Clash songs you can't stand

[Low Down Low]

I suspect part of the issue with LR are the naff lyrics because i can’t for the life of me see why anyone would find the tune anything less than tolerable and micks guitar work is great. The instrumental version on markys seminal LC production features regularly enough on my playlist.

[white man]

Hitsville is a decent enough tune but those vocals kill it dead

[Wolter]

Lover's Rock just suffers as being the only questionable song on LC. As a b-side it would have been acceptable.

I'm just surprised to see Sean Flynn in there, I love that song.

Yeah. Lover’s Rock is a mild cringe, but it really suffers by being on an overall masterpiece. Otherwise it’s just sort of there being...a little creepy, but not godawful.

[BitterTom]

Surprised to see Hitsville and Lose This Skin come up, 2 of my favourites from S! Yeah the vocals aren't the best but both have got decent tunes.

[matedog]

Lover's Rock just suffers as being the only questionable song on LC. As a b-side it would have been acceptable.

I'm just surprised to see Sean Flynn in there, I love that song.

Yeah. Lover’s Rock is a mild cringe, but it really suffers by being on an overall masterpiece. Otherwise it’s just sort of there being...a little creepy, but not godawful.

Me and Maj are the big LR defenders on this site if I remember correctly. I understand the hate, but the song does have a lot going for it. Also it's remarkable how much more time was spent in writing and arranging this tune (and any on LC for that matter) compared to pretty much any song on Sandinista.

[Wolter]

Lover's Rock just suffers as being the only questionable song on LC. As a b-side it would have been acceptable.

I'm just surprised to see Sean Flynn in there, I love that song.

Yeah. Lover’s Rock is a mild cringe, but it really suffers by being on an overall masterpiece. Otherwise it’s just sort of there being...a little creepy, but not godawful.

Me and Maj are the big LR defenders on this site if I remember correctly. I understand the hate, but the song does have a lot going for it. Also it's remarkable how much more time was spent in writing and arranging this tune (and any on LC for that matter) compared to pretty much any song on Sandinista.

The lyrics are really what sink it for me. Some bands can sing about sex, but I have never enjoyed any member of the Clash doing so.

[Dr. Medulla]

Also it's remarkable how much more time was spent in writing and arranging this tune (and any on LC for that matter) compared to pretty much any song on Sandinista.

Rather ironic, then, that it resulted in the weakest song on the album. It's just such a flat tune and with awkward lyrics. As Jon says above, the Clash don't sing about sex naturally. No crime in that—plenty of bands can't sing about social justice in a compelling way.

[matedog]

Also it's remarkable how much more time was spent in writing and arranging this tune (and any on LC for that matter) compared to pretty much any song on Sandinista.

Rather ironic, then, that it resulted in the weakest song on the album. It's just such a flat tune and with awkward lyrics. As Jon says above, the Clash don't sing about sex naturally. No crime in that—plenty of bands can't sing about social justice in a compelling way.

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

[WestwayKid]

Also it's remarkable how much more time was spent in writing and arranging this tune (and any on LC for that matter) compared to pretty much any song on Sandinista.

Rather ironic, then, that it resulted in the weakest song on the album. It's just such a flat tune and with awkward lyrics. As Jon says above, the Clash don't sing about sex naturally. No crime in that—plenty of bands can't sing about social justice in a compelling way.

The lyrics are very cringy, but I've always wondered how serious the song is supposed to be.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

The music seems blah and uninspired to me. Maybe there's more going on to appreciate if one is a musician, but to the average bozo like me, it's cold porridge.

The lyrics are very cringy, but I've always wondered how serious the song is supposed to be.

I don't think it is all that serious, but an awkward jokey song about sex isn't any more comfortable to listen to.

[matedog]

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

The music seems blah and uninspired to me. Maybe there's more going on to appreciate if one is a musician, but to the average bozo like me, it's cold porridge.

There's a lot of little things: the parallel falsetto harmony, the little piano riff during the line "Lover's Rock", Mick's solo and how he continues it through the next verse, and for me Topper's drumming is so great. Topper plays different beats nearly every (I don't want to call it "chorus", but that "genuine lover" feel part) part. And a great little outro with lots of percussion - claves, maracas, whistles, Mick's vocal ad lis. There's just so much going on, where as so many Sandinista songs are just verse-chorus-verse-chorus without much variation.

The lyrics are very cringy, but I've always wondered how serious the song is supposed to be.

I don't think it is all that serious, but an awkward jokey song about sex isn't any more comfortable to listen to.

I'll have to refresh my memory from Marcus Gray's book, but I think the lyrics/style was a genre exercise for the group of some semi obscure style I had never heard of (blank) Rock or something of the sort. Doesn't excuse the lyrics, but might explain why they are what they are.

[Dr. Medulla]

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

The music seems blah and uninspired to me. Maybe there's more going on to appreciate if one is a musician, but to the average bozo like me, it's cold porridge.

There's a lot of little things: the parallel falsetto harmony, the little piano riff during the line "Lover's Rock", Mick's solo and how he continues it through the next verse, and for me Topper's drumming is so great. Topper plays different beats nearly every (I don't want to call it "chorus", but that "genuine lover" feel part) part. And a great little outro with lots of percussion - claves, maracas, whistles, Mick's vocal ad lis. There's just so much going on, where as so many Sandinista songs are just verse-chorus-verse-chorus without much variation.

Even if I accede to your view on those parts, and can appreciate their effort to try different styles, the overall effect is really weak.

[Low Down Low]

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

The music seems blah and uninspired to me. Maybe there's more going on to appreciate if one is a musician, but to the average bozo like me, it's cold porridge.

There's a lot of little things: the parallel falsetto harmony, the little piano riff during the line "Lover's Rock", Mick's solo and how he continues it through the next verse, and for me Topper's drumming is so great. Topper plays different beats nearly every (I don't want to call it "chorus", but that "genuine lover" feel part) part. And a great little outro with lots of percussion - claves, maracas, whistles, Mick's vocal ad lis. There's just so much going on, where as so many Sandinista songs are just verse-chorus-verse-chorus without much variation.

If i had an even half decent musical vocabulary this is very much along the lines of what I’d try to post.

[WestwayKid]

I think my point is that I really enjoy it musically and have always weighed music more heavily than lyrics, so LR is still quite enjoyable for me.

The music seems blah and uninspired to me. Maybe there's more going on to appreciate if one is a musician, but to the average bozo like me, it's cold porridge.

There's a lot of little things: the parallel falsetto harmony, the little piano riff during the line "Lover's Rock", Mick's solo and how he continues it through the next verse, and for me Topper's drumming is so great. Topper plays different beats nearly every (I don't want to call it "chorus", but that "genuine lover" feel part) part. And a great little outro with lots of percussion - claves, maracas, whistles, Mick's vocal ad lis. There's just so much going on, where as so many Sandinista songs are just verse-chorus-verse-chorus without much variation.

The lyrics are very cringy, but I've always wondered how serious the song is supposed to be.

I don't think it is all that serious, but an awkward jokey song about sex isn't any more comfortable to listen to.

I'll have to refresh my memory from Marcus Gray's book, but I think the lyrics/style was a genre exercise for the group of some semi obscure style I had never heard of (blank) Rock or something of the sort. Doesn't excuse the lyrics, but might explain why they are what they are.

The genre in question is lovers rock, correct?

[JennyB]

It's certainly not one of my favorite songs, but I have always appreciated Lover's Rock because it's about pleasing a woman. Not very common in rock music.