Rating: 
Summary: One In A Million
Review: "There was an article not long ago in the paper where they wrote about Johnny - that he was one in a million who changed the world. By God, I think he did. My Johnny changed the world." So says John Lydon's father. And so he did. Finally, we get to know the real truth about a most fascinating era in our recent history. We get this straight from the man who single-handedly invented the punk culture and single-handedly ended it. His chronicle is extremely comprehensive and at times heartrending. For example, it is impossible not to be moved when you hear how he stayed next to his mother's deathbed for ten weeks never leaving the hospital. The anecdotes are very intriguing, and, as always, Mr. Lydon tells things how they really are no matter whom it might offend. To me, he is the greatest philosopher of our era and perhaps the most positive influential figure of our generation.
Rating:
Summary: Every Mistake Imaginable
Review: After all the Greil Marcus mythologising, the situationist sloganeering theory and Malcolm Maclarens pseduo Svengali-ist posturing, finally the true story of the shambolic 18 months that changed the face of modern music forever can be told by the man who was best placed and articulate enough to tell it. John Lydon has always been and will always remain one of the most contrary and misunderstood figures in modern music. This book is an illuminating insight into one of the most fascinating minds to ever find its way on stage. In tones that are alternately barbed, cynical, comedic and humane, Lydon tells the story of his rise from inauspicious beginnings in Finsbury Park, through his time served as the worlds most unconventional frontman in The Pistols and PIL, to his current retirement, sort of, from the music scene in the United States. Along the way you'll find out what Steve Jones really used to do with Glen Matlocks Baguettes, how Lydon nearly married Chrissie Hynde, why Nancy Spungen was the ultimate force of Thanatos that she became and how, ultimately, "punk rock" never existed. Featuring Voxpops from his bandmates and numerous members of the Bromley contingent ( amongst others ), this book and the film "The Filth And The Fury", remain for me, the definitive portraits of a band and a man that changed the face of popular music and culture, but paid possibly too heavy a price along the way.
Rating:
Summary: Rotten Rotten
Review: Although he didn't create punk, or end it, he was there while it was happening. Not really. For those of us who were around back then, the sex pistols were nothing more than a ploy for money and fame. Punk was street kid music and remains that to this day. This book is good if you are a hippie or a raver. Hang the DJ.
Rating: 
Summary: intresting
Review: An intresting read,hard to follow at times.Gives you a better insight into the Sex Pistols and the evils of Malcom McLauren.Sometimes it seems as if John Lydon will go on about a subject until it gets dry.But overall,it's a very intresting book.
Rating:
Summary: Yep
Review: an invaluable novel concerning the career of the sex pistols and john, sid, nancy, etc. Lots and lots of info on the english punk scene!!!
Rating: 
Summary: "Hang on, we may be getting a bit fanstruck..."
Review: Any given paragraph of "Rotten" is a delight to behold: insightful, witty, and grin-producing no matter how hard it hits. However, when you find yourself at the end of the book, you aren't anywhere that you weren't expecting to end up. The poverty, the mucking about, the band's early days, self-destruction, and post-history, it's all there as it you might guess it would be. In fact it's covered repeatedley. Points are made, enemies attacked, over and over again.There's little continuity in a given chapter. Two editors went over this, and no one seemed to have given any thought to the idea that one paragraph should expand on the previous one or lead into the next one. Subjects are unceremoniously picked up and dropped again as though spackled together. And one has to question the man's motives. Does *ANYONE* come out well in Johnny's eyes? Steve Jones and Paul Cook, and Lydon family members, and that's about it. He doesn't like the Clash. He doesn't like the Ramones (or "what they stood for," whatever that means). He doesn't like Richard Hell, Patti Smith, Velvet Underground, the Damned, the Heartbreakers, anybody. Everyone's trying to take credit for the piece of the pie he's already staked for himself 'cause he was there first. Everyone else did it wrong, wrong, wrong! The repeated shots at Glen Matlock are childish (yes, he was a bourgeois Beatlehead. Who cares at this point? He lost and Johnny won). And I for one can't imagine what possessed John Lydon to ever be friends with John Beverly in the first place. There's barely a sentence or two discussing what Sid Vicious was like in the pre-Pistol days amid the torrent of "Sid was a moron." I think most folks clued in that Vicious was not a role model a couple decades ago. So what's this long-dead horse being flogged for? Who's Johnny really trying to convince? That said, the book is still a joy to parse through every now and again, and its evisceration of the record industry is one anybody who gives an expletive about music should be familiar with. Johnny may be old, Johnny may be past his prime, Johnny may well be full of it. But Johnny's no fool, and his words have far more power than many we are bombarded with, willingly or no. A good story, with good thoughts, but a questionable book.
Rating:
Summary: Ever get the feeling you've been treated?
Review: At last we have a definitive written account of what life was like for John before and during his time with the Pistols. A lot has been written about all five of these guys (don't forget Glen) but it's more or less been written by a third-party - often without any Pistol involvement at all. John grew up as a son of an Irish immigrant and was smart but strange. In the context of 1970's England, looking just a little bit different could seriously damage your career, bank balance or body. We end the story with the San Francisco fallout and Sid's death. Well worth reading, especially if you missed the whole punk thing the first time around.
Rating:
Summary: Rotten, indeed
Review: At long last, John Lydon (aka, Johnny Rotten) has opened up, nearly twenty years later. The Sex Pistols remain one of my favorite bands, and Johnny Rotten one of the more interesting media figures in the pop culture, so I devoured this book. It combines first-person accounts of all sorts of punk notables and wannabes, and the observations of Lydon himself, co-written by Keith and Kent Zimmerman. I'll admit a bias up front - so much of the history of punk has been obfuscated, I value anything that comes along. I was eight at the time the Sex Pistols did their thing, and I remember being scared when I heard the names "Johnny Rotten" and "Sid Vicious" - I didn't know who they were, but they seemed scary names (and remember, this was before MTV), and the radios weren't playing them - they were phantoms and boogeymen, and all the adults seemed scared of them. I remember when I was a teenager, finally buying their album, and thinking, "What's the big deal? This music rocks!" I'm glad to see some light shed on this period by one of the people at the center of the media storm. Lydon fills the book with tart observations - he retains his spite and anger and seems as volatile as ever. At the same time, I feel like he's pulling one over on the rest of us. Some of his recollections seem contradictory - perhaps very real to him, but everybody knows that one's perception of things changes over time. There's a subjective quality to this account that makes me long for corroboration. Some of the first-person commentary does back up Rotten's assertions, but I get the feeling there's impression management occurring (check out Goffman's "Impression Management" and you'll know what I'm talking about). Sort of retroactive damage control on Lydon's part. My only complaints about the book are minor - I wanted more pictures, and I'd hoped for more commentary. I was really wondering what he was thinking in some of those shots, and the cryptic comments make them all the more enigmatic. Again, probably the way he likes it. My other gripe is the book seems to raise more questions than it answers - I wanted more! The fact that he went to bat in court for the band (which is detailed at the end of the book), and didn't cut Jones and Cook out of it, even when they repeatedly sided with McClaren, is a character-revealing moment. They'd consistently shafted him, and Rotten could have easily blown them off and pursued the case for his exclusive benefit. But he kept them in, eventually winning them over once they realized where their interest was. Contrasted with McClaren's machinations, this righteous persistence on Rotten's part is inspiring. On page 283, he says: "'Nice' is the worst insult you could ever pay anybody. It means you are utterly without threat, without values. Nice is a cup of tea." That's part of what I love about John Rotten - he's a nutcase, wit, cynic, revolutionary, and clown, and you're never sure whom you're dealing with; he's a chimera, and he's certainly not "nice". All you can be certain of is that he's laughing at all of us. In this age of immaculately-packaged music superstars, Rotten's aura remains refreshing and subversive - downright threatening. It is simply hard to safety pin him down, and I think that's the way he likes it.
Rating:
Summary: In defense of the revered Mr. Lydon. . .
Review: First, I wish to take issue with other reviewers who admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the '70s London punk scene, yet feel qualified to critique dear Johnny's representation of it. The picture painted in this book matches up quite well with all the others I have encountered in my journey to understand this punk world that I unfortunately am too young to have been a part of. From "The History of Rock and Roll" documentary to the Clash's autobiographical documentary ("Westway to the World") to books and essays by and interviews with people who were actually there (Jon Savage's "England's Dreaming," Mikal Gilmore's essays and articles from "Night Beat," Greil Marcus's work, etc.), John's portrait of the scene flawlessly fits in with the others. As far as I am concerned, it positively reeks with accuracy.
Second, yes, John Lydon is obnoxious. It's not a secret that you're letting anyone in on. He knows it and takes pride in it, and his fans know it and love him for it. He is superior and he hates everything and he really is a c*nt (sorry if you disapprove of the language, but it's how the man describes himself). If you don't like him, that's just fine by both him and me. Punks didn't put much stock in trying to be liked by anyone. If you're trying to learn more about the scene, that's one key fact you should be getting out of this text.
Third, if you don't know what the Ramones "stood for," you obviously should have started out with something much more elementary in your "School of Rock--Punk" lesson. The Ramones stood for a return to the '60s. They wanted to take rock back to the happy place it occupied when it was synonymous with pop music, which is a noble quest. However, I suspect most of Mr. Lydon's distaste is based on the fact that the Ramones idolized the Beatles (their name was taken from an early stage name of Paul McCartney's--he called himself Paul Ramone for a while), and John hates the Beatles. Glen Matlock loved the Beatles, and it got him kicked out of the Sex Pistols.
Fourth, Clash fans have no right to criticize just because they see the Clash as a superior band and John doesn't share their admiration. Technical skill has absolutely nothing to do with what makes a good punk band. It's all about what you say, what your philosophy is, what you "stand for." I would venture to say that the Clash and the Sex Pistols are completely equal in their excellence on all counts. Besides, it's ridiculous to rate bands on musical proficiency alone. Claiming that the Clash were better than the Pistols because they played better is like saying that the Monkees were better than the Stones because they played better--sloppiness was part of the *point* with the Stones, as it was with the Pistols. If we based our like of rock on how professional and well-played it was, we'd all be hailing Yes and ELP as the greatest bands of all time. Which, you may have noticed, we aren't doing.
Fifth (and I promise this is the final count), how in good God's name can you critique an autobiography for not being objective? I should think it would be obvious that one cannot be at all subjective when considering one's own life. You want objectivity, read an encyclopedia.
There. Now that all that's said, I'll say my short little piece on the book itself. Great autobiography. The reader definitely comes away with a sense of the writer's (extremely abrasive) personality, a coherent look at the events of his life, and a clear idea of how he thinks of them. We see the rise of the London punk scene through the eyes of one at the center of it. And if you doubt the complete veracity of this representation, remember: the view from the eye of the storm isn't always the clearest view of the storm itself. Think about the Beatles at the center of Beatlemania. They couldn't comprehend all the fuss going on about them, but they were about the only people with a clear view of the group itself. In the same way, amid all the furor surrounding the punks, only one of the punks themselves can tell you what it was really like. If you don't agree, well, you weren't there.
Rating:
Summary: This wonderful book puts a human faith to the punk rock myth
Review: For the true punk rock fan, No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs: The Authorized Autobiography Johnny Rotten of the Sex Pistols, is a trip through one of the shortest and most exciting times in the history of rock music. It is great to find out who the real Sex Pistols were and, dispite all of the ego and nastiness, Johnny Rotten is a real human being and not just another media "cartoon character". Hell, he even loves his parents! Great book
|
