Lewisham soundboard

[Marky Dread]

I dunno, I can see some underlying personality conflict possibly at work there. Nothing obvious, petty, or long-lasting—as you say Peel still played them—but something that just didn't jell between them.

Nope completely disagree. Peel was the first to play The Clash White Riot on his show. Then many more times on his show and especially on his festive 50s. I think the only time he said anything dismissive about them was when they released Straight to Hell which he didn't care for. But obviously that was years later. Much more to do with that punk stupidity and a dumb dislike of the BBC. I mean why bother to turn up only to walk out. Sounds like they just weren't on it that day. Shame really.

Very much inclined to agree there's some at least latent anti BBC hostility at play there. Maybe relevant that the Pistols never did a Peel session, don't know why exactly but I'm willing to assume they wouldn't exactly have been a welcome presence around the place. So while I'm sure the Clash were intent on doing a good session, such was their pre-existing prejudices that it would only take the merest spark to set things off. We'll probably never know for sure, but that's the occam version for me anyway.

Thing is the Pistols were finished by April 1978. It was all over bar the shouting (Swindle etc). The Pistols had also appeared on the BBC Young Nation without any fall out.
There was that crap Russell Harty show thing where Russell, Ronnie Corbett discussed film footage of Derek Nimmo going into SEX on the Kings Rd and meeting Viv, John and Sid and then going out into the Kings Rd dressed in punk gear and getting feedback from members of the public. But I can't see any dumb punk solidarity really affecting the Clash at Maida Vale. I think they were just having a bad day and the stupid squabbling regards Topper knowing one of the guys there put a dampner on things.
Definitely not a problem with Peel who was right to call them out on it later. There's a nice pic of Joe and Peely together later on where they are in a cafe having a cup of tea so no hard feelings I don't think.

There is this quoted 1991 NME interview here in which Joe seems to be in less than complimentary mode about Peel. I suppose you'd have to see the full interview to fully grasp the context but really I'm just thinking it's the Clash, it's Joe - and i love them and i love him - but could anything ever be straightforward with these guys? Anything at all?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/mostpunk/p ... ions.shtml

Yep and in 1977 Joe says everytime he travelled into to the countryside he felt sick. In the 90s he moved to the countryside.

The Pistols not recording a Peel session may have had more to do with Sid attacking Bob Harris. But as John Walters said it was one of his regrets.

Here's the pic of Joe and John actually sharing a Fosters in the Wimpy in Piccadilly Circus at a signing for the band Funkapolitan. So early 80s.

[Marky Dread]

That website is a bit dumb really.

"Finally, perhaps a more plausible explanation for The Clash’s walk out is that Joe Strummer once said that “listening to John Peel was like a dog being sick in your face.” (NME, March 1991). Charming."

How what Joe said about the Peel show in the 90s is relevant to The Clash not performing in the late 70s is beyond me. That appears to put two things together out of context.

That quote from Joe in the 90s appears to me to be more a reference to the state of music at that time. Not a put down of the DJ.

[Low Down Low]

That website is a bit dumb really.

"Finally, perhaps a more plausible explanation for The Clash’s walk out is that Joe Strummer once said that “listening to John Peel was like a dog being sick in your face.” (NME, March 1991). Charming."

How what Joe said about the Peel show in the 90s is relevant to The Clash not performing in the late 70s is beyond me. That appears to put two things together out of context.

That quote from Joe in the 90s appears to me to be more a reference to the state of music at that time. Not a put down of the DJ.

I took it as a reference to something Joe had said at some unspecified time previously but, as i said, i think you'd need to see the full context to understand it. Very much doubt it had any bearing on the session itself, could have been Joe just goofing or having one of his moments. No way it's representative of his opinion of Peels broadcasting ability anyway.

[Low Down Low]

The other thing I'd say is, it'd hardly be uncharacteristic of that early era Clash-Joe to be unflattering about people in public but be friendly with them privately. I mean, Weller would fit the bill there right, and I'm sure a few others too?

[Marky Dread]

That website is a bit dumb really.

"Finally, perhaps a more plausible explanation for The Clash’s walk out is that Joe Strummer once said that “listening to John Peel was like a dog being sick in your face.” (NME, March 1991). Charming."

How what Joe said about the Peel show in the 90s is relevant to The Clash not performing in the late 70s is beyond me. That appears to put two things together out of context.

That quote from Joe in the 90s appears to me to be more a reference to the state of music at that time. Not a put down of the DJ.

I took it as a reference to something Joe had said at some unspecified time previously but, as i said, i think you'd need to see the full context to understand it. Very much doubt it had any bearing on the session itself, could have been Joe just goofing or having one of his moments. No way it's representative of his opinion of Peels broadcasting ability anyway.

From an interview Joe gave in the NME March 1991. I think Joe may have been fronting the Pogues at the time.

[Low Down Low]

That website is a bit dumb really.

"Finally, perhaps a more plausible explanation for The Clash’s walk out is that Joe Strummer once said that “listening to John Peel was like a dog being sick in your face.” (NME, March 1991). Charming."

How what Joe said about the Peel show in the 90s is relevant to The Clash not performing in the late 70s is beyond me. That appears to put two things together out of context.

That quote from Joe in the 90s appears to me to be more a reference to the state of music at that time. Not a put down of the DJ.

I took it as a reference to something Joe had said at some unspecified time previously but, as i said, i think you'd need to see the full context to understand it. Very much doubt it had any bearing on the session itself, could have been Joe just goofing or having one of his moments. No way it's representative of his opinion of Peels broadcasting ability anyway.

From an interview Joe gave in the NME March 1991. I think Joe may have been fronting the Pogues at the time.

I see it says 91, but that obviously wouldn't make sense as a comment about a session in 78, but then i guess it wouldn't be the first music hack to write something completely daft and put it to print!

[drowninghere]

Was looking at the Peel Festive 50s recently and this discussion made me go back and take a second look. A little tough to analyze because 77 - 81 are basically 'all-time faves' (though almost all songs are post-76) albeit with a number of songs from that current year making each list as well, while beginning in '82 Peel included a list that is exclusive to that year. Also, I'm sure The Clash's late year release pattern (GEER Nov '78, LC and S! Dec '79 and '80) didn't help with them making end of year lists.

Nonetheless, still interesting to note that, while White Man and Complete Control were Top 20 mainstays from 78 - 82, the only other songs to make the lists between 78 - 81 were White Riot, Armagideon Time and Bankrobber. So nothing off of GEER, LC or Sandinsta ever made of appearance in any Festive 50. In '82, the 'songs of the year' list though included Straight to Hell (at 6), SISOSIG (at 26), Know Your Rights (at 27) and Casbah (at 40). This is consistent with the idea that The Clash saw a real surge in popularity with the release of CR (for reasons that are still hard for me to understand).

Also, interesting to note that in the 'all-time faves' list from '82, 3 songs make an appearance, White Man (at 10), CC (at 19) and Armagideon Time (at 40). While I'm of course a fan of AT, I find this very surprising if not perverse.

Anyways, not suggesting any of the above reflects the tastes of Peel in particular, just his listeners.

[matedog]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

[Dr. Medulla]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

At this point, it's more likely that Kubrick's family will release the raw moon-landing footage.

[matedog]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

At this point, it's more likely that Kubrick's family will release the raw moon-landing footage.

Ha!

When's the next London Calling anniversary? I guess they can do 45th this year? Unless Mick nixes it because of some disagreement he had with Joe over what song to play in the encore.

[Kory]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

Why is it with the Clash, a lot of people say they have a bunch of rare shit but they won't give it up for any reason? Are there other bands like this? I say if you have something like that but don't want to give it up, keep the info to yourself. I don't want to know.

[Dr. Medulla]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

Why is it with the Clash, a lot of people say they have a bunch of rare shit but they won't give it up for any reason? Are there other bands like this? I say if you have something like that but don't want to give it up, keep the info to yourself. I don't want to know.

The Only Band That Matters For Hoarders

[matedog]

Guy on Facebook says he has DAT tapes of the full gig that he mixed for Mick back in 2000. Tried to coax an upload out of him to no avail. Pics...

lewish2.jpg

lewish1.jpg

BTW, I friended this guy back in 2020 and he accepted my friend request about two months ago (4 years after the fact!). I messaged him again, hopefully politely, asking about the Lewisham tapes. It said he read it within a day but has yet to respond. I never had high hopes so it's only mildly disappointing.

Why is it with the Clash, a lot of people say they have a bunch of rare shit but they won't give it up for any reason? Are there other bands like this? I say if you have something like that but don't want to give it up, keep the info to yourself. I don't want to know.

My main basis of comparison is Bruce fans. In which case, yes, there are "Ubers" as they are called. They have exclusive stuff that they share only within that community usually in exchange for other stuff. Supposedly, they feel like they are due that exclusivity for what they have done to get it (financially or otherwise) and will get pissed if stuff gets out there.

Here's a dumb example. Someone on youtube posted a Gary US Bonds song that Springsteen wrote and Steve Van Zandt produced in 1982. The final version has SVZ on backing vocals, but there is an outtake version that has Springsteen on backing vocals. Someone posted the outtake version that had not previously circulated a few months ago, and the Ubers got real pissed because an alt version of a Gary US Bonds song leaked.

Here was the reaction from one user: "This is not supposed to be up on Youtube. TAKE THIS DOWN NOW!" Investigating his other posts, he earlier elaborated:

They know nothing about the toil, graft and work that goes into collecting and trading these things. Do you know how much money I've spent on this? How much bartering, haggling, investigating, arguing and traveling I've done? How many dicks I've had to suck (metaphorically)? How many times I've had to leave my ethics and morals at the door and look the other way?

And you expect me to share stuff for FREE? Fuck no.

Anyway, I don't understand this sentiment at all. I made a $1,000 offer for the Monterey 79 Clash footage with the full intention of sharing it freely. Now would I keep it exclusive if it meant someone would send me Lewisham? Probably not.

Also this Lewisham guy does not appear to be some insider hoarder/trader. I think he's just a guy that worked on it for Clash/Sony and doesn't feel like he should share it based on the agreement with Clash/Sony. So I don't fault him nearly as much.

[Dr. Medulla]

The "uber" mentality is entirely contrary to the bootleg perspective. Bootleggers look at the above-ground record industry as restrictive, contrary the interests of fans and the music itself. Music that has been made should be made available. It's about making the historical record as complete as possible. The "uber" mentality adopts the above-ground perspective without the legal entanglements of the legit industry. It's basically the worst of both worlds.

[Marky Dread]

The "uber" mentality is entirely contrary to the bootleg perspective. Bootleggers look at the above-ground record industry as restrictive, contrary the interests of fans and the music itself. Music that has been made should be made available. It's about making the historical record as complete as possible. The "uber" mentality adopts the above-ground perspective without the legal entanglements of the legit industry. It's basically the worst of both worlds.

The bootleggers don't give a shit about historical record. They only care about lining their own pockets and at a high cost to genuine fans/collectors. The rarer an item appears the more they can fleece people.

I dislike private collectors treating music like fine art.

I don't agree that music that has been made should necessarily be made available just to please a fan base.

If an artist was unhappy with their work first time and feels it's substandard then they have the right not to have it released.

Nowadays we get deluxe packages where bands release stuff they previously wouldn't want out because it's real easy money. The work has already been done and it's cleaned up remastered by another.
Fine if they need the money I've no problem with anyone putting food on the table. But there's a lot of wealthy people out there making money for nothing. So much of this stuff could and probably should be given away freely. But the record companies remain unforgiving and full of greed.