Posted by Chris Mitchell
on 2/28/2011, 1:21 pm, in reply to "Well I guess it's fair"
62.255.90.23
--Previous Message--
: If you limit the comparison to just Never
: Mind The Bollocks and The Clash . That's
: what I meant by the Syd Barret vs. Lou Reed
: thing, it actually does make some sense to
: compare them if you limit the comparison to
: their 60's work, but nobody would make such
: a comparison anyway, because Reed obviously
: moved way far away from that to different
: things, while Syd (for obvious reasons)
: didn't.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Comparing two first wave punk rock bands is
: hardly unheard of. Both of them had the
: similar "#### the Man!" messages
: too.
:
: --Previous Message--
: It's like saying Lou Reed is better than Syd
: Barrett, it's kind of missing the point of
: the artist.
:
: --Previous Message--
: nt
:
: --Previous Message--
: Ohhhhh, you're gonna hate this page.
:
:
Well to be fair, the Sex Pistols lost:
1) Bassist and main musical (John Lydon was the main lyricist I assume) force Glen Matlock
2) Replaced him with a the much much much less talented Sid Vicious (however he could play bass when he wasn't on heroin as a few youtube videos show this, but not very well but he could play) who had no real song-writing ability.
3) Crappy manager
4) Lost Lydon in 78 and broke up way before they could develop and mature as a band.
So really comparing the two debuts wouldn't be that fair considering the Clash had time to grow, while the Sex Pistols recorded just one. But Lydon had Public Image Limited, which in the early days in my opinion walks all over London Calling and Sandinista. And the first guitarist used to BE in the clash!