I am writing this in response to Downtown's criticism of my post (in a thread about under-rated reviews) about punk rock, and particularly about whether The Clash were exponents of that type of music. Rather than rely on my own credentials to rebut Downtown's allegations I have sought out authoritative writers and referred to their articles. I was merely a witness to The Clash's early career who happened to see them play in a disused bus garage in Leeds in 1978. I also have one or two of their albums, but I realise that doesn't make me an authority. The fact that I also went to see the Ramones, Stranglers, Boys, Runaways and quite a few other punk rock bands goes to show that I had a serious interest but doesn't prove that I have sound knowledge. Rather than do an exhaustive search of the internet I've concentrated on articles from Rolling Stone magazine. Their writers can be regarded as reasonably knowledgeable.
Allegation 1: The Clash were not a punk rock band.
In an article published on February 28, 2003, Bill Crandall wrote about the last interview Joe Strummer gave in November 2002, when former Clash bandmates - Mick Jones, Paul Simonon and Nicky "Topper" Headon - had just learned about their election to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Crandall writes that "That level of recognition was not common for the Clash during the five to ten years (depending on whether you count the 1985 Jones-and-Headon-less Cut the Crap album) they were a band. Although their combination of raw punk power, world beats and politically charged lyrics produced one of punk rock's greatest records, 1977's The Clash, and one of rock & roll's greatest record's, 1979's London Calling, but the Clash didn't break in the U.S. the way the Police or AC/DC did. They would have to wait for the emergence of Green Day, Rancid, the Offspring and Blink-182 a decade later to see how much they mattered to the U.S.A.
In another Rolling Stone article by Denise Sullivan (published February 27, 2002) their career is summed up as follows: "From 1976 to 1983, the Clash delivered a unique brand of rebel rock that incorporated punk, reggae and rockabilly into one explosive mix." So what they were doing was combining several different musical styles (including punk), which is what Shiv says.
In an article (published March 26, 2003) with the headline 'Joe Strummer's death put a definitive end to the band's turbulent history' Mark Binelli describes them as "legendary punk band" and describes their origins thus:
"Emerging from rough-and-tumble West London in 1976, the Clash quickly became, alongside the shorter-lived, far more outrageous Sex Pistols, the standard-bearers of British punk. But musically, the Clash took punk further than any of their peers, moving beyond three-chord primitivism to incorporate reggae, funk and even rap (the not-at-all-embarrassing "The Magnificent Seven") into an increasingly ambitious mix. The Clash drew on the same underclass disquiet as the Pistols, only instead of exorcising this rage through bratty nihilism, they channeled it into a righteous anger, from their first single, "White Riot," through later albums such as 1980's three-record set Sandinista!
In an article published on December 23, 2002, Bill Crandall also describes them as a "legendary punk band" and recounts how, the previous month, the Clash had been elected into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for 2003 - their first year of eligibility - and Strummer had expressed a desire to regroup the band for the March 10th induction ceremony in New York. He also describes how, during the Mescaleros' November 15th show at London's Acton Town Hall, Jones took the stage with Strummer for the first time in nearly twenty years to perform three Clash songs. This is particularly poignant for me because I used to live in Acton, west London, only half a mile from the town hall.
Crandall writes that, during their five years together, the Clash blended punk, reggae and world-beat rhythms with lyrics championing racial unity and combating political oppression and became widely known as "the only band that matters." Their five proper albums - including the 1977 self-titled debut and the 1980 epic double album London Calling, both named to Rolling Stone's list of 200 "Essential Recordings" - stand as punk rock's most impressive catalogue.
I think it's possible that Americans (including Downtown?) have a false impression of The Clash's music because they didn't make a big impression in the USA during their early years when punk rock was central to their music. Crandall writes that "Although their chart success in the U.K. never translated to the U.S., the Clash did break the American Top Twenty in 1982 with the song "Rock the Casbah." That fall they toured the U.S. as the Who's opening act and played to their largest-ever audiences. The Clash's catchy three-chord bursts, political intensity and, even, Strummer's mohawk hairstyle would reach the suburbs of America to inspire future punk rockers like Green Day and Rancid."
Allegation 2: The Clash took the piss out of the Stones
I haven't seen any evidence of this, though I have seen evidence to indicate that they looked up to The Stones. In the February 28, 2003 article, Crandall recounts Strummer's answer to the following question: "What was the first rock & roll song that blew you away?"
Strummer replied: ""Not Fade Away" by the Stones. We were stuck up in school, and there was no way of getting out to get it, but I do remember the radio delivering it. The song moved like a steam train, and that was the moment when I went rock & roll forever, the moment I said, "Yeah . . . wow!" "
Allegation 3: They were just wearing the garb rather than coming from the same streets as their audience.
In the article published on February 28, 2003 Strummer is quoted as saying: "I remember writing "London's Burning" in the top room of a squat. I was crouched over an unplugged Telecaster whispering "London's burning!" so as not to disturb a sleeping person. I can remember writing "(White Man) in Hammersmith Palais" in a flat in Canonbury, all day and all night. Just bashing in a typewriter in a kitchen with a horrible fluorescent light."
Filmmaker and friend Don Letts - who made 'Westway to the World' - provides an insight into the origins of The Clash and their music. Crandall writes about him in his February 2003 article. "As DJ at the Roxy, a gathering place for the nascent punk scene in the late Seventies, Letts spun reggae while pointing his camera on the working class musicians and artists - among them future members of the Clash, Public Image, Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Slits - grooving to the underground dub sounds (Letts once compiled some of those old reggae sides as Dread Meets Punk Rockers Uptown for the Heavenly label). He went on to make Clash videos and later became an in-demand documentary filmmaker for English television.
"'Westway to the World' was conceived in 1999 as a very un-punk promotional tool to help promote the Clash catalogue and a long overdue, posthumous live album, From Here to Eternity, but there was one slight problem: "They didn't have four guys who were prepared to go and promote this whole back catalogue," says Letts. "They weren't salesmen, the Clash - they were the real deal.""
In support of Allegation 1: The Clash were not a punk rock band, I would just like to quote from the cover notes on my copy of The Essential Clash.
"Rock needed a reality check, and it came in 1976 when the punk scene exploded in England. In its vanguard were The Clash and the Sex Pistols, two London bands..."
Of course The Clash were a punk band. "White Riot" is a punk classic!
On the other hand, if someone wants to say they were New Wave, why waste time arguing with them? Who really cares what you call them? We know they were punk, and if someone else thinks they know different, well, let them.
I once managed to walk into the Ramones dressing room by mistake whilst looking for the toilets! Best live band EVER!
The Clash are punk. Period. This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that they aren't. They were punk when I was listening to them in 1980 (if someone had mentioned in 1980 that they weren't producing punk rock you would have thought they were insane) and they're punk now.
I've no idea why someone would suggest that they aren't punk. Is it because the quality and variety of their music is higher than some of the other garage bands of the time, has survived the test of time, has sold well, and is now 'popular' that people are now suggesting that it isn't punk? I.e., re-categorising them due to subsequent events? Or that they became popular and did big concerts? (Why should this change their genre?) Sure, The Clash aren't anywhere near as heavy as many of the "Second Wave of Punk" bands like The Exploited, or GBH, or Discharge, but that doesn't mean that they weren't part of the scene and loved by punks at the time. Most of the First Wave punk bands (e.g., Clash, Buzzcocks, even the Pistols) sound lightweight and very tame compared to most of the music I listen to these days. It's still punk though.
It's worth noting that similar arguments occur over metal bands, e.g., at the moment I'm listening to mostly:-
- black metal - death metal - blackened death metal - progressive death metal - symphonic black metal - melodic death metal
and some bands that are a cross between some of those genres. And I've also got on order some:-
- folk metal - viking metal
If I get bored then there are some other genres to choose from:-
Doom metal Glam metal Gothic metal Grindcore Industrial metal Metalcore Neo-classical metal Nu metal Power metal Progressive metal Speed metal Symphonic metal Thrash metal Alternative metal Avant-garde metal Celtic metal Classic metal Dark metal Epic metal Extreme metal Groove metal NWOBHM Post-metal Rapcore Stoner metal etc.
I don't really care what label someone wants to put on my music. But, I've seen some amazingly vitriolic arguments on various web forums over which category to use for a particular band (often a particular album, or sometimes even a particular track). Just yesterday, for example, I read a post where someone was seriously suggeting that there was only one black metal band - Venom - and that all other 'supposedly black metal' bands should be recategorised as Satanic metal or Hell metal or diabolic metal etc. And someone else mentioned that any black metal band whose albums are available at Amazon cannot be considered 'true' black metal - it's supposed to be 'underground'.
Sometimes it's obvious how to categorise art (e.g., Dali = surrealism, Monet = impressionism, Pistols = punk, Metallica = metal, Atomic Kitten = shite, etc ), but there are always going to be cross-genre arguments when artists begin to experiment, or due to increasing popularity. Also, any new artform is going to start small in backrooms and garages, and if it ends up in up-market art galleries or stadiums then why should it be forced to re-name itself? So trying to extricate The Clash from the punk movement/genre due to their popularity and sustainability and their musical experimentation doesn't make sense to me.
Obviously some strong feelings here. The Clash definitely emerged out of the punk scene. It was all about attitude and antidisestablishmentarianism - their songs certainly socked it to the 'man'. But I still feel that they are different because of their musical direction. Look at the Beatles - how many incarnations did they go through. For a while there they were the dreaded POP band, oh yes they were! Now they are hailed as changing the course of music with Sgt Pepper.
Punk is not called 'punk rock' for nothing. The basis of the music was raw rock and roll. Where some of the bands took that afterwards is something different, IMHO.
I'm listening to a lot of Clash recently, but I don't think of them as Punk. I hate the music of the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, and most other punk bands, but love the Clash.
I'm also listening to Andrea Boccelli, the Dreamgirls soundtrack, death metal and Eric Clapton, so take my musical tastes with a pinch of salt.
And yes, the Beatles were 'pop'. However, it doesn't stop them from being the joint, if not outright, best band of all time (only Zep even come close, in my opinion.)
And yes, the Beatles were 'pop'. However, it doesn't stop them from being the joint, if not outright, best band of all time (only Zep even come close, in my opinion.)
The only way you should be mentioning the Beatles and Zep in the same paragraph is if you said something like "The Beatles aren't fit to lick the soles of Zep's shoes clean".
And yes, the Beatles were 'pop'. However, it doesn't stop them from being the joint, if not outright, best band of all time (only Zep even come close, in my opinion.)
The only way you should be mentioning the Beatles and Zep in the same paragraph is if you said something like "The Beatles aren't fit to lick the soles of Zep's shoes clean".
And yes, the Beatles were 'pop'. However, it doesn't stop them from being the joint, if not outright, best band of all time (only Zep even come close, in my opinion.)
The only way you should be mentioning the Beatles and Zep in the same paragraph is if you said something like "The Beatles aren't fit to lick the soles of Zep's shoes clean".
Bravo. I can't stand the beatles because everyone treats them so pretentiously. For the most part, the lyrics are either drug induced or just really simple. They're playing style is simplistic as well. Every day I thank God I wasn't a teenager in the 60's. I really don't know what I would have listened to except the music of the 50s and Frank Zappa, but that would have been so uncool (well, late 60's has some good music like Led, Pink Floyd, and Hendrix). (Astute readers may have noticed one major band missing from my late 60's classic Rock line-up, but I loathe them entirely.)
quote:Originally posted by Mr Stupid (well, late 60's has some good music like Led, Pink Floyd, and Hendrix). (Astute readers may have noticed one major band missing from my late 60's classic Rock line-up, but I loathe them entirely.)
I reckon the period from around 67 to 72 was awesome. LZ, PF, Hendrix (my email address is hendrixexp so you can guess where he sits in my musical heirarchy), but also the likes of Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Zappa, Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, Velvet Underground, The Doors, Joe Cocker and the list goes on - all doing some of their best stuff. Students were rioting in France and the anti-Vietnam war movement really got going. Ah yes, I was born 16 years out of sync...
Now, I wonder if I hit on Mr Stupid's loathed band here....
quote:Originally posted by Mr Stupid (well, late 60's has some good music like Led, Pink Floyd, and Hendrix). (Astute readers may have noticed one major band missing from my late 60's classic Rock line-up, but I loathe them entirely.)
I reckon the period from around 67 to 72 was awesome. LZ, PF, Hendrix (my email address is hendrixexp so you can guess where he sits in my musical heirarchy), but also the likes of Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Zappa, Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, Velvet Underground, The Doors, Joe Cocker and the list goes on - all doing some of their best stuff. Students were rioting in France and the anti-Vietnam war movement really got going. Ah yes, I was born 16 years out of sync...
Now, I wonder if I hit on Mr Stupid's loathed band here....
Nope. I was referring to the rolling stones. (oh dear. There's bound to be someone's that's going to get a offended)
quote:Originally posted by Mr Stupid (well, late 60's has some good music like Led, Pink Floyd, and Hendrix). (Astute readers may have noticed one major band missing from my late 60's classic Rock line-up, but I loathe them entirely.)
I reckon the period from around 67 to 72 was awesome. LZ, PF, Hendrix (my email address is hendrixexp so you can guess where he sits in my musical heirarchy), but also the likes of Jethro Tull, King Crimson, Zappa, Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, Velvet Underground, The Doors, Joe Cocker and the list goes on - all doing some of their best stuff. Students were rioting in France and the anti-Vietnam war movement really got going. Ah yes, I was born 16 years out of sync...
Now, I wonder if I hit on Mr Stupid's loathed band here....
Nope. I was referring to the rolling stones. (oh dear. There's bound to be someone's that's going to get a offended)
Aha, I left them off on purpose Not part of my collection either so we'll weather the storm of protest from Stone's afficianados together
I just love listening to Beatles albums like no other albums I own. They all make me feel happy. And I too dislike the Stones outside of mybe 3 or 4 songs.
I find it all too easy to appreciate bands from both sides of supposed divides. For example, I bought Rolling Stones and Beatles records in the mid-60s, and both Blur and Oasis albums in the 90s (by then I could occasionally buy long players ). Call me an undiscerning wazzock if you must, but in the 70s I enjoyed the 'rock establishment' (PF, Queen, Genesis, Deep Purple, LZ et al) as well as the punk bands out to puncture their alleged grandiosity and complacency. I likes a good tune, me.
And as for the period late 60s/early 70s, yes there were some great bands around. You'll have gathered that getting my vote does nothing for a band's reputation, so mention in the following list will not please their fans, but I had a whale of a time listening to Hendrix, The Who, Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, PF, Queen (their best stuff is on their first two albums IMHO), LZ (Physical Graffiti's one of my all-time favourite albums) and - rarely mentioned these days but some terrific stuff - Supertramp.
quote:Originally posted by shoon I'm also listening to Andrea Boccelli, the Dreamgirls soundtrack, death metal and Eric Clapton, so take my musical tastes with a pinch of salt.
Boccelli? Oy Vey! I say, listen to classical singers singing classical music, or pop singers singing pop music, but the cross-overs are unbearable.
quote:Originally posted by shoon I'm also listening to Andrea Boccelli, the Dreamgirls soundtrack, death metal and Eric Clapton, so take my musical tastes with a pinch of salt.
Boccelli? Oy Vey! I say, listen to classical singers singing classical music, or pop singers singing pop music, but the cross-overs are unbearable.
... which takes us back to Deep Purple's ill-judged venture into rock/classical cross-over, when they performed - in the Albert Hall I think - with a big orchestra (London Philharmonic?) in 1969. Oh dear.