I don’t remember who said it first (Danny Baker?), but there is a quote along the lines that, whereas in 1977 it was Bill Grundy that looked normal and the Sex Pistols looked odd, it is nowadays the other way around.

Looking back at this record, the thing that strikes me is how well it is played and produced. It still sounds awesomely loud and furious, whereas most of the other mainstream punk records from the period sound a bit thin and weedy. This is like Queen! But without vocal harmonies. It’s such a terrible shame that Public Image Limited never had a number one.

By the back end of 1978, most people had caught up, and my status as everyone’s go-to guy was restored. Oh, they all wanted to get their hands on my Bollocks!

I cannot claim to say I saw the pistols on Nationwide and went “yes! This is what I’ve been waiting for!” immediately (although I did have such a reaction on seeing Eddie and the Hot Rods on TOTP about 2 months before)…

I guess because I was more a pop kid, I didn’t have any great muso attitude to unlearn, When Danny Baker said about hating “Highway Star” in Sniffin’ Glue, I thought it again curious, but was of a similar mind. Somewhat disappointed to find he was lying about that, and bored to TEARS man about his apologies over the years for saying that. (Not bothered about him liking it, each to their own you know, more his disavowal of all things rock-non-punk before 1976 - mainly because I actually was that person and he was not.

But to square peg individuals like me it coalesced with a lot of other things to change the way I looked at the world and I think you’ll find many similar stories from those who went on to become notable names in the eighties and beyond - think, for example, of Kurt the Seattle backwater misfit who can’t understand anyone or anything until he discovers punk on his own in 1983, possibly the least punk of all years, and finds a purpose for his life.

So the influence was not immediate, but subtle and long term.

So I was just wondering - was most everyone, as it seems to me, Pistol-aware enough that it made a real difference in things, or was it just the same kind of “cool kid in spiffy gear” clique that Charles Sharr-Murray and Nick “I Got Beat Up By Sid Vicious” Kent hit the presses with every week?

Oh, and even though I gladly recognize them for being the standard bearer for that scene, I can’t bear to listen to them anymore. Same for most safety-pin acts. Just haven’t aged well. And maybe that was kinda the point. Although I may be full of shit. But try & be kind if you respond.

Kim Philby and Johnny Rotten - an enviable enemies list!

ah i remember when we conspired with nielsen (or was it Whittaker back then?) to stop johnny rotten’s biog getting to number one - the fiend, etc

(bonus extra point: the celeb angle is messed up by the vanity/ego of the commissioning editor, but they still have to persuade someone to come up with the publicity-baiting cash advances)

Johnny Rotten’s autobiography on the other hand is brilliant if packed with ludicrous and obvious lies.

As has been agreed, without an agent, you’re going nowhere in a hurry. My advice for those without one is simply to cheat and use a reliable and literary suitable contact as a letterhead (ie: “agent”) to make the approach for you. This may not help you at all in approaching the large houses direct, but it might cut some ice when you already have something published by a small house and your agent attempts to sell an existing product to a larger company. This is what I shall shortly be attempting to do ere long, all being well.

I perhaps need not add that there are many wonderful writers who simply cannot get a break, whilst much monstrous rubbish is snapped up in a blink. This used to infuriate me when I first set out but I quickly understood and accepted the first principle of the game, which is that the world of publishing is unswervingly unfair. As is life.

To be truthful, getting CoM published as a book was always going to be an uphill struggle, not just because thus far I’ve had to go about the painful business of trying to pitch it myself, sans intermediary agent (with the expected failed result), but because it’s about trying to persuade publishers that this is a new and different type of book, and since publishers generally want to follow precedents rather than set them, the word “innovation” gets their knees knocking a-trembly before the desk sergeant that represents their shareholders.

It would help to some degree if I could find an agent but this is also proving impossible since in closed shop terms you have to have an agent in order to get an agent, in an unfunny way - however, I think it vital to have one to act as the sort of plugger between me (as artist) and publisher (as radio station) since publishers need to be convinced that someone is already convinced, so to speak, but even after that it’s a case of fitting in your agenda and format with what the publishers want without compromising what you’re actually trying to do; thus the general response I’m getting back at the moment is great writing but is it a book and wouldn’t you really want to write it as an autobiog in the Eggers/Pelzer street of dreary catharsis and you have to supplant the scream of THAT’S NOT THE POINT because otherwise you have to accept that publishers will only take on things with an identifiable hook which are easy and quick to market (thus Belle de Jour etc.) rather than cumbersome affairs like CoM which require long and careful nurturing.

Well, yes it was. The fact is that there were very few places that a band could get their start, especially outside of London. The colleges were dominated by people who felt that any song that didn’t feature an eight minute guitar wank had no virtues whatsoever. The pubs would happily accomodate the nostalgic R n’ B or soul merchants but that’s about it.

Rosie #128 “Of course, the corollary is that audiences have the freedom not to listen, but that’s a whole other point. This freedom is the freedom to have a recording contract then? And to be broadcast on mainstream radio so that one can get in the charts? And thus to be famous? An icon? Or am I missing the point again?”

Yup. You missed out the right to be taken as seriously as anyone else. After the Pistols, anyones musical vision could be as valid as anyone elses. Something which holds true today; a hell of a legacy. Where prog was exclusive, punk was inclusive.

You are not wrong in any of what you say, just I would add:

After the fifties rock and roll boom happened, the acts as presented got watered down (or substituted) by the ‘big players’ into acts that would sell more. And, at that time, meant being more safe, responsible, non-dangerous. This led to a lull in acts from the US making inroads into the UK market, and the groundswill of UK acts that were making a name on a local basis, and coming up through a grass-roots approach.

The Beatles, by the time they got signed, were not an unknown entity. In fact, they played their biggest UK gig (in terms of tickets sold) as part of a multiband package of Liverpool bands, themselves being top bill, before they signed to EMI!

So, the major labels had either to sign UK acts that were coming up and getting ever more popular, or stick with what they knew and die off (many did)…

The same thing happened around punk. Yes, it would have happened had the ‘grundy’ thiing not happened but then they had already featured on Nationwide (a national TV prog), so the likelihood that “Anarchy” would have sold ‘respectably’, “Pretty Vacant” the follow up would have been a bigger hit being ‘airplay friendly’, and the big controversial “God Save the Queen” would have made the same waves as history now knows…..

All right, supposing we have established that this new found freedom is not, in fact, the freedom to perform before an audience; a freedom which I’m sure you will agree was never denied. Of course, the corollary is that audiences have the freedom not to listen, but that’s a whole other point. This freedom is the freedom to have a recording contract then? And to be broadcast on mainstream radio so that one can get in the charts? And thus to be famous? An icon? Or am I missing the point again?

Anyway, it’s perfectly true that in the 1960s the big players (EMI, Decca, Philips, Pye) had a stranglehold, and broadcasting opportunities were limited to Radio Luxembourg (heavily sponsored by EMI, Decca, Philips, Pye) and what crumbs the BBC had to offer so it was bloody difficult to break in. One could argue that the first Golden Age of Pop (which I’d place from 1964-1967) came about because of The Beatles, but I don’t think that holds water. Something happened, or more likely several things were happening and things changed when they came together to form a critical combination, and that something allowed the Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks, Animals and so forth to reach a wider audience. They’d all been around in one form or another for years, but now they were allowed to burst forth. No doubt this was due to the increased accessibility to radio technology, surplus ships and redundant sea-defences that allowed the pirates to proliferate.

Was something similar happening in the mid-seventies? Certainly there was a big change in the way records were sold, and had been for quite a few years. No longer did you buy from electrical retailers like Strothers of West Kirby (where my first singles came from) but from discounting chains (Harlequin, Virgin) and independents (Rag Records of Hatfield). They were all still very general and mainstream, however. I think one thing that was changing fast is hinted at by my exploits in a TV studio in 1975-76; that would have been unthinkable ten years earlier but by the mid-70s the technology to make TV programmes was not only within the compass of a university rather than a big corporation but not so precious that you couldn’t let a bunch of postgraduates play with it on a Friday afternoon. And if TV equipment was becoming more accessible because the size and costs were coming down, then so did music recording equipment and the wherewithal to produce marketing materials ceased to be a monopoly of the super-wealthy and powerful. Enter, for example, Stiff Records.

So, my thesis is that neither the Sex Pistols nor Malcolm McLaren precipitated change. Change happened and it would have happened anyway without the Sex Pistols even if a couple of months later. But it didn’t happen a couple of months later, did it, because it had already happened well before June 1977. As we have already agreed. Grundy helped it on its way by providing some very welcome publicity but again that wasn’t essential to the process. Change happens, not because of isolated acts by individuals, but because the conditions are right for it to happen.

The monopoly of the big dealers was broken, I think we can agree on that, and that was only a good thing. It wasn’t only punk that was a beneficiary though , nor I suggest was punk a major benficiary. After all, once whatever shock value punk had was spent, it pretty well fizzled out. There’s a lot of astonishing stuff on its way though - some of it branded punk at the time no doubt for commercial reasons, but it’s not what I call punk. What will start to flourish in the next few popular years, is genuine innovation of all kinds. As the Bunny (or perhaps Bunny’s proxy, the Mountain Hare) will no doubt testify before very long at all.

*The irony of course being that most punk bands did have “chops” but they kept them hidden; cf. Keith Levene revisiting old Steve Howe riffs through Metal Box (by his own admission and in his pre-punk days he was even a roadie for Yes).

Nothing new under the sun!

isn´t it just the old “well if THEY can do it, so can I” thing? that perception of ability becoming less important than creativity and that it was as if less talent OR hard work was required to become a pop star. 10 years later i guess i had the same feeling with acid house.