Best biography on The Clash and/or Strummer?

[Heston]

I always wondered what happened to him...

According to 101 he was opiated. Never seemed the druggy type.

[Kory]

Return of the Last Gang is the best for me if you want a REALLY detailed read. It's a bit opinionated but heavy on detail.

Hey--I wanted to follow up after being given so much good advice here. I'm about half way through the Marcus Gray book. And yes--SO MUCH DETAIL. Some of it--unnecessary? But that's what I wanted, so I'm digging in.

In terms of him being opinionated--wow! It's like every page is filled with him following over himself trying to point out what poseurs/fakes/phonies the band is and how everything was completed calculated. Like the Monkees! And after a while--it's like, yea--I get it--enough!

And I think--oh, what--early 20 something artists messing with and playing with the concept of identity? Trying on different identities? Isn't that what 20 something people do? Especially artists? Identity is ALWAYS a construct. It's always some clothes that we're putting on for a moment.

Again--I'm definitely enjoying the book and the amount of research that went into it. I appreciate the sociological and historical explorations of the time period. These are very important to the story. But the constant obsession over authenticity (or the band's lack of it) gets old quickly.

Thanks again for the helpful suggestions!

I always roll my eyes when people are extra harsh in criticizing the decisions of bands that did their work in their early 20s. Just think about the kind of decisions you made back then, and you weren't even under any pressure.

[Low Down Low]

Return of the Last Gang is the best for me if you want a REALLY detailed read. It's a bit opinionated but heavy on detail.

Hey--I wanted to follow up after being given so much good advice here. I'm about half way through the Marcus Gray book. And yes--SO MUCH DETAIL. Some of it--unnecessary? But that's what I wanted, so I'm digging in.

In terms of him being opinionated--wow! It's like every page is filled with him following over himself trying to point out what poseurs/fakes/phonies the band is and how everything was completed calculated. Like the Monkees! And after a while--it's like, yea--I get it--enough!

And I think--oh, what--early 20 something artists messing with and playing with the concept of identity? Trying on different identities? Isn't that what 20 something people do? Especially artists? Identity is ALWAYS a construct. It's always some clothes that we're putting on for a moment.

Again--I'm definitely enjoying the book and the amount of research that went into it. I appreciate the sociological and historical explorations of the time period. These are very important to the story. But the constant obsession over authenticity (or the band's lack of it) gets old quickly.

Thanks again for the helpful suggestions!

I always roll my eyes when people are extra harsh in criticizing the decisions of bands that did their work in their early 20s. Just think about the kind of decisions you made back then, and you weren't even under any pressure.

I'd agree on this. I wouldnt be overly harsh on the author either, there was scope for a myth busting, no holds barred portrayal of the band at the time he wrote it, but even at the time i remember finding it a bit nitpicky and irritating. And i think it rather dates it a bit too, though the factual account cant be faulted. More a Route 19 fan and also echo endorsements for Redemption and WATC.

[101Walterton]

I always wondered what happened to him...

According to 101 he was opiated. Never seemed the druggy type.

Is autocorrect affected by your internet searches

[Olaf]

I always wondered what happened to him...

According to 101 he was opiated. Never seemed the druggy type.

He went on a reading tour of NZ from which he never returned.