I am so sick of how the Clash are always rated behind the Sex Pistols as the best British punk band.
Nothing the Sex Pistols have done is anywhere near as good as anything by the Clash:-The Clash have better songs
-The Clash had better musicians
-The Clash reached success through talent
-The Clash actually had political messages.
The Sex Pistols: -Had Many 2nd rate songs
-Had a bassist who never played
-Relied on controversy for success
-Just wanted anarchy with no real idea.
I can't see how you could disagree with that.
I am an anti christ! whooa sex pistols rock!
IMO, The CLash is better than Sex Pistols. Pistols was a good band, but I really like songs like Trains in Vain, London Calling, etc, etc, from the Clash.
I couldn't agree more
Also, the Clash released more than one good record.
The Sex Pistols were a bit of a gimmick, perhaps even a manufactured band, and when you can only play three chords your music might start to sound a bit limited. Never Mind The Bolleaux was a good album, but the rest is worth ignoring.
As for The Clash, the debut was great, as was London Calling, and the other albums had their ups and downs. It was nice to see a punk band exploring other genres.
You cant really compare the two, the clash were punk/reggae/rockabilly.
thats perhaps being a little bit harsh, but it seems to me that the sex pistols were very important and very good, i did vote the clash better as ultimatley they produced more, had better music.
Sid Vicious could not play bass origionally he was just chosen for his "punk appearance" but he did search out some rather big names in the way of lemmy to teach him. So he did try bless 'im
i think in some ways you cant compare them
the sex pistols were "the punk" band...and the clash "werent just a punk band"
the clash would never have been but for the pistols...BUT they were a better bands in terms of playing ability and imagination.
personally i think we are just lucky to have had both.
1. Punk bands aren't supposed to play well, and in the 70' they were supposd to play as bad as possible. So Sex Pistols wins.
2. The manager of Sex Pistols came with the idea of the band with something like "I think that people will pay a lot of money to someone who offends them, if they were told that it is cool." In the matter of offending Sex Pistols win again (God save the queen hit the top )
3. Punks were supposed to look aggresive and to behave aggresively on their shows. I guess Sex Pistols had also a better image.
4. In my personal opinion, though Sex Pistols were more 'punk' than any other band, and promoted punk around the whole world (respect for that), they music is just worse than average. The Clash had done a way better work and they music is way much better. But who cares about music nowadays...
What can I say? Did any heard and understood what "The Great Rock'n'roll Swindle" was about? I don't think so!
Sex Pistols was pure anarchy, that was what it all was about. Then second came Dead Kennedys.
Punk did never died!
There is no way that The Clash could be regarded at the same level of Sex Pistols!
I chose the Sex Pistols because as a kid I found their music more accessible.
I agree that the Clash were better technically and all that but I just found the Sex Pistols more fun, more attractive (musically of course) and I was turned off by the Clash and why I dont know. They were more in tune with me.
The Clash and the Stranglers were two bands I just could not get a taste for.
Now I am older I can appreciate the Clash more than when I was younger but you cant trust my judgement on music as a kid I was also a huge Frankie Goes to Hollywood and Duran Duran fan and thought they would be the next Beatles HA!!!!