like a safety pin through my ear
SID VICIOUS.
Is love.
I admit I never liked the guy before. And now I suddenly do! I was always a Johnny girl, Sid just went too far. He was too angry, too destructive, too damn serious about walking the walk. If the punk scene had been full of extremists such as him, it would've burned out even faster. And the contradiction is that I was never sure if his extremity was intentional, if he was actually committed to the nihilism, apathy and alienation. Shouldn't say 'was', I still don't know. But, see, I suspected he was really just a junkie and a slob who liked the adrenaline rush and attention, and became a practically canonized punk icon for nothing. You know, supposing that some of the legendary punk icons actually were in it for something else than the above reasons, which I sort of want to believe. ::g::
But that's a twisted view anyway. Punk as the Pistols saw it literally spat in the faces of those who'd look up to anything. Oh, I know a lot of people believe that Sid was all about seeking attention. Not loved by his on-and-off drug addict mum and all that. And I think they're onto something. He was an attention whore and he knew how to get it, too. Maybe the wild stunts were all about getting the world to look at him: let them be. Punk was about getting attention. Telling people to look up from their meaningless little lives and face the music.
You know, I think I've always hearted punk because it seems so unlikely and self-contradicting. You take your guitar and climb up on a stage to play a little ditty in which you say you don't in fact give a shit about anything. Why are you there then? Shouldn't you be somewhere getting wasted or high? How can you proclaim a social revolution if you don't believe in a future anyway? It makes no sense. Okay, yeah, I'm sure people more committed to punk as a lifestyle have answered those questions before.
As for Sid, I'm reconsidering my entire idea of the man. Sid's role in the Pistols was in a way really similar to Richey's in Manics. Why would I think one the downfall of his band and the other such an extraordinary, brilliant part of his? And can I claim to love punk's characteristic tendency to be so preoccupied with looks and attitude that the music simply can't compete, if I'm annoyed at Sid for exactly that tendency? Uhh. Looks like someone's been a bit short-sighted.
[eta] I suppose what I was going for here was that I used to have the idea that Sid was something that never should've happened to the Pistols. I had faith that they would've been a better band and had a longer career then. In the case of Manics, I was and am sure that they never would've happened without Richey. All the work he did for them, all the attention he got for them... for better or for worse, in the beginning his presence was required to make the band. What I used to miss - I haven't really considered the Pistols since forming my patchy opinion when I first started listening to them in high school - is that in his fucked-up way Sid did the same for his band, well before he was ever expected to play the bass for them. Way back then I wasn't very accepting of a band member who played the scene and media better than his instrument, and that seems to be the thing both his fans and critics bring up in the first two sentences they say about the guy. That's the part where I think I had double standards to share, and revising that don't change the fact that in many other ways he was a fucking bastard. The analogy is questionable at least in that I don't think Sid's and Richey's motives were more than partially similar. Still, it's worth considering.
Also, what I started thinking about after reading Sugar comment: I shouldn't be going off to the other extreme and claiming that glamorous, self-destructive iconic characters are automatically good for a band. Manics could've gone the way of the Pistols after The Holy Bible. I don't think that was my point, but I'm just saying. End addendum.
Incidentally, if someone is interested... there isn't much stuff on the web about the Pistols that I'd bother to read, but here's a few.
The newbie guide: Sid's Wikipedia entry
I liked this article quite a bit. It discusses the the ambiguity of Sid in a reasonable way.
This site has some interview transcriptions and other stuff of interest.
This is so my favorite pic of Johnny and Sid.♥
Is love.
I admit I never liked the guy before. And now I suddenly do! I was always a Johnny girl, Sid just went too far. He was too angry, too destructive, too damn serious about walking the walk. If the punk scene had been full of extremists such as him, it would've burned out even faster. And the contradiction is that I was never sure if his extremity was intentional, if he was actually committed to the nihilism, apathy and alienation. Shouldn't say 'was', I still don't know. But, see, I suspected he was really just a junkie and a slob who liked the adrenaline rush and attention, and became a practically canonized punk icon for nothing. You know, supposing that some of the legendary punk icons actually were in it for something else than the above reasons, which I sort of want to believe. ::g::
But that's a twisted view anyway. Punk as the Pistols saw it literally spat in the faces of those who'd look up to anything. Oh, I know a lot of people believe that Sid was all about seeking attention. Not loved by his on-and-off drug addict mum and all that. And I think they're onto something. He was an attention whore and he knew how to get it, too. Maybe the wild stunts were all about getting the world to look at him: let them be. Punk was about getting attention. Telling people to look up from their meaningless little lives and face the music.
You know, I think I've always hearted punk because it seems so unlikely and self-contradicting. You take your guitar and climb up on a stage to play a little ditty in which you say you don't in fact give a shit about anything. Why are you there then? Shouldn't you be somewhere getting wasted or high? How can you proclaim a social revolution if you don't believe in a future anyway? It makes no sense. Okay, yeah, I'm sure people more committed to punk as a lifestyle have answered those questions before.
As for Sid, I'm reconsidering my entire idea of the man. Sid's role in the Pistols was in a way really similar to Richey's in Manics. Why would I think one the downfall of his band and the other such an extraordinary, brilliant part of his? And can I claim to love punk's characteristic tendency to be so preoccupied with looks and attitude that the music simply can't compete, if I'm annoyed at Sid for exactly that tendency? Uhh. Looks like someone's been a bit short-sighted.
[eta] I suppose what I was going for here was that I used to have the idea that Sid was something that never should've happened to the Pistols. I had faith that they would've been a better band and had a longer career then. In the case of Manics, I was and am sure that they never would've happened without Richey. All the work he did for them, all the attention he got for them... for better or for worse, in the beginning his presence was required to make the band. What I used to miss - I haven't really considered the Pistols since forming my patchy opinion when I first started listening to them in high school - is that in his fucked-up way Sid did the same for his band, well before he was ever expected to play the bass for them. Way back then I wasn't very accepting of a band member who played the scene and media better than his instrument, and that seems to be the thing both his fans and critics bring up in the first two sentences they say about the guy. That's the part where I think I had double standards to share, and revising that don't change the fact that in many other ways he was a fucking bastard. The analogy is questionable at least in that I don't think Sid's and Richey's motives were more than partially similar. Still, it's worth considering.
Also, what I started thinking about after reading Sugar comment: I shouldn't be going off to the other extreme and claiming that glamorous, self-destructive iconic characters are automatically good for a band. Manics could've gone the way of the Pistols after The Holy Bible. I don't think that was my point, but I'm just saying. End addendum.
Incidentally, if someone is interested... there isn't much stuff on the web about the Pistols that I'd bother to read, but here's a few.
The newbie guide: Sid's Wikipedia entry
I liked this article quite a bit. It discusses the the ambiguity of Sid in a reasonable way.
This site has some interview transcriptions and other stuff of interest.
This is so my favorite pic of Johnny and Sid.♥