Talk:Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols

Live EP?

JOHNNY ROTTON WAS HERE! WANKERS

"Four songs previously appeared on 1976's live EP, The Mini-Album, which was recorded live from July 13 through July 30."

Michael, please do a modicum of research before adding to these entries.

There was no 1976 live ep, the mini album is one of a slew of 'semi official' and bootleg releases of recordings of demos and such like that appeared long AFTER the Pistols ceased to be a creative force (it's called 'cashing in', Micheal). The tracks on the mini album were in fact demo's recorded with producer Dave Goodman from July 76, October 76 and possibly Jan 77, BUT WERE NOT RELEASED UNTIL MUCH LATER AS A SEMI-BOOTLEG!!!

The Pistols did not release ANYTHING before the single "Anarchy in the UK" in November 1976, it was their debut, and much awaited and anticipated at the time, I remember, I was there!!!!! Their next release was "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, in between THEY DID NOT HAVE A RECORD CONTRACT!!!.

There may be a case for adding a page to wiki devoted to Pistols bootlegs, but these should not be confused with the band's 'official' output, which is what counts in terms of chronology and an understanding of the history and context of The Pistols and the wider punk movement in which they existed, and the sociology of what was going on in the UK in 70's.

Sorry for the shouting but Michael is really exasperating me with his attempts at rewriting the history of UK punk. --quercus robur 11:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

And by the way, the Mini Album is not live (but demos) and does not feature four tracks. Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Their next release was "God Save the Queen" in May 1977, in between THEY DID NOT HAVE A RECORD CONTRACT!!!.

Didn't they have one with A&M :-) BTLizard (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Spacing in title

Comment moved here from main article:

Ahem. Sholdn't this article be titled Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, given the fact that A) there is a space between the words NEVER and MIND on the album cover, and B) Nirvana notwithstanding, there is no such word as nevermind...?

Actually, I don't see a comma either. :-) Evercat 01:55 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Google returns 10 times as many hits with the space than without. Notable among the spaceless: http://www.sexpistols.org . As for punctuation, at a glance usage seems to be split between a comma, colon, dash and nothing. How about we keep the comma and add a space? -- Tim Starling 02:03 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK -- Evercat 02:08 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Track listings

There also seems to be a dispute over the track listing. I think that the UK version had Problems before God Save the Queen, but the US release shows those two switched. I personally think Problems fits better in the album before God Save the Queen, but I suppose the UK release should be considered the "official" version, correct?

Or perhaps the French release, which was issued first. Malcolm had a special relation to the French label. --Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Have altered the track listing to refer to the original UK version, plus references to the original French version & USA/Canada variant. --DaveG12345 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to have a French cassette version of the album on Barclay (acquired late '78 - early '79) and it definitely contained the eleven track version, as I did not hear Submission or the "correct" running order until it wore out and I purchased a Virgin vinyl copy. Kmitch87 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sid Vicious

I've changed the bit about Sid Vicious' contributions to the album; according to Clinton Heylin's book and the TV special, he plays on "Bodies". The article credited him with backing vocals, but none of my sources have ever said anything about who did the backing vocals, and the way they're mixed, it could be anyone. Juryen 10:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as the people who actually were at the recordings (Clinton Heylin was not), mr Vicious did not contribute anything at all. He recorded initial bass lines for "Bodies", but they were overdubbed by Steve Jones; Vicious' attempts were not included in the master mix. Consequently Vicious' can not be heard at all in the final product. Whether it's correct to have him listed as a "musician" on the album is rather up to definition, I guess. The same info is mentioned in the "Classic Albums" series. There are quite a few errors in Heylin's book, by the way. I'd take the info with a pinch of salt. 82.181.94.185 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been pretty well documented now that Vicious did not play on the album at all (other than an aborted attempt at Bodies as mentioned).

Also, Matlock did not play bass on the album - I believe he played on the originally recorded version but did not play on the album. Robojam (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Pretty well documented" isn't enough, you should provide actual sources to your statements. I think the personnel section needs some references to establish who participated in the recording; but in the meantime i am undoing your edit. See what i have collected below.

From cduniverse:

Steve Jones - guitar
Paul Cook - drums
Glen Matlock - bass
Johnny Rotten - vocals
Sid Vicious
Sid Vicious

From justthegoodstuff.com:

It must be noted that bassist Sid Vicious (born John Ritchie), did not play at all on Never Mind the Bollocks, although he did contribute to backing vocals. Bass duties were handled primarily by guitarist Steve Jones; original bassist Glen Matlock actually played on one song, "Anarchy in the U.K.", but left the group in February 1977.

From tvwiki.tv:

Johnny Rotten - lead vocals
Steve Jones - guitar, bass, backing vocals
Glen Matlock - bass
Paul Cook - drums, backing vocals
Sid Vicious - backing vocals

The two last ones seem to say roughly the same, the first one imho should be taken with a grain of salt. benzband (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those 3 sources is reliable anyway! Matlock certainly did play on the album - he played on "Anarchy in the U.K.". Vicious played on "Bodies" according to the producer himself, and Jones played all the other bass parts (source: Classic Albums interview with Chris Thomas) - but whether or not Vicious was later overdubbed by Jones on "Bodies" is not mentioned in the Thomas interview, and has been reported conflictingly in various other places. I'd therefore suggest the current credits as listed in the article are correct, based on the reliable sources I've seen on the subject anyway. --DaveG12345 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would there be anyway of locating and citing those reliable sources so as to avoid any future mishaps? benzband (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but I have no books here. The fact Matlock played on "Anarchy" is not in serious dispute anyway though. And the Classic Albums interview plus Heylin book mentioned at the top of this thread would cover it for me re Vicious playing on "Bodies" - the subsequent claim by the IP (second in this thread) that the Classic Albums interview mentions Vicious being overdubbed actually related to recording "God Save the Queen" (where he was overdubbed by Jones), not "Bodies" (overdubbing is not mentioned in the interview) - hence that particular claim is, to coin a phrase, bollocks. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume Classic Albums is a video, if so it can be used as a citation or if it is one episode in a TV series this can be used. J04n(talk page) 10:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's a video then maybe it's on YouTube or something? benzband (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Outrage?

The paragraph in Overview beginning "Far more intense outrage was sparked..." Was it really? In relation to the album? This outrage may have occurred when the single's were released, but not when the album came out, by which time they were pretty much old news. If anything, there was dissent from critics that all the singles were on the album.

I think this paragraph should be modified to refer to the genuine lyrical outrage sparked by the album, which was the content of the new song "Bodies". --DaveG12345 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Irish brogue?

"opponents of this theory counter that it's actually Rotten's Irish brogue leading people to the misinterpretation"

Johnny Rotten does not now, and did not during the 70s, have anything like an Irish brogue; if you ask anyone Irish what Rotten's accent is, they'll say English. It's not even close to being an Irish accent. I don't want to edit this sentence out, but if you want to say that his pronunciation of "va-cunt" is a peculiarity of his accent, you might want to find a more accurate description of his accent. --213.131.238.25 12:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Dermot

My tracklist (as Amazon's) differs

Mine has twelve tracks, with Problems and God Save the Queen inverse from what Wikipedia currently has. If it means anything, my version also has a yellow cover, rather than pink. If this is an entirely new release, as I suspect, shouldn't its existance, and tracklist, be noted on this page? -- 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Ethan M.

The track listing section relates to original releases. Yours is the USA track listing (alrerady noted in the article) with apparently UK-style CD artwork. So I would suggest, no, it does not merit any particular mention in the article. --DaveG12345 20:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cardinal

The Cardinal, singer with punk band The Blood, identifies Never Mind the Bollocks as The Communist Manifesto of the 20th Century, arguing that it challenges both belief and class systems with the same ferocious imagination ...

... the above is what i the cardinal wanted to put in this article under the influence section ...if you read marx's communist manifesto ... it has all the bollocks and energy of the work never mind the bollocks ... my point is when you identify this type of work in a ... doldrumatic ... vapid ... sterile .... style ... it does not represent the work ... and is in fact an injustice to the people who created the work and in no way an encyclopedic reference ...

thereto ... the comparison i make between nevermind the bollocks and the communist manifesto is the kind of comparison that marx would have expected ... its about the people and the developing perception of the street ... and the worker against the establishment ... remember wikipedia is for every one in the world not just those who have been to university ... the cardinal The Blood

Bias

Is it just me, or does this part of the article seem a little biased and opinionated to you? "Rotten's bitten, over-articulated, angry vocals and his intentional avoidance of "good" singing were startlingly original in style, at that time, and his use of profanity and deliberately inflammatory language seemed downright shocking. He alternately screams and whines about corporate control, intellectual vacuity, and political hypocrisy, while guitarist Jones' multi-layered guitar tracks create a "wall of noise" to counter him. The solid rhythm section of bassist Glen Matlock and drummer Paul Cook provide an effective foil to Rotten's sneering, contemptuous delivery."

I'm going to change it, and someone can change it back if they disagree. --216.37.223.157 10:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "good singing". Oh, you mean "in your opinion". Sorry, your're mistaking me for someone who gives a flying fuck about it.

2cd edition?

Would this be a bootleg? The tracklisting is here

No, it looks like the limited edition 2-CD version put out by Virgin in the 1990s that included a bonus disc of demos.--DaveG12345 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sure it is. i have it. definitely not a bootleg, but a doble cd version, with spunk and speeding sdemos being the second cd --Sickboy3883 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NMTBlp.PNG

Image:NMTBlp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bollocksalbumposter.JPG

Image:Bollocksalbumposter.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Release date....

...was on Nov 4th. How is this so? It didn't chart til the week ending Nov 12th in the UK (when it entered at #1). Had it been released on the 28th of Oct, it would have charted the week ending Nov 5th. Case in point, "GSTQ" was released on May 27th and charted the week ending June 4th. --BGC (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The originally planned release date (November 4) was brought forward a week to October 28 1977, as documented pretty much everywhere (I cited an authoritative source, and I note you reverted my edit and deleted my citation without bothering to supply any of your own - your suppositions here look like original research to me).

I think you need to take a look at all the third-party documentation on this, all of which shows an original release on October 28 (hence Virgin's 30th anniversary reissue this year was released Monday October 29 2007).

In light of the above, please revert your own edit to restore my reference and the correct date. Thanks. --DaveG12345 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After several days waiting for a verifiable source for the Nov 4 release date, I have reverted to the verified Oct 28 date. I have noted your excellent work in repairing a bunch of Sex Pistols release dates throughout Wikipedia. However, on this one, you simply have outdated or inaccurate sources. I applaud your good work re other Pistols' releases, but on this one, you need to check out the historical documents. It really did change at the last minute. --DaveG12345 (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics

A decent article but let down by the following in my opinion:

Another standard from the album, "Pretty Vacant" also earned the ire of the British music industry. In his delivery of the song's title in the chorus, Johnny Rotten heavily accents the second syllable of the word "vacant", and clips it very short in stark contrast to his drawn out delivery of the first syllable. Critics and fans alike have noted that it actually sounds like "cunt". Some allege it was deliberate; others counter that it's actually Rotten's accent leading people to the misinterpretation. It does seem unlikely the sharp-witted Rotten would have failed to notice (and savor) the implicit wordplay

This theory sounds like the sort of thing that appeals only to sniggering schoolboys and I note that there are no references or citations to the critics who concur with this pretty juvenile theory. If he wanted to say cunt he would have said cunt and not try and sneak it into the song where it just doesn't make sense. There are enough 'fucks' in 'Bodies' (a song about abortion) that trying to suggest that he isn't singing vacant seems frankly silly. --twitter (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call - it doesn't even sound like "cunt" anyway. I'm tagging this, with half an eye on eventually removing it (and from the Pretty Vacant article as well). --Lfh (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the offending paragraph. It was uncited, and I agree with both of you; I have never heard this objection, and don't even agree with it on my own opinion. Since it lacked cites, it looked like dubious personal analysis anyways. --Jayron32.talk. --contribs 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong - there are two citations proving it:

1.^ John Lydon with Keith and Kent Zimmerman, Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs, Hodder and Stoughton, 1994 {ISBN 0-340-610019-0}, p. 272f. 2.^ Jon Savage, England's Dreaming. Sex Pistols and Punk Rock. London, Faber and Faber, 1991 0-571-16791-8, p. 378.

If you care to have a read, both will confirm that Lydon sang "vacant" as "vay-cunt" just to be offensive ! 12:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true. Glen Matlock wrote the song, so "Pretty Vacant" is his phrase, but Rotten put his stamp on it by saying "Vay-cunt". Robman94 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Original" vocals

"Rotten's bitten, over-articulated, angry vocals and his intentional avoidance of "good" singing were startlingly original in style, at that time..." Leaving aside the question of what is meant by "bitten vocals", was there really anything original about singing angrily in 1977? Some people may have been startled, but if so I doubt the Pistols' musical invention was responsible. --Lfh (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Spedding and other uncredited musicians

Didn't Chris Spedding play a lot of guitar on this one, or was it just on the Anarchy single? I've heard a number of times he and other studio áces sat in because the Pistols were'nt really fit to record a proper album. /Strausszek (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Spedding played on none of the songs. He produced a few demoes, but all instruments were played by Cook en Jones, with some bass work from Matlock on Anarchy in the UK. Belsen (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sheet Music for the album (Full Band Score), published by Warner Music, gives a keyboard track for the song Submission. Who played that then? Peeky (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing of an keyboard part in any of the Sex Pistols songs. According to my knowledge the band only used drums, bass guitar and several guitar tracks. Belsen (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably something to do with the voice coaching woman in the Great Rock and Roll Swindle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.40.176 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be Tona DeBrett 94.168.114.80 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

nth best album of all time

The Charting and influence section has no fewer than eleven "best album" references, ranging from "second-best album of the previous 20 years" (Rolling Stone) to "41st greatest album of all time" (the same magazine). Surely this should be culled - two or three references at most should suffice. Scolaire (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why "Citation needed" because of "extremely tight musicianship"?

I think someone who is more envolved in this project should delete this, because this "Citation needed" looks as if Steve Jones' ability of playing tight is somehow questionable. As for a suitable citation, Bill Price talks about this on the DVD about "Never Mind The Bollocks". However, I feel that it is not neccessary to quote him, because anyone with a basic understanding of rock music can HEAR this. It is very obvious that Steve Jones' thick wall of sound was created by adding one guitar track after another (they did not have real high gain amps in those times). If Steve Jones would NOT have been the tight player he actually was, he would have inevitably ended in a mess of muffled noise lacking all clarity and definition. But, as anyone with ears can clearly hear, he played very tight and did great. Frankly, I am a bit pissed, because nobody would question the abilities of ... well, a lot of guitar players. So, do we really need "citations" to "prove" that Steve Jones could play, simply because he was in a punk band? 87.139.28.211 (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This can probably be cited to England's Dreaming by Jon Savage. Give me a couple of days and I'll get round to it. Formerip (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Whyyyyy??? Why no article on Artichoke?????

I don't care if it's just a stub, will someone please make an article on the band Artichoke?! I've read your wikitalks, I know you think it's not notable enough, but if it's not at all notable then why do you reference it in this article?! This band is much more well known then some of the bands there are pages on, the truth is probably that no admins are fans of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.165.85 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The Yellow vs. Pink sleeves

I was hoping that there would be something in the article stating why the US version of the album had a pink sleeve instead of the yellow sleeve used in the UK and most other countries. Does anyone know if a reason has ever been published anywhere? Robman94 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on expanding the article at the moment, and I vaguely recall reading something about it, so hopefully I'll find an explanation soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be great Wes because I don't think I've ever read anything about it. Robman94 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Who has permission to contribute to this article?

I notice that virtually any change made by anyone except WesleyDodds gets reverted, no matter how small the change is. So what's the story here, is this article a solo project? I've never seen this before in any of the other articles at Wiki. I had hoped to join in and contribute to this one but I'm going to skip it and concentrate on other punk articles. Robman94 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can contribute. Bear in mind that most of the edits recently were done by me because I happened to be reading a lot of Sex Pistols books at the time, and the article was pretty bare before I started. If I revert something, I can provide an explanation for it if I haven't already; just ask. For instance, in this reversion one revert I performed, it was because the edit you made was written in a way that made it seem like "God Save the Queen" was the first intended single from the album, which was factually inaccurate. You then readded the same material again, and I was obligated to revert it again, because it wasn't true based on the sources cited in the article. Additionally, your first edit on this page was undone because you cited Discogs, which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. There was certainly no intent to dissuade you from contributing; all my revisions of your edits had to do with valid source-citing issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit did not imply that GSTQ was the first single from the album, it implied that GSTQ would be the first single released by A&M and that "No Feeling" would be the b-side, both of which are factually accurate. The change in wording was to clarify the piece. Your wording talks about them destroying a single that you hadn't previously mentioned, so where did it come from? And what song was on the other side? When I re-added the material, I said that if you disagreed you should take it to the talk page, which is the normal way to come to a consensus and avoid getting into a WP:3RR situation, but you didn't, instead you just reverted establishing that you WP:OWN this article and all text has to be yours. I've been following this page and watched how others have made small changes and in almost all cases, you come along and revert them. Case in point, with this edit you restored a typo that someone corrected, and with this edit you reverted some cool formatting that someone had added to the track list. What makes your preference for an unformatted track list better than the other editor's preference for a formatted track list? Did you try to reach consensus before you reverted? It's sad because this is the sort of article that should have contributions from many editors, but I know I won't bother and I'm an experienced editor, so I know that any newbie would surely also be chased away. Robman94 (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing "and the label prepared "God Save The Queen" to be the first single, with "No Feeling" as the b-side" was very unclear. First single of what--Sex Pistols single? Single from the album? The answer to both of those possible options was "No, it wasn't". Plus the page citing that section did not mention the b-side--nor is it necessary, as the exact b-side is better referenced in the more specific "God Save the Queen" article. Singles are traditionally referred to simply by their a-side, unless it is a double a-side, like the Beatles' "Day Tripper"/"We Can Work It Out". Mentioning that "God Save the Queen" had a b-side titled "No Feelings" is not necessary for context in an article about the whole of the album itself. As based on the reading of the sentence you added, it came off as factually inaccurate, so I was obliged to remove it. And note that WP:3RR refers to edits made in a 24-hour period: my first revert of that sentence was on Dec 17, and I removed it again 11 days later per concerns I expressed that were unaddressed. Since you were the one adding the contentious statement, the burden was upon you to back it up (the fact that you have now explained what you were actually trying to convey changes the nature of the dispute, of course, and I now better understand where you are coming from when originally the added portion was very confusing). In both instances I explained in my edit summary why I was reverting, so claiming my actions fell under WP:OWN is not assuming good faith.

In regards to this edit you mentioned, that was a simple copy-and-paste error, which was admittedly an honest mistake, which another editor corrected. Me making an error doesn't mean that the spirit of the reversion itself (which I explained as correcting a factual inaccuracy not based on the cited source) was unwarranted; I just happened to make a typo when pasting back the original sentence. As for the tracklist, simple tracklists are the ideal formatting for album pages. I was being bold and changed it back; discussion is a useful tool in editing, but consensus does not have to be hashed out before performing every edit. Hence why common practice for many on Wiki is following the bold-revert-discuss cycle. I'm not reverting people just to revert them, and I am not intentionally being adversarial with you or trying to keep you from editing this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had hoped we would be good collaborators on this page as I am a huge punk fan and totally love the Sex Pistols and this album, but seriously, even if you think you can justify every revert that you've done, try to take an objective look at the history of this page and do a simply tally, with the exception of the automated bot edits, what percentage of edits (done by people other than yourself) have you not reverted? It's not an issue of WP:AGF, it's simply a question of seeing how things actually are. The simple truth is that, if I know in advance that 95% of my edits will be reverted simply because they don't meet your personal preferences, why should I bother? I think this is the definition of WP:OWN. There are plenty of other punk bands that need to be documented, so as you seem to just focus on this one album, I'll take care of the rest. So I guess my one request is, PLEASE don't start focusing on any other punk band or album! lol Peace. Robman94 (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude: I can edit any article I want, and you can edit any article you want. I'm not trying to keep you away from this page, but by the same token if there's an unreliable source added or a nonbeneficial formatting change made to the page, it's likely that I will revert it, based on relevant Wiki guidelines and policies. And if you object to any particular change, we can discuss it. Though I'm a very bold editor by nature, I also like to think I'm pretty reasonable. But if you're going into this thinking off the bat that all my edits are rooted in a "MINE!" mentality instead of rational arguments about the content, then well I don't know what to tell you. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably a longshot but....

Does anybody feel that this album is heavier than most other Punk bands like the Ramones? Obviously it is a punk record but would anybody consider putting "Hard Rock" as a subgenre to Punk? It uses heavier riffs on certain songs that sound like something Iron Maiden would use. Just my opinion. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Even if an argument could be made that Jones' guitar work was some similarity to heavy metal or hard rock guitar sounds, the Pistols were a punk band and this was a punk record. The best you could do is to say that somebody likened it to hard rock, if you can find someone that has done so. Robman94 (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I kind of did, not sure how reliable the source is but it LOOKS legit. If not, then it's cool. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/35-years-ago-the-sex-pistols-release-never-mind-the-bollocks/ 108.81.33.59 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a cool review and well written, but I don't think the author in any way describes the band or the music as "hard rock", do you think he does? As for whether you can use that review as a citation, I see that many other pages use ultimateclassicrock.com in their citations, so I would say "yes". Robman94 (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

He calls it basic hard rock (building block hard rock) in the review, so that's something I guess. Also I found one more calling it a "stone cold classic hard rock album". http://music.thedigitalfix.com/content/17889/sex-pistols-review.html 108.81.33.59 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Negative reception?

I just read about this album in Rip It Up and Start Again and there's nothing here about the negative reception? According to Reynolds, many felt it marked the end of punk because of its "glossy" production.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ibid reference?

If you look at the Notes section for this article, there is one that reads "Ibid. p.193", but there's no Ibid entry in the References list above. I have tried searching elsewhere to try and find what Ibid refers to and while I did find other books and such that list Ibid as a citation, I couldn't find one that actually says what it is. Does anyone here know what it is so we can add it as a reference? Just FYI, it was introduced by this edit by an IP. Robman94 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, I found an alternative source for the quotes. Robman94 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Documentary. Fully licensed on Youtube. Full version. Please put it in the reference

2002 documentary is titled
"Sex Pistols: Never Mind the Bollocks (Classic Albums)"

Fully licensed on Youtube, and it is free to watch:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSrRRMvLY0k

For more info see the description of it on Amazon:

• https://www.amazon.com/Sex-Pistols-Bollocks-Classic-Albums/dp/B07JQYRXCX

The documentary is already used as a reference, and so it should be no problem putting a Youtube link in an external links section. -- Timeshifter (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link to the reference. Note that the description says that it is licensed to Youtube. Scroll down the description to see this. -- Timeshifter (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, when you scroll down to the info on the YouTube video what you see are the licenses for the songs included in the video. If you load up a copy of a Sex Pistols song onto your own YouTube channel, those same notifications will appear, even though you don't have the rights to the song. So, in my opinion, this particular copy of the Classic Albums DVD is most likely a copyright violation and shouldn't be used as a link on Wikipedia. Also, you broke the harvid reference, so I fixed that. Robman94 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not know that the song license notifications were automatic. So I guess you can revert my changes, and remove the Youtube link. I couldn't see what the harvid template was doing, so I removed it. Sorry. -- Timeshifter (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, done. Regarding the harvid stuff, you'll notice that there's a "Notes" list and a "References" list where most of the references are books and there are corresponding entries under "Notes" listing a page number, the harv entry is what ties these together. Robman94 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Never Mind the Ballocks courtcase drama.

BBC Radio 4 broadcast a drama by Michael Eaton, about the Nottingham court case, 30th December 2023. Keyhole49 (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)