THE CLASH - punk?

[ixnayray]

So i know the word PUNK covers a lot of ground, but when i hear people say THE CLASH are one of their fave punk bands... it makes me wonder.

Me? I loves me some Clash BUT my least favorite of their output would be their first self titled album [the only true punk one] and GIVE 'EM ENOUGH ROPE which i think was an abortion. They didn't even like it themselves.

So this leaves us with LONDON CALLING - which is pure and simple rock 'n' roll.

SANDINISTA - mainly funk, dub reggae, hip-hop and soul.

COMBAT ROCK - basically the musical equivalent of an arthouse movie.

CUT THE CRAP - i won't even comment on this one, for obvious reasons.

So none of these are really PUNK in any way.

... what do YOU think. do people just name them as they are easily identifiable? do you think their only PUNK album was the first one? or am i completely wrong?

[kopper]

No, I still listen to ELO (not so much Queen, though, I admit). I have a lot of tastes that go way beyond the world of garage-punk. In fact, I'd love to get my hands on the Zoom LP that came out in 2001 to rave reviews but that's now OOP. Anyone have a copy? I'll even settle for MP3s at this point.

Mike said:

kopper said:

And I was also one of those kooks who was listening to ELO and Queen, too. So sue me. ;)

Ha! Well you may have been listening to those Kopper, but I doubt you were one of those kook types I was refering to. We'll just rack it up to youthfull experimentation on your part.....now what did I do with that Blondes Have more Fun picture disc my brother gave me in the 7th grade?

[Gas-House Gorilla]

I think you're onto something in labeling the Clash as "easily identifiable". They're the favorite punk band of so many because they branched out beyond punk, and have a much broader appeal. Heck, most folks in the U.S. never even heard of the Clash until the release of London Calling. They certainly didn't get any airplay until Train In Vain. Regardless, if you look at just their punk output (77-78), I think they're certainly one of the punk bands ever. And they were one of the few punk bands to have any sustainability (although, perhaps due to moving beyond punk).

For my tastes, I'm on the other side of the Clash fence than you. Give 'em Enough Rope is a fantastic album - perhaps their best. And I'm not going to say that Sandinista is a bad album. I have a certain level of respect for its eclecticism. Plus, many admire it, including yourself, and the band. That being said, I honestly find it almost unlistenable. George Martin said that the White Album would have been much better served as a single ablum. I think I'd have a hard time enjoying Sandinista were it cut down to an EP.

[Joenzy]

one of the best albums of all time?
bold statement.

i disagree. but i love that record.

the clash definitely had hits and misses - a lot of misses, in my opinion - and most peoples, really.

love the Clash.
fuck the Boo!
and fuck you!

Kevin Schneider said:

The first album is amazing - one of the best albums of all time by any band, any genre, and is in many ways the very definition of what punk meant in the late 70s. Give 'em Enough Rope is really, really good. London Calling is just okay. Sandinista, Combat Rock, and Cut the Crap all suck. Those three albums combined have three good songs total. Two of those three songs, Should I Stay or Should I Go and Rock the Casbah are overplayed to the point where I am no longer able to derive any pleasure from hearing them. The third, and the only worthwhile song on the 3 disc monstrosity that is Sandinista, is Police on My Back, which is a cover.

[Joenzy]

that's rad.



kopper said:

No, I still listen to ELO (not so much Queen, though, I admit). I have a lot of tastes that go way beyond the world of garage-punk. In fact, I'd love to get my hands on the Zoom LP that came out in 2001 to rave reviews but that's now OOP. Anyone have a copy? I'll even settle for MP3s at this point.

Mike said:

kopper said:

And I was also one of those kooks who was listening to ELO and Queen, too. So sue me. ;)

Ha! Well you may have been listening to those Kopper, but I doubt you were one of those kook types I was refering to. We'll just rack it up to youthfull experimentation on your part.....now what did I do with that Blondes Have more Fun picture disc my brother gave me in the 7th grade?

[ixnayray]

Well said GAS-HOUSE GORILLA - i see your point. Hey, i'm not a fan of GIVE 'EM ENOUGH ROPE and you are... and that's what makes the world go round. As for SANDINISTA - after listening to it many, MANY times I have narrowed the 38 tracks down to 23... and i think its a classic when i listen to it my way. They were a band that transcended the 70's punk genre, and they are one of my favorite bands of all time - so i hope no-one thinks i'm running them down, as i listen to them on a daily basis. It's just that it's the punk stuff that i don't like as much - and thats what got me thinking and made me start this whole discussion.

[Lisa]

I agree and disagree with ixnayray: I'd certainly categorize "The Clash" as the band's ONLY punk album, although I still love that album. I also like "London Calling" and --dare I say it-- "Combat Rock". But I'm going to like what I like, whether it is labeled "punk" or not, so what difference does it make?

[Lord Muck!!]

I lived thru the punk thing in the UK and in my view The Clash were punk. Punk in itself didn't last that long, but punks of that time did. What they created could be described any way you like. The fact is that the people involved in the early British punk movement were creative, active, making statements, energetic and kicking out the crap. The fact that they flew off in different directions is a testament to how great the movement was at the time; the fact that these bands were not tied down to a narrow idea of what punk should be is all to their credit. The bands that followed that called themselves punk (the little brothers' bands), and any other band that reckons to play punk rock since, can't hold a candle to the people in this early movement in UK and other scenes round the world. So the question of whether The Clash are punk is irrelevant really, whether their later albums were punk is also. Punk was about a lot more than music, it was a revolution. These recent bands that think they're making punk rock are about as punk as my arse.

[Blaine]

Who cares.

[CAPTAIN DYNAMITE]

Lord Muck!! said:

I lived thru the punk thing in the UK and in my view The Clash were punk. Punk in itself didn't last that long, but punks of that time did. What they created could be described any way you like. The fact is that the people involved in the early British punk movement were creative, active, making statements, energetic and kicking out the crap. The fact that they flew off in different directions is a testament to how great the movement was at the time; the fact that these bands were not tied down to a narrow idea of what punk should be is all to their credit. The bands that followed that called themselves punk (the little brothers' bands), and any other band that reckons to play punk rock since, can't hold a candle to the people in this early movement in UK and other scenes round the world. So the question of whether The Clash are punk is irrelevant really, whether their later albums were punk is also. Punk was about a lot more than music, it was a revolution. These recent bands that think they're making punk rock are about as punk as my arse.

Not Punk?Punk?Arse?Ass?....Let's call the whole thing off!

[Lord Muck!!]

Blaine said:

Who cares.

Well you read this shit... ;)

[AL PLASTIC]

Fierce Play said:

I completely agree. I get shit every time I bring this discussion up. Granted I love some of The Clash's tunes but there is something phony about strummer when he is being interviewed. I can't quite pin point it. But watch both The Ramones documentary ( End of the Century) and The Clash documentary (The Future is Unwritten) back to back and you might see what I mean.)

I AGREE! I was again disapointed by The Future Is Unwriten, I want to love this guy, but he seems totaly uninspired like boring musiscians or something. If you see The Filth and the Fury (the Sex Pistols Dir by Julien Temple) the difference is striking (Lydon seems honest and inspired, and suprisely more "social" than Strummer. Excuse my bad english.

[Lord Muck!!]

AL PLASTIC said:

Fierce Play said:

I completely agree. I get shit every time I bring this discussion up. Granted I love some of The Clash's tunes but there is something phony about strummer when he is being interviewed. I can't quite pin point it. But watch both The Ramones documentary ( End of the Century) and The Clash documentary (The Future is Unwritten) back to back and you might see what I mean.)

I AGREE! I was again disapointed by The Future Is Unwriten, I want to love this guy, but he seems totaly uninspired like boring musiscians or something. If you see The Filth and the Fury (the Sex Pistols Dir by Julien Temple) the difference is striking (Lydon seems honest and inspired, and suprisely more "social" than Strummer. Excuse my bad english.

I'm kinda with you on that one. I put it down to a bit of trendy west london self-concious cool. Include the politics and it puts The Clash somewhere between Bob Dylan and U2. That apart, I loved them at the time and they were boss live...