When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Clash clash clash. ¡VIVAN LOS NORTEAMERICANOS DEL IMCT Y LAS BRIGADAS DEL CADILLAC NUEVO!
Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Heston »

Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm
matedog wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 4:56pm
This is when we really need Rattie.

Based on my memory, there were always tensions, but things got better when Bernie first got the boot in 78 and they remained charged and unified during their first US tours through London Calling. After their successes, Joe seemed to feel some sense of complacency which prompted the Bernie return ultimatum. The residencies and huge publicity victory of Bonds probably kept Bernie in good favor with Mick in 81. Things seemed to go south with Rat Patrol-Combat Rock as Mick lost that creative battle. The massive success of Combat Rock probably placated Mick a bit after that though, but perhaps that turned the tide of acrimony from Mick to Joe/Bernie at Mick.
I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Guest1

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Guest1 »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm
matedog wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 4:56pm
This is when we really need Rattie.

Based on my memory, there were always tensions, but things got better when Bernie first got the boot in 78 and they remained charged and unified during their first US tours through London Calling. After their successes, Joe seemed to feel some sense of complacency which prompted the Bernie return ultimatum. The residencies and huge publicity victory of Bonds probably kept Bernie in good favor with Mick in 81. Things seemed to go south with Rat Patrol-Combat Rock as Mick lost that creative battle. The massive success of Combat Rock probably placated Mick a bit after that though, but perhaps that turned the tide of acrimony from Mick to Joe/Bernie at Mick.
I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
It’s interesting to consider alternate histories; if Sandinista was never sold as a single LP but rather the price of the full three pieces of vinyl, and thusly the band never goes into debt, perhaps Bernie never returns? Perhaps the Clash don’t break up until the early 90s.

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58888
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Marky Dread »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm
matedog wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 4:56pm
This is when we really need Rattie.

Based on my memory, there were always tensions, but things got better when Bernie first got the boot in 78 and they remained charged and unified during their first US tours through London Calling. After their successes, Joe seemed to feel some sense of complacency which prompted the Bernie return ultimatum. The residencies and huge publicity victory of Bonds probably kept Bernie in good favor with Mick in 81. Things seemed to go south with Rat Patrol-Combat Rock as Mick lost that creative battle. The massive success of Combat Rock probably placated Mick a bit after that though, but perhaps that turned the tide of acrimony from Mick to Joe/Bernie at Mick.
I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Heston »

Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm
matedog wrote:
08 Apr 2021, 4:56pm
This is when we really need Rattie.

Based on my memory, there were always tensions, but things got better when Bernie first got the boot in 78 and they remained charged and unified during their first US tours through London Calling. After their successes, Joe seemed to feel some sense of complacency which prompted the Bernie return ultimatum. The residencies and huge publicity victory of Bonds probably kept Bernie in good favor with Mick in 81. Things seemed to go south with Rat Patrol-Combat Rock as Mick lost that creative battle. The massive success of Combat Rock probably placated Mick a bit after that though, but perhaps that turned the tide of acrimony from Mick to Joe/Bernie at Mick.
I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58888
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Marky Dread »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:24pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm


I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
You're probably correct mate. That said there was a lot of naivety surrounding the signings of punk groups at the time. I remember reading that Matlock said he was the only member of the Pistols who actually bothered to read the contract with E.M.I.
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Heston »

Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:31pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:24pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm


Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
You're probably correct mate. That said there was a lot of naivety surrounding the signings of punk groups at the time. I remember reading that Matlock said he was the only member of the Pistols who actually bothered to read the contract with E.M.I.
I think the Clash were a lot more savvy than they let on. Keeping their own publishing was a masterstroke and the reason they are all pretty well off in their old age.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58888
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Marky Dread »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:34pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:31pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:24pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm


I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
You're probably correct mate. That said there was a lot of naivety surrounding the signings of punk groups at the time. I remember reading that Matlock said he was the only member of the Pistols who actually bothered to read the contract with E.M.I.
I think the Clash were a lot more savvy than they let on. Keeping their own publishing was a masterstroke and the reason they are all pretty well off in their old age.
Well yeah sure. Mind you the Pistols ain't exactly paupers for just two albums as such. :mrgreen:
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Toppers Boppers
User avatar
Long Time Jerk
Posts: 824
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 5:52am
Location: Gates Of The West (country)

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Toppers Boppers »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:41pm
I keep saying it but weren't they basically on a break from Autumn 82 until Mick's sacking nearly a year later? Aside from Hell W10 and the short tour before the US Festival there wasn't much going on. Was it not the inertia that caused the split with Mick?
They were busy in the US Autumn 82, touring Combat Rock, the Who stadium shows & SNL appearance finishing up with the Jamaican festival in November. Maybe other promotion duties too, resulting in Combat Rock going top ten January 83 stateside.

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Heston »

Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:28am
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:41pm
I keep saying it but weren't they basically on a break from Autumn 82 until Mick's sacking nearly a year later? Aside from Hell W10 and the short tour before the US Festival there wasn't much going on. Was it not the inertia that caused the split with Mick?
They were busy in the US Autumn 82, touring Combat Rock, the Who stadium shows & SNL appearance finishing up with the Jamaican festival in November. Maybe other promotion duties too, resulting in Combat Rock going top ten January 83 stateside.
Yeah so basically less than ten gigs between October 82 and late August 83.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

WestwayKid
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 6704
Joined: 20 Sep 2017, 8:22am
Location: Mill-e-wah-que

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by WestwayKid »

Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:24pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm
YoungParisians wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:21pm


I think youve got something there.

It's a shame that the end of 82 thru 83 wasn't spent as deliberate downtime instead of the dysfunctional lost year that resulted in the break-up.

Maybe Joe and Mick could have each released solo efforts: Joe's to placate the angst surrounding his punk integrity that was so center-point to Clash II? Mick's to experiment even further with electro, soundtrack work or producing? Paul = more acting roles? Topper truly finding his way thru rehab to rejoin the band? All this easily posited in retrospect, of course.

Or maybe if Peter Jenner's company was still managing, tensions could have been addressed? A good manager would recognize the need for a break. A self interested manager would keep them together to make money. And a megalomaniac manager would try to write, perform and produce the follow up album X(
Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
Agreed. That story always had more than a whiff of myth about it.
"They don't think it be like it is, but it do." - Oscar Gamble

Marky Dread
User avatar
Messiah of the Milk Bar
Posts: 58888
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Marky Dread »

WestwayKid wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 8:21am
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:24pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 2:19pm
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:43pm
Marky Dread wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:35pm


Let's not forget how much debt the band were into Sony/CBS for. This must've been a factor when you consider them not taking that break you mention.
I think they were well out of debt by the end of 82. Combat Rock sold massively worldwide but especially in the States.
I'm thinking less of the money and more their contractual obligation. Didn't they sign some shitty deal where they owed so many records to the label?
I honestly think that was just an excuse to cover up for Sandinista after the event. I don't believe any band and its attendant lawyers don't know how many albums they owe to a record company.
Agreed. That story always had more than a whiff of myth about it.
The Clash....myth....never. ;)
Image

Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty


We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.

"Without the common people you're nothing"

Nos Sumus Una Familia

Guest1

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Guest1 »

Yeah they were at their commercial peak definitely if not their prime creatively. Combat Rock is bizzare in the sense that it’s arguably way more inaccessible than Sandanista on some songs yet had enough radio fodder to carry it over on into the mainstream. I feel like if a promotional video of TIE was shot for MTV as planned that album would have sold bucketloads as well. The namesake of the Clash piggybacking off the success of Combat Rock combined with a song tailor made for 80s radio with synths and anthemic group chorus. Idk might have given the Clash MKII some bizzare second wind. Tons of records that were absolute shite but sold massive units due to one great song. A lot of Combat Rock bandwagoners probably wouldn’t have even realized Mick was out of the band.

Toppers Boppers
User avatar
Long Time Jerk
Posts: 824
Joined: 18 Nov 2009, 5:52am
Location: Gates Of The West (country)

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Toppers Boppers »

Heston wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:50am
Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:28am
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:41pm
I keep saying it but weren't they basically on a break from Autumn 82 until Mick's sacking nearly a year later? Aside from Hell W10 and the short tour before the US Festival there wasn't much going on. Was it not the inertia that caused the split with Mick?
They were busy in the US Autumn 82, touring Combat Rock, the Who stadium shows & SNL appearance finishing up with the Jamaican festival in November. Maybe other promotion duties too, resulting in Combat Rock going top ten January 83 stateside.
Yeah so basically less than ten gigs between October 82 and late August 83.
They played at least 15 gigs Oct - Nov 82, their biggest shows too so lot's of pressure. Recorded 'House of the Ju-Ju Queen' single in Dec to finish out the year. So, autumn 82 looks busy to me but fair point with Jan-April 83 when CR was riding high in the US charts - were they just movie making and in the studio experimenting back in London?

matedog
User avatar
Purveyor of Hoyistic Thought
Posts: 25804
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: 1995

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by matedog »

Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 10:10am
Heston wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:50am
Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:28am
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:41pm
I keep saying it but weren't they basically on a break from Autumn 82 until Mick's sacking nearly a year later? Aside from Hell W10 and the short tour before the US Festival there wasn't much going on. Was it not the inertia that caused the split with Mick?
They were busy in the US Autumn 82, touring Combat Rock, the Who stadium shows & SNL appearance finishing up with the Jamaican festival in November. Maybe other promotion duties too, resulting in Combat Rock going top ten January 83 stateside.
Yeah so basically less than ten gigs between October 82 and late August 83.
They played at least 15 gigs Oct - Nov 82, their biggest shows too so lot's of pressure. Recorded 'House of the Ju-Ju Queen' single in Dec to finish out the year. So, autumn 82 looks busy to me but fair point with Jan-April 83 when CR was riding high in the US charts - were they just movie making and in the studio experimenting back in London?
YoungParisians did a bang up job with this timeline of 1983:
https://clashcity.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13143

The studio sessionography gives some insight too: https://clashcity.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12475
Look, you have to establish context for these things. And I maintain that unless you appreciate the Fall of Constantinople, the Great Fire of London, and Mickey Mantle's fatalist alcoholism, live Freddy makes no sense. If you want to half-ass it, fine, go call Simon Schama to do the appendix.

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: When did tensions begin to flare up between Mick and Joe?

Post by Heston »

Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 10:10am
Heston wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:50am
Toppers Boppers wrote:
22 Apr 2021, 7:28am
Heston wrote:
20 Apr 2021, 1:41pm
I keep saying it but weren't they basically on a break from Autumn 82 until Mick's sacking nearly a year later? Aside from Hell W10 and the short tour before the US Festival there wasn't much going on. Was it not the inertia that caused the split with Mick?
They were busy in the US Autumn 82, touring Combat Rock, the Who stadium shows & SNL appearance finishing up with the Jamaican festival in November. Maybe other promotion duties too, resulting in Combat Rock going top ten January 83 stateside.
Yeah so basically less than ten gigs between October 82 and late August 83.
They played at least 15 gigs Oct - Nov 82, their biggest shows too so lot's of pressure. Recorded 'House of the Ju-Ju Queen' single in Dec to finish out the year. So, autumn 82 looks busy to me but fair point with Jan-April 83 when CR was riding high in the US charts - were they just movie making and in the studio experimenting back in London?
Yeah, I meant from the end of October, which I count as autumn. So basically between their gig at LA Coliseum on 29th October and Mick's sacking at the end of August 83 they played 8 confirmed gigs in ten months, 7 of them in May. That's hardly a back breaking schedule and may as well represent a break to me. Yeah they were messing about with home movies and fun side projects but I still say it basically constituted nearly a year off. This is why I never buy the notion that they needed a break.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Post Reply