What do you think of this guy s opinion on John Lydon?
This is something sent to me about John. I m kind of mixed about:
I think it’s a bit of a joke. Like I said he was in the right place at the right time and that’s about it. Enjoy your 40 year old flash in the pan glory John. Youre just not a punk intellectual messiah no matter what you say or what seminal band you were a part of for 15 minutes back in the 70’s. Might be harsh but its true. He should be more like Ringo and enjoy the fact that he won a pop culture lottery by finding himself a part of the most significant punk band in history and ride that sucker happily for the rest of his life waking up every day knowing he could have easily been nobody a million times over if it wasn’t for happenstance. That’s what I really respect about Ringo Starr. He knows he got lucky with the company he fell in with and he knows hes in no way any kind of high brow intellectual who should be revered for his talents. He just got lucky and has been spending every day of the rest of his life enjoying that. Why be a hateful sour puss? John wears his resentment and insecurity like chain mail armor.
- moezlanskiLv 73 years agoFavorite Answer
Hes a sour puss because its his choice to do so. Him being in the right place at the right time is spot on. Thats how a lot of stuff happens in life, music is no different, but comparing Lydons situation to Ringo Starrs is dumb. For one its apples and oranges, they where in two completely different situations. Starr for one replaced someone Lydon was an intricate part of the band from the start. He was in on every decision from the start. And unlike Starr he was not labeled an outcast or a throw away member. Either way you slice it both Lydon and Starr had it good. But Starr also has the distinction of being a Beatle, it carries way more than being a Sex Pistol. You also need to remember that this is an opinion and nothing more. So to me hes essentially wrong in every aspect except that he was lucky. He has no business putting Lydon and Starr in the same sentence. Take what he wrote with a grain of salt.
- Bony IommiLv 73 years ago
It's wrong to evaluate Lydon solely by the Sex Pistols -- they were incredibly important in giving punk rock an image, but they were not particularly musically innovative. At heart Lydon was a much of a fan of progressive rock and experimental music as he was of the Stooges -- but Malcolm McLaren wouldn't allow the band to show this side of him. It was not until Public Image, Ltd. that he showed his songwriting talents.
Lydon is also a fascinating guy to listen to -- very intelligent yet grounded with a wotking-class sensibility. As opposed to the general far-left leanings of punk musicians, a lot of his views strike me as rather libertarian, and it's always nice to a see a celebrity whose views are similar to mine.
It's a mistake to dimiss Ringo, too, as someone who was simply there at the right time. He may not have been a great singer or songwriter, but his drumming is unique and creative, if not technical, and gave The Beatles a distinct sound.
- simoneLv 73 years ago
What's with the back-handed compliment to poor Ringo? People have been listening to the Sex Pistols for those entire forty years so I'm not sure if "flash in the pan" really applies especially since their songs are still relevant. Is he (or she, or you, whoever wrote the above opinion piece) trying to argue that the contributions of John Lydon and Ringo to their respective bands are insignificant? I think that they did more than show up for practice and carry equipment. And aren't punks known for having attitude? I assume that the "sour puss" John Lydon is a public persona not the actually man who wakes up every morning and has a cup of tea.
But he (she/you/whoever) can think whatever about John and Ringo. Personally, I don't think about them, except for right now, and I am done.