week ending June 4th. BGC (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- The originally planned release date (November 4) was brought forward a week to October 28 1977, as documented pretty much everywhere (I cited an authoritative source, and I note you reverted my edit and deleted my citation without bothering to supply any of your own - your suppositions here look like original research to me).
- I think you need to take a look at all the third-party documentation on this, all of which shows an original release on October 28 (hence Virgin's 30th anniversary reissue this year was released Monday October 29 2007).
- In light of the above, please revert your own edit to restore my reference and the correct date. Thanks. --DaveG12345 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- After several days waiting for a verifiable source for the Nov 4 release date, I have reverted to the verified Oct 28 date. I have noted your excellent work in repairing a bunch of Sex Pistols release dates throughout Wikipedia. However, on this one, you simply have outdated or inaccurate sources. I applaud your good work re other Pistols' releases, but on this one, you need to check out the historical documents. It really did change at the last minute. --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lyrics
A decent article but let down by the following in my opinion:
Another standard from the album, "Pretty Vacant" also earned the ire of the British music industry. In his delivery of the song's title in the chorus, Johnny Rotten heavily accents the second syllable of the word "vacant", and clips it very short in stark contrast to his drawn out delivery of the first syllable. Critics and fans alike have noted that it actually sounds like "cunt". Some allege it was deliberate; others counter that it's actually Rotten's accent leading people to the misinterpretation. It does seem unlikely the sharp-witted Rotten would have failed to notice (and savor) the implicit wordplay
This theory sounds like the sort of thing that appeals only to sniggering schoolboys and I note that there are no references or citations to the critics who concur with this pretty juvenile theory. If he wanted to say cunt he would have said cunt and not try and sneak it into the song where it just doesn't make sense. There are enough 'fucks' in 'Bodies' (a song about abortion) that trying to suggest that he isn't singing vacant seems frankly silly. twitter (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Original" vocals
"Rotten's bitten, over-articulated, angry vocals and his intentional avoidance of "good" singing were startlingly original in style, at that time..." Leaving aside the question of what is meant by "bitten vocals", was there really anything original about singing angrily in 1977? Some people may have been startled, but if so I doubt the Pistols' musical invention was responsible. Lfh (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)