were the sex pistols a boy band?

So, yeah, they were.

Cracks me up every time I see it.

Sid was chosen for his looks, no? Thus, boy band.

but some other boy bands for ya: The Runaways, Radio Birdman, The MC5, the Beastie Boys, Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, The Doors.

That would make Kiss a boy band too, then. Discuss.

But, by the very same token, with the possible exception of, say, The Residents, what rock'n'roll/pop/whathaveyou band doesn't figure in a potential player's visual presence into their masterplan? It's all part of the package. By your logic, virtually *EVERY* band is a boy band.

By the way, other than the Pistols argument, I'm just making this up as I go along so it probably won't hold up.

I'm loosely defining boy bands as having been assembled to fit a pre- existing concept (The Runaways [yeah, I know they're gurls], the Sex Pistols, The Banana Splitz) or having a mastermind in charge of molding the group into a certain pre-defined identity (sure, NSYNC and The Bay City Rollers and all the other micromanaged acts, but also self-defined acts like Jon Spencer, Radio Birdman, The Ramones, Kiss, Parliament-Funkadelic) through the use of stunts, costumes, manifestoes and marketing ruses to interest the press and catch the eye of fickle young pop fans.

Also, consider: if McLaren was so good at promotion/hype, isn't it conceivable that in later years he exaggerated his own influence on the band?

on the john lydon vs steve [crass-guy] thread, someone says mclaren was "just some suit" heh

(if i wasn't so lazy 'd put em both on sparks in stone lanes)

http://www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/13/1187364942/facebooksexpistols.gif

Some are in the wrong order, but: Excellen.

ehehehehehe...brilliant

the answer to this is still yes

i am writing a piece for grown-ups abt the temple-strummer doc now! i have been quite nice about it!

fsvo nice

This thread is why I love ILM.

mark are you actually relaxing on the "clash issue"??

the rolling stones were also a boy band!

the Sex Pistols, not unlike Pop Stars, did a good job of pulling back the curtain to show the machinery of the pop industry.

and what did this accomplish, exactly?

jandek is a boy band

and what did this accomplish, exactly?

It was something to do?

It's something that you need to have.

I would say Sex Pistols lack some of the core elements needed for calling someone a boy band, such as:

- audience mainly consisting of teen- and preteen girls.
- Somewhat "feminine" or metrosexual image
- Lots of sappy ballads

I want to become the Svengali of a pop punk band lead by Seth Rotten and Cory Vicious.

xpost: some might say that dressing entirely in Vivienne Westwood threads was pretty metrosexual.

Interesting thread. I definitely think the Monkees are the band most comparable to the Pistols.

I would say Adam & The Ants, New York Dolls and Bow Wow Wow are the bands most comparable to the Pistols.

was p.i.l. a grime band

The 'no ballads' point is actually the key one, which also sets the Pistols apart from the likes of G'N'R, though that's another thread. That and the influence of Peter Cook (and other British comedians) on the singer's persona. Not a lot of competition there.

"metal box" is where the lost rotten ballads got collected!

slade -- who are of course the pistols' great secret precursor -- did plenty of sorta-kinda ballads, and plus noddy holder's persona has roots in the brit comedian tradition

i don't actually think soukesian's point holds -- influence is a fatally obscure and unclear concept anyway; but the key is surely that contrarian lydon is very open about how he prefers to declare comedians as a lineage bcz he hates rock so much; THAT'S the difference (other singers who use this lineage don't make such a big deal of it cz they also cite their ancestry IN rock (in fact almost certainly make much TOO big a deal of "influence" in ref music, and too little in ref."influence" outside it)

(the way the comedians point is made in "filth and fury" is actually one of the reasons i hated it -- because it's a REALLY INTERESTING point and temple does nothing interesting with it)

the Sex Pistols, not unlike Pop Stars, did a good job of pulling back the curtain to show the machinery of the pop industry.

and what did this accomplish, exactly?

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, August 24, 2007 9:11 PM

that's a tough question but to my mind both 76 punk and these types of reality pop shows have both changed the way people think about how music is made and therefore what it means.

it was inevitable that pop music started to become more ABOUT pop music -- maybe akin to how warhol changed the art world by revealing/reveling in the process of making + selling art? the idea that a piece of art can be a critique and an object unto iself at the same time.

and like pop art, punk rock & pop stars/american idol intentionally evoke a "my kid could do better'n that!" response in the viewer - which is part of the strategy to suck you in and make you idenify with the performer: that could be me up there.

also maybe what i was trying to get at was that both punk rock + pop stars/american idol et al have as their starting points ultra-democratic "anyone can do it" ideals, and lots of nice interesting confusion/identification between artist and audience. both get elitist and mean real quick when put into practice, like everything human beings touch. where they go from that starting point is different, but i do think there's some sort of parallel there: the idea that the performers are innocents who will be transformed by the experience of making music and selling it...

and i guess also the fact that both Pop Stars/American Idol/etc. and pistols-style Punk Rock may give the illusion that they are "pulling back the curtain to show the machinery of the pop industry" while they are in fact just using the machinery of the pop industry as part of their narrative, their mythology. the reality shows are selling the idea that this transformative experience with the music biz is a positive - a dream come true, while punk usually casts it as a necessary evil at best.

one of the best things about the mclaren/pistols story to me is that whole "cash from chaos" thing, that they cast themselves (or malcolm cast them, who knows) as highway men and pirates and artful dodgers out to triumphantly beat the music biz at its own game. it's a drag that punk's initial flamboyant engagement with big biz as scam artists, con men and thieves was so quickly lost. now it seems the dominant indie/hardcore narrative is of bands as hard-working journeymen cottage industry craftspeople, which is about as exciting as the candlemaker at the renaissance faire.

i once said that the chief sign of the lameness of modern alt.rock wz that none of em had the gumption to jam up a reality show but hongro slapped me down with by-the-book definitional science :(

Isn't one of the implications behind the term "boy band" that the band is pandering to their audience? It's not always necessarily true, but when one derides the Backstreet Boys as music for teenage girls, don't they mean that it's music that is easy for a teenage girl to like? Ie: If I make an album for teenage girls - challenging them, addressing their concerns, identity, etc, but didn't pander to them, you'd have a totally different kind of artifact.
So aren't the Sex Pistols different because - no matter what the means of production - they didn't make their music easy for their listeners to confront. They weren't playing to expectations, but were subverting what their listeners expected.
I don't remember where I read it (maybe Lipstick Traces) but there was something about people going to these shows and being horrified by the experience (it might have been a Stooges show) and being challenged. And then other people going to show to be shocked, and the artist refusing to shock them - as another way of subverting the expectation.

I think these are great points and I don't deny the situationist influence on the band - which definitely does set them aside from your average boy band.

but maybe you're underestimating teenage girls.

From the stuff I've seen, the Sex Pistols audience had a lot of teenage girls in it - take one Nancy Spungen f'rinstance - and they have continued to have k-zillion teenage girl fans since 76... Plus if all girls are looking for is sugar and spice and everything nice, why are they all in love with Lil Wayne now? Why was Charles Manson surrounded by teenage girls? And even the Backstreet Boys, NSync and New Kids On The Block had their resident bad boys complete with well-publicized addiction problems. Maybe part of "pandering" to a teen audience is challenging and creeping it out a bit too? The biggest teen heartthrobs ever - Elvis, Beatles, Stones, even MJ in his way - challenged as they pandered and pandered as they challenged.

also maybe worth noting that it was the pop punk acts like Blink 182, Sum 41, Good Charlotte and actual teen girl Avril Lavigne - perhaps the most direct mix of boy band-style marketing mixed with punk signifiers -that knocked the last round of big traditional pop boy bands off the charts a few years ago.

Also it's not like the aesthetics and tone of the Pistols were entirely untested by 76 - glam was winding down and the audience was looking for something harder, scarier, different but its not like Alice Cooper, Bowie, Sweet, Slade, early Roxy, Bolan, etc. hadn't been hugely successful with a teen audience in the years with some similar ideas. The Ramones, NY Dolls and Runaways also predated them with less success, and these bands were even closer to the Pistols in spirit and sound - so maybe it was McLaren's genius that he was able to harness these energies into a Bay City Rollers template, and the band's genius that they were actually able to make it work.

I have seen people use the same argument against The Beatles too, only with other factors (teenage girls screaming) and thus overlooking the following important differences:
- They were a band formed by a bunch of friends rather than put together by some manager
- They largely wrote all of their own material.
- They had lots and lots and lots of male fans
- Their albums are still played a lot and bought by lots of people and discovered by new generations. How many people are still buying albums by New Kids On The Block today?

hey geir, news flash: calling the sex pistols a boy band is not an "argument against" them

wasn't glam dismissed as teenage bubblegum fluff at the time? ziggy etc has been thoroughly canonized now but i've seen mention across ilm at times that its initial place was totally different.

Well, it could be used as an argument against downplaying boy bands too.

In which case, using 60s Motown as an example would be a lot better, as 60s Motown had a lot in common with today's boy/girl bands in the way it was manufactured and marketed, and still was obviously and unarguably great music.

nothing is obvious or unarguable.

also: i like motown.

(also: why am i bothering...)

- this is not an "argument against" or an attempt at "deriding" either boy bands or sex pistols or anybody, though yes, maybe it is an "argument against downplaying boy bands" now that you mention it

i wasn't really arguing that the beatles were a boy band, and i think the similarities are more superficial than they are with the pistols. to me, the biggest connection between boy bands and the beatles isn't any of the thing you mention but rather the template that they introduced of the group being made up of some sort of assembly of stock characters (e.g. the smart one, the cute one, the funny one and george).

but just for the sake of argument, i'll answer some of your "important differences":
- epstein's role in the beatles' success was huge some might say obvious and unarguable (har har), but arguing the importance of someone like epstein (or mclaren or maurice starr or even lou perlman) doesn't deny the group's own talent
- yes they were friends and that is different than monkees and nsync, but the new kids on the block and new edition were classmates/friends too so it's not unheard of (i was going to argue osmonds and J5 too but i think family acts are a different deal) - but yes I agree that the beatles' creation myth is not a classic boy band genesis
- the beatles only played their own stuff after years as a cover band - but yes they were amazing songwriters and performers
- they had lots of male fans, but lots and lots and lots of female fans too
- who knows what future generations will discover and play and buy? the "this old thing has stood the test of time but this new thing has not" argument always seems a bit useless.
- i agree that motown had a lot in common with today's boy/girl bands (most directly in the line from motown's J5 > the new edition > nkotb > bsb > nsync; but also in gordy's whole m.o.)

cheers.