Live Fast, Die Young, or Get Off the Stage

[3 April 2008]

Why wouldn't they burn out instead of fade away? Berman examines the sad spectacle of punk-rock reunions and shows how they destroy the two elements that actually made punk attractive: sex appeal and impermanence.

By Judy Berman

“I am an antichrist. I am an anarchist.”

John Lydon haltingly spits out the incendiary opening lyrics of his magnum opus, the Sex Pistols’ 1977 single, “Anarchy in the U.K.” What can only be described as a long, loose rugby shirt affixed with a bustle disguises Lydon’s now ample torso as he gyrates obscenely on the Tonight Show stage. I cringe, watching the bustle sway when he shakes his ass. “When you gonna leave Iraq?” he taunts the crowd between verses.

cover art

Greil Marcus

In the Fascist Bathroom

(Harvard University Press)

cover art

Simon Reynolds

Rip It Up and Start Again

(Penguin)

Later, he forsakes the microphone and invites the audience to sing, cupping his hand to his ear and swiveling his hips as though performing a mimed “I’m a Little Teapot”. Once in a while, he freezes in place and his eyes lose their focus. When it’s all over, he shakes hands with not only Jay Leno but also Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. We find out that the band has gotten back together to re-record the song for a new videogame, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock.

Just like that, on Halloween night 2007, no less, punk rock’s ultimate nightmare became its bleak reality. Not because the Sex Pistols sold out; they did that years ago, even going so far as to release an album of rarities called The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle. And it is, of course, anachronistic to preach a 30-year-old British anarchy fantasy to contemporary America, to say nothing of the hypocrisy involved in using a high-priced videogame as the medium for this message.

But politics aren’t and never were the point. I can still happily scream along to the Sex Pistols song “Bodies”, fully aware that its antiabortion rhetoric in lyrics like “She was a no one who killed her baby” is diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. When all is said and done, the Sex Pistols are a rock band like any other, and theirs is a cultural rather than political failure.

The night after his Leno appearance, Lydon showed up on the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson proudly proclaiming, “We don’t give a damn if you don’t like our body size, frame, weight, attitude. What we do and say is 100 percent accurate and does actually help you.” It’s clear he’s retained the petulance he had in his 20s, but his statement reveals that he fundamentally misunderstands the Sex Pistols’ appeal.

No one really cares about their message, which is as ill-defined in 2007 as it was in 1977. What makes the band’s latest iteration so pathetic, as well as the reappearance of countless similar ‘70s and ‘80s groups, is the way it destroys the two elements that actually made punk attractive: sex appeal and impermanence.

Wait, punk sexy? Wasn’t punk supposed to be the antithesis of all that is sexy? Music critics in the ‘70s talked about punk bands as if their members were dreadfully deformed. The unique promise of punk was supposed to be that, as Greil Marcus argued in the introduction to his book In the Fascist Bathroom: Punk in Pop Music 1977-1992, “If an ugly, hunched-over 20-year-old could stand up, name himself an antichrist, and make you wonder if it wasn’t true, then anything was possible.”

But Lydon’s erstwhile alter ego, Johnny Rotten, was not so different from rock ‘n’ roll’s definitive sex symbol, Mick Jagger: both were skinny, pale, English boys with well-defined cheekbones and a flair for working-class affect. Lydon and Jagger were also secretly avid readers and omnivorous connoisseurs of music, and each was better educated than he let on. The Sex Pistols simply added studs and safety pins to the Rolling Stones’ leather jackets, tore holes in their tight jeans, and replaced Jagger’s moody pucker with an angry sneer.

Critics like Marcus and his followers have developed a fondness for lionizing punk as a seismic shift in the paradigms of popular music. It certainly sounded different from what came before, but like its forerunners, its prime appeal was its combination of sex and danger. Punk bands that vocally opposed the ego-driven cults of personality that formed around mainstream rock idols soon found themselves surrounded by a strikingly similar flock of followers.

In concert videos shot during the height of the Sex Pistols’ fame, the audience of canoodling couples resemble nothing more than the crowds of hippies practicing free love in the fields of San Francisco 10 years earlier. The screaming girls, pierced and unwashed though they were, could have been ripped straight from footage of the Beatles in their teen idol years. Punk music and the people who created it were always better at inspiring sexual abandon than it was at inciting political fervor.

The Sex Pistols’ version of sexy, contrived by their manager and ringleader, Malcolm McLaren (who was also the owner of a fetish fashion store called Sex) was a tarted-up version of the ‘60s rock standard. By the mid-’70s, the Rolling Stones had become an institution, and their shtick had been done to death. In their white undershirts and tight jeans, the Stones looked like urban tough guys. While this had once lent the band an air of danger, the perennial hallmark of rock ‘n’ sexuality, the style had, by 1977, become so pervasive as to be banal. The Rolling Stones’ style was all about sexual innuendo; the Sex Pistols’ version was nothing more than a shockingly literal translation.

Like connoisseurs of pornography, rock fans periodically need a higher dose of perversion to get them worked into the same, old frenzy. In order to get a reaction, punk sexuality had to be even more extreme. Enter Johnny Rotten, in leather bondage gear topped with a moth-eaten sweater and Sid Vicious, the band’s late bassist, conspicuously exposing his scarred, naked torso. If the Rolling Stones had just come from a street fight, the Sex Pistols and bands of their ilk had surely been holed up for a month in a tenement apartment in a bad neighborhood, having weird, violent sex and mainlining all kinds of drugs. One need look no further than Vicious’ obvious predecessor, Keith Richards, to trace the roots of that aesthetic.

This sexy sense of danger only highlighted the band’s fundamental impermanence. They were never built to last. Like the Sex Pistols’ enthusiasm for hard drugs and self-mutilation, their rhetoric could not sustain itself for more than the few years that made up the band’s original incarnation. The beliefs they espoused, a vague mélange of apocalyptic pseudo-anarchism and a pure, idiot love of the controversial, revealed nothing more than their youth. But their youth was precisely what audiences craved; they could take or leave the band’s ideas. There were just two options for the Sex Pistols: to grow up and abandon the band or, as the Who sang a generation earlier, to die before they got old.

Vicious did his part, overdosing on heroin less than a year after the group broke up. And for a while, it seemed that Rotten had accepted the necessity of moving on. In the late ‘70s, he reclaimed his birth name, Lydon, and fronted Public Image Limited (PiL), a band whose music and politics were more sophisticated than those of the Sex Pistols. PiL drew inspiration from Jamaican reggae and dub, infusing into those genres the critique of consumer culture that the Sex Pistols never quite managed. As Simon Reynolds wrote in Rip It Up and Start Again: Post punk 1978-1984, PiL was a business as well as a band, and “money making was a potentially subversive strategy of working from within, a stealth campaign that was less spectacular than the Pistols’ revolt but more insidious.”

But as PiL never achieved the widespread popularity that the Sex Pistols enjoyed, it must have been the spectacle that was attractive all along. What made punk’s particular mixture of sex and danger so exciting was that potency, that sheer combustibility. The inevitable explosion—that is, the breakup of the Sex Pistols and the death of Sid Vicious—should have been the end. And though we may claim selling out, buying in, or other instances of hypocrisy as the reasons for our distaste with punk rock reunions, we are really upset that Lydon and others like him are violating the essential dictates of the rock ‘n’ roll genre as a whole: If rockers were supposed to live fast and die young, we expected punks to up the ante by living faster and dying younger.

Shortly after the Sex Pistols’ abrupt dissolution in the midst of their 1978 US tour, Marcus composed a sort of eulogy for band in Rolling Stone. “We will see nothing like [Johnny Rotten] again,” he wrote. But here he is in 2007, finally achieving the unattractiveness that was erroneously assigned to him 30 years ago and spouting the kind of political platitudes that we hear every day. The man who once told us to “get pissed, destroy” and prophesied, “there is no future, in England’s dreaming,” is now wondering, like my mother and grandmother also wonder, “When you gonna leave Iraq?”

Related Articles

The Shape of Things to Come by Greil Marcus

By Erika Nanes

14.Feb.08

Convinced as I was by Marcus' readings, I couldn't help noticing that the primary subjects of all four chapters were works produced by white men: Philip Roth, David Lynch, Bill Pullmanm and David Thomas.

Rip It Up and Start Again: Post-Punk 1978-1984 by Simon Reynolds

By Alison Neale

21.Oct.05

Focusing primarily on British and American music between 1978 and 1984, Reynolds emphasizes the idea that the glossed-over post-punk years were not marginal to the history of rock: they actually spawned a range of sounds that were more revolutionary than punk itself and that left a far more significant legacy, laying the foundations for the subsequent emergence of alternative music in all its myriad forms.

Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads by Greil Marcus

By Justin Cober-Lake

20.May.05

Like a Rolling Stone is not great cultural analysis or musical study, but it's a work that's both insightful and fantastic.

 
Comments

What you seem to forget is that for many, if not all, of the reunited punk bands just genuinely like playing music.  Perhaps the media made more of the scene and the trend in 1977 than the bands themselves would have liked.  They very likely formed their bands originally because they just wanted to play music.  Why shouldn’t they be able to continue doing this now and at the same time finally make a little money off the music.  Sure, it’s not going to be just like it was in 1977, but aren’t you older now too and able to appreciate it as music and not just a reliving of the punk lifestyle?

Comment by ca — April 3, 2008 @ 9:47 am

Hello. Berman’s article is at times very unconvincing, and it includes factual inaccuracies.

Of course it’s not in and of itself a pretty sight to see Lydon & company touring year after year, playing the same material over & over again. The thing I don’t get is: why is it an issue that’s important enough to write about in relation to the Sex Pistols’ prior accomplishments? In other words, why should the reunion-tour version of the band in any way color one’s assessment of the group in its original form?

The reason I ask this question is this: it seems to me that if what the Pistols did in the late 70s is to be recognized for its real brilliance artistically and its enduring influence over culture—that is, if we have digested those facts—what the band members are up to now really doesn’t and shouldn’t matter one way or the other.

What I mean to get at is that the band’s pivotal contribution had to do with providing exuberant testimony to the possibility of—and, ultimately, the utter necessity of—exercising one’s individual free will to act upon one’s inspiration and to share life-affirming and -saving inspiration with others. And to do all of this in a way that refuses to accept as binding or authoritative the classifications, labels and narratives imposed upon the individual from coercive forces ranging from wealth to status to ‘hipness’ to taboos and moral codes to laws, etc.

This impact is obvious in the case of England where the class system was more visible, and where culture was in extreme stasis. I would say that for these very reasons, the Sex Pistols have emerged as more important than ever in the USA. We’re currently enduring an era with analogues of each of these exact cultural and economic conditions. The US has matured, in a way, through its turmoil. I think that whereas in the late 70s, most people in this country couldn’t help but see John Lydon as anything more than a troublemaker, motivated to shock people through his outrageous image and voice, it is more natural than ever for us to see EXACTLY what it is that he was saying: he was giving voice not to youthful rebellion and not to nihilism, but, rather, to a very sophisticated and entirely justified social and political antagonism!

Berman’s factual errors become relevant at this point:

‘Bodies’ is NOT an anti-abortion song! This is an extremely important thing to understand if you’re going to write about it. Lydon’s lyrics have much more nuance to them than you appear to realize. They tend to inhabit anywhere from two to a host of vantage points, woven into a kind of fabric. They are not narrative songs, and they’re not polemics. ‘God Save the Queen,’ for instance is not voicing an ‘ironic’ sentiment. The song undertakes to place the purported role and aims of the monarchy, imbued with high-mindedness and power, in juxtaposition to the reality of the Queen’s role in post-WWII England: an empty pose, absurd rhetoric devoid of content. And this allows Lydon to comment on the situation of his generation: “There is no future in England’s dreaming!”

Evincing similar complexity, ‘Bodies’ inhabits the point of view of a woman grappling with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion—the ways in which she has been socialized by the class system & her family, etc. to think of herself as wretched, as a ‘disgrace’. The song also inhabits the point of view of the thought process of her fetus by way of projection from the subconscious of the woman. The song is PRO-CHOICE; it portrays the swirl of guilty and shameful feelings imposed upon people by religious ideology. It takes seriously the real moral and psychological issues inherent to the woman’s situation. It’s drawing attention ultimately to the tragedy of people having unwanted children, the pain and abuse and torment suffered by those who go through their lives unloved.

Last: “The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle” should not be counted as a “sell out” ploy on the part of the Sex Pistols, considering that it was essentially a vanity project made by the Pistols’ manager Malcolm McLaren after the band had already broken up. Lydon had long ago departed to start PiL, and Sid Vicious was already dead by the time it was released.

These errors appear to have helped lead you to your suggestion of the Pistols as ‘sell outs’ as I discuss above. I would merely point out that if in your point of view, their present reunion touring indicts the internal coherence of their artistry, then it’s possible that you don’t have a sufficient understanding of what their work was about, and what it accomplished. Your implicit (and at times explicit) binary of ‘sell-out’ vs. ‘authentic’ is COMPLETELY misplaced in a discussion of the Pistols. Save it for the Rolling Stones. The Pistols didn’t walk around calling themselves ‘authentic’. Their point was that that in itself is a POSE, that that in itself accounted for so much of the hypocrisy of the hippie movement, etc. Whether you love Lydon or hate him, you have to give him credit for not running afoul of this basic principle: he has lots of opinions—some of them about Iraq (by the way—what’s so bad about him saying that?  don’t you think maybe the US isn’t in a position where we can afford to complain about ANYbody opposing our military adventures??), some of them about education, class, and many of them about John Lydon. But he NEVER says or even implies that he knows more about how to live a good life than you do. If people disagree, fine. I think that’s a fucking healthy attitude that we could use a bit more of in our borderline-authoritarian political era. At LEAST among Internet punk rock journalists….

If you want to learn more about the Sex Pistols—and I recommend learning more about them before writing any more articles about them—I recommend reading the book ‘England’s Dreaming’ by Jon Savage, as well as Lydon’s eponymous memoir. Also, you should watch the documentary ‘The Filth and the Fury’ which in itself likely would have allowed you to avoid making some of the mistakes that appear in your article.

Cheers,
t

Comment by t from Chicago — August 17, 2008 @ 3:16 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the sequence of letters and numbers you see in the image above. Do not include any spaces.