Talk:God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Wasn't there something about some of the charts having a black line as number one when this came out? -- Jim Regan 19:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that would be chain stores like Woolworths and Boots blacking out the title. Certainly NME, in whose chart the single was listed as number one, published their chart "intact". It's possible that the NME chart was put up in stores having been doctored, I suppose. Bonalaw 12:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed this:

Fun Fact: "God Save the Queen" is the only song to appear on the top 100 list as two blacked out lines (one for the song, one for the band name).

As I've said before, NME published their chart intact, and I have since seen an actual copy of Record Mirror from the week after, and can confirm that it was printed normally there as well. Some record stores may have blacked it out when they put it on display, but unless a specific example can be given this "fact" is misleading. Besides, who was publishing a Top 100 in 1977 anyway? Bonalaw 16:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall something from the golden jubilee a couple years ago - wasn't the band actually invited to perform this? Did they? It's a nice ironic postscript to put in, if I do recall this right... Radagast 12:01, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well they reformed in 2002, the Queen's Golden Jubilee, to tour (I think) and they were calling it their Silver Jubilee, even though it was really 26 years since they formed at the time.

It would be great to put in the covers for this and the subsequent singles (I put in the Anarchy cover).

revisionism?[edit]

Although many would believe it was created because of the Jubilee, the band denies it, Paul Cook saying "It wasn't written specifically for the Queen's Jubilee. We weren't aware of it at the time. It wasn't a contrived effort to go out and shock everyone." Johnny Rotten has gone further in explaining the intent behind his lyrics, pointing out that they are actually meant to be sympathetic toward the Queen and critical of both the forces around her and, by extension, the hype surrounding the Jubilee.

The above claims have always sounded like revisionism on the part of the pistols to me, especially the sycophantic bit about the song being intended as 'sympathetic' to the queen. Yeah right. Lydon should be ashamed of himself for this mealy mouthed back-pedalling. I note he waited around 20 years before 'clarifying' his lyrical intent quercus robur 20:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A good look at the lyrics would back up Johnny Rotten's claim that the song wasn't meant to diss the Queen. If you want to call him a liar or hypocrite or whatever, feel free to try doing so to his face, but not until you have a good dental plan, LOL. -- Cjmarsicano 20:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the words are open to multiple interpretations, and were indeed probably more of a comment on the state of the UK in general than a specific attack on the royal family. But sympathetic to the queen??? I suspect that Lydon was actually in wind up mode once again (successfully, in my case..) when he made that statement, which was, IIRC, to some tabloid newspaper or other (The Sun I think...). I'm unlikely ever to meet Lydon (though i do have a signed book by him...), but if I did I'd happily put this to him (albeit politely), I doubt he'd be violent, I don't think he ever has been known for being physically aggresive, always very articulate in fact. He could have done with a decent dental plan himself though all those years ago... But maybe a punk spokesman with a Donny Osmond grin wouldn't have been quite so effective (but maybe more subversive in its way...) quercus robur 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't ever seeing something in which he said he was sympathetic toward the queen. In The Filth And the Fury he says "You don't write a song like 'God Save the Queen' because you hate the English race; you do it because you love them and you're tired of seeing them being mistreated." So obviously he was sympathetic toward the English common people, but I have yet to see him actually state that about the queen. About the band's denial of the song being specifically written for the jubilee, this was definitely true. The Paul Cook quote is obviously straight from his mouth, and Lydon has said that he had written the lyrics a while before the band created the music for it. This doesn't change the fact that the song was played in light of the Jubilee, but they probably didn't originally make the song because of it.
Aren't some of you missing the lines that very clear state: "God save the Queen/We mean it maaaan/We love our Queen/God saves" - surely no one here's suggesting we Wikipedians should go beyond the literal reading and introduce concepts like POV, blah blah, to insist what Johnny really meant to say was "We don't mean it maaaan/We hate our Queen..."? ;-) --DaveG12345 03:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest the ones claiming "revisionism" give Some Product a spin, particularly "Is The Queen A Moron?" - some contemporary, non-revisionist, 1977 insistence in there that the song is not critical of the Queen, but of "the general public"... :-) --DaveG12345 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But did the band ever suggest that they were showing "a general resentment for the monarchy" (presumably the author meant to say "general resentment of the monarchy"- although I don't think that "resentment" is the best word to describe the attitude of the so-called working class towards the monarchy).JohnC (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The song was not written for the Silver Jubilee, it was written about a year before that, and entitled "No Future". McClaren decided to rename it "God Save the Queen", and release it to coincide with the Silver Jubilee. So what the band says is true - it was the McClaren publicity machine that ended up linking it with the jubilee, not the band. StanPomeray (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Number 1?[edit]

In The Filth and the Fury they say that the song would've been #1 - but there simply was no #1 that week. The 1 spot was instead left blank. Any more info on this?--Wasabe3543 16:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this before. Actually, the official Barb/BBC chart listed "I Don't Want to Talk About It" by Rod Stewart as number one that week (interesting point: in a Record Collector article about GSTQ, it stated that Rod himself believed this to be a fix, and (feeling, if I can put it this way, that he was being "used") refused to go on Top of the Pops that week. If true, surely worth mentioning, but needs corroboration.)
The NME chart (which was still compiled separately from the oficial chart) appeared with GSTQ at number one, with both title and band name printed in full.
How the chart was displayed in record shops is another matter - there would be nothing to prevent, say, Boots or Woolworths from simply blacking the names out, or omitting them from their own posters. Likewise newspapers may have omitted the name and title. However, if they did so then it was their own, individual, editorial decision to do so, and did not come from "on high", so to speak. So far I haven't seen any actual evidence of doctored charts, though. Lots of people say they saw them at the time, and they may be right, but where's the documentary proof? --Bonalaw 10:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, some footage of a chart with a blacked-out number one was included in a BBC Two documentary about the Union Flag this evening. Its origin remains a mystery - clearly it can't have been Music Week as MW never acknowledged GSTQ as a number one in any form. The chart was headed "CHART PLACINGS" and printed in a very clear typeface, if that helps. --Bonalaw 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, "I Don't Want to Talk About It / The First Cut is the Deepest" was probably a budget single.73.25.20.162 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was a 12 year old at the time, and can remember that all of the shops with a "record counter" such as Woolworths, W.H.Smiths, Boots and Rumbelows had their "Top 20" list on the counter with the No.1 simply a blank space, and the Rod Stewart's "First Cut is the Deepest" showing at No.2. This was in the Havant (Hampshire) area. There was also a TV program shown maybe 7 or 8 years ago, I can't remember which channel it was on, but there was a guy interviewed who apparently worked at the time for British Market Research Bureau who was the company that compiled the official UK singles charts at the time. He suggested that the company had been "instructed" by the BBC to switch the No.1 and No.2 entries so that God Save the Queen wouldn't be shown as No.1. Whether he was talking bollocks or not, who knows. Seems a bit pointless - if you're so offended that someone makes a single that is critical of the Queen (which it isn't actually, but that's another story), does it really make things much better to see it at No.2 instead of No.1? No.2 is still pretty good isnt it?!

Various sources state that it was indeed the highest-selling single of the week,[10][11] despite a ban by the BBC and some major retailers.[12] In order to prevent it from reaching the top of the "official" BMRB chart, for one week compilers "decreed that shops which sold their own records could not have those records represented in the chart", and thus sales from Virgin Megastores were not counted. That can't be true either - the first Virgin Megastore (which was in Oxford Street) didn't open until 1979, which is 2 years after God Save the Queen was released!

Merge from Motorhead song article[edit]

Discussion at Talk:God Save the Queen (Motörhead song). — Bubba hotep 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorhead info[edit]

i took this out...


Motörhead version

The heavy metal band Motörhead released a cover version of "God Save the Queen" as a single in 2000 to promote their album We Are Motörhead. The cover art gives further reference to the Sex Pistols by using the same cut-out words to form the title as the Sex Pistols' single cover.

A performance of the song recorded during the band's 25th anniversary concert at Brixton Academy on October 22, 2000, appears on their 25 & Alive Boneshaker DVD.


... because i think it unbalances the article terribly - the cover simply isn't relevant or important enough to warrant much article space - i'll follow the above link to the discussion now.... Petesmiles 07:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to move it back to its own article? – B.hotep u/t• 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would like to avoid a backwards-forwards here, as I pointed out on other pages, I don't think that these cases are being considered in the wider scheme of things. I see nothing inconsistent between books and productions, and songs and singles, except in the notion that they always have to be on the one page. Songs themselves may merit a page, and we should not worry unduly when it fits other considerations better - like the reader - to have a related item elsewhere, though be only a link away.--Alf melmac 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um I did say I wanted to avoid a backwards and forwards here :S --Alf melmac 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite clear that the Motorhead element is not wanted in this article so it has been moved back. You can consider this a moment of ignorance to improve the flow of encylclopedic information, if you like. – B.hotep u/t• 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice material that has been sent here been taken out, once partially, the most recent entirely. It is wanted as an end piece to Motorhead's discography, a sensible solution is to have ....single if it's not wanted here.--Alf melmac 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Fisher covered the song chipmunk-style on his "Hybrid Kids" album, under the pseudonym of "Punky & Porgy" (Hybrid Kids is a fake compilation album, with each track attributed to a fictional band. It sounds like it was influenced by the Residents)80.60.242.12 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the page was moved yet again, without discussion, by an account that is now blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts so much for stopping the backwards and forwards.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Andmgodsavethequeen.jpg[edit]

Image:Andmgodsavethequeen.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 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gstq.PNG[edit]

Image:Gstq.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 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:God Save The Queen.png[edit]

Image:God Save The Queen.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 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source Request[edit]

Can anyone please provide a primary source for the following quote? "You don't write a song like 'God Save The Queen' because you hate the English race. You write a song like that because you love them, and you're sick of seeing them mistreated." Thanks. HPNYC—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.251.239 (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008

Done. --DaveG12345 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions[edit]

"In 2008, on a Music Immersion program run by St. Joseph's College Gregory Terrace in Brisbane, Australia, a band of Year 10 students called Citizens Arrest covered the song."

Not noteworthy, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.113.147 (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

future[edit]

According to the article the song was controversial both for its equation of the Queen with a "fascist regime" and for its claim that England had "no future". But does the text say that England has no future? As I understand the text, it says that the queen has no future. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO there is no future in England's dreaming pretty well says it. benzband (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They never equated the Queen with a facist regime. The lyrics say "your facist regime, they made you a moron" (i.e. the various governments of the UK have resulted in the Queen becoming pointless). Also, the lyrics do not say that England has no future, they say that "England's dreaming" has no future. The idea being that for most people in the UK, there is no point having dreams or ambitions because you'll never come to anything. http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/sexpistols/godsavethequeen.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.149.5 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics[edit]

It seems to be a rather elephant-in-the-room ommission to write such a substantial article about this song yet fail to provide something as basic and relevant to the article as the lyrics to the song. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We can't include the lyrics of the song on Wikipedia, because that would be a copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God Save the Quaint[edit]

This song's 'shock' references to the Queen sounded quaint and misplaced to this schoolboy already in 1977. It sounds positively Hovis advert today. Acorrector (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, because the song was not aimed school boys, its' true message continues to unset all the reactionary and backward looking supporters of the Royals. For is not this the reason why the defenders of the established order (on Wikipedia Talk and elsewhere) continue to down-play the true meaning of the song in 2023? God Save the Queen - it ain't that Quaint! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.126 (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by J Readd (talk). Self-nominated at 12:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/God Save the Queen (Sex Pistols song); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Interesting hook but the article was created in 2003, so it was not new enough when nominated. You may nominate it within seven days if it passes a GAN in the future. See the rules for further information.--NØ 13:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:God_Save_the_Queen_(Sex_Pistols_song)&oldid=1207448695"