Sequencing of US Debut
Sequencing of US Debut
I don't know if this is common knowledge among Clash fans, or answered clearly in umpteen different band bios, but I tried googling to find the answer to this and came up with nothing:
Who was responsible for the sequencing of the U.S. version of The Clash? I grew up in the era of the pre-remastered CDs, so the US version is the one that I actually know and love. (Also, as a result, I was always desperate to hear the mysterious four songs from the UK version, but wasn't going to spend my scant $$ on the fancy Clash on Broadway box set, so in those pre-filesharing/youtube/spotify days, all I could do was wonder what they sounded like!)
Anyway, I've always been intrigued by the way that the songs on the first side are arranged so that the singles/album tracks are in dialogue with each other. (Robert Christgau's review refers to it as "self-contained pairs.") You have Place/Community ("Clash City Rockers"/"I'm So Bored Of the USA"), Race ("White Riot"/"White Man In Hammersmith Palais"), Lawlessness ("London's Burning"/"I Fought The Law") and, of course, whether Epic should have released "Remote Control" as a single ("Remote Control"/"Complete Control"). I especially always loved how the moment the song "Remote Control" ends, the next thing you hear is "They said, release 'Remote Control'..."
So, I'm curious -- did the band have anything to do with that sequencing? Or was it just some clever anonymous A&R guy at the U.S. label whose identity is lost to time forever?
Who was responsible for the sequencing of the U.S. version of The Clash? I grew up in the era of the pre-remastered CDs, so the US version is the one that I actually know and love. (Also, as a result, I was always desperate to hear the mysterious four songs from the UK version, but wasn't going to spend my scant $$ on the fancy Clash on Broadway box set, so in those pre-filesharing/youtube/spotify days, all I could do was wonder what they sounded like!)
Anyway, I've always been intrigued by the way that the songs on the first side are arranged so that the singles/album tracks are in dialogue with each other. (Robert Christgau's review refers to it as "self-contained pairs.") You have Place/Community ("Clash City Rockers"/"I'm So Bored Of the USA"), Race ("White Riot"/"White Man In Hammersmith Palais"), Lawlessness ("London's Burning"/"I Fought The Law") and, of course, whether Epic should have released "Remote Control" as a single ("Remote Control"/"Complete Control"). I especially always loved how the moment the song "Remote Control" ends, the next thing you hear is "They said, release 'Remote Control'..."
So, I'm curious -- did the band have anything to do with that sequencing? Or was it just some clever anonymous A&R guy at the U.S. label whose identity is lost to time forever?
- Heston
- God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
- Posts: 38370
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
- Location: North of Watford Junction
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
I can only imagine TeddyB might be able to give some real insight into this one. I suspect the band were in on it, they were utter control freaks.ejf1008 wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 7:23pmI don't know if this is common knowledge among Clash fans, or answered clearly in umpteen different band bios, but I tried googling to find the answer to this and came up with nothing:
Who was responsible for the sequencing of the U.S. version of The Clash? I grew up in the era of the pre-remastered CDs, so the US version is the one that I actually know and love. (Also, as a result, I was always desperate to hear the mysterious four songs from the UK version, but wasn't going to spend my scant $$ on the fancy Clash on Broadway box set, so in those pre-filesharing/youtube/spotify days, all I could do was wonder what they sounded like!)
Anyway, I've always been intrigued by the way that the songs on the first side are arranged so that the singles/album tracks are in dialogue with each other. (Robert Christgau's review refers to it as "self-contained pairs.") You have Place/Community ("Clash City Rockers"/"I'm So Bored Of the USA"), Race ("White Riot"/"White Man In Hammersmith Palais"), Lawlessness ("London's Burning"/"I Fought The Law") and, of course, whether Epic should have released "Remote Control" as a single ("Remote Control"/"Complete Control"). I especially always loved how the moment the song "Remote Control" ends, the next thing you hear is "They said, release 'Remote Control'..."
So, I'm curious -- did the band have anything to do with that sequencing? Or was it just some clever anonymous A&R guy at the U.S. label whose identity is lost to time forever?
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board
- TeddyB Not Logged In
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 8:42pm
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Yes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Thanks for the verification, Teddy. Also, I don't think I knew that Mick regrets including TIE.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
Good question Eric!
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.
- Flex
- Mechano-Man of the Future
- Posts: 35982
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:50pm
- Location: The Information Superhighway!
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Yeah, that's new. FWIW, I think more than anything it reflects very well on Mick that he allowed it on. I thought it was a very classy move at the time and I still think that.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a bowl of soup
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a rolling hoop
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle like a ton of lead
Wiggle - you can raise the dead
Pex Lives!
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Agreed, he clearly took the high road by allowing a mediocre song at best that he had no involvement with whatsoever to be included on it.
God, what a mess, on the ladder of success
Where you take one step and miss the whole first rung
Where you take one step and miss the whole first rung
-
Low Down Low
- Unknown Immortal
- Posts: 5025
- Joined: 21 Aug 2014, 9:08am
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Micks always come across as a classy guy to me so not really surprised by it. Intrigued that he'd regret it though, but I'm certain he has his reasons and would always respect that. On a personal level I think it is a fantastic song, really powerful Joe lyric so on that level, I'm happy enough it's there.Sparky wrote: ↑04 Aug 2021, 12:46pmAgreed, he clearly took the high road by allowing a mediocre song at best that he had no involvement with whatsoever to be included on it.
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Agreed. A good move by Mick
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
I'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 59038
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
The important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
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
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment, though I'd argue that distinction is baked into the UK/US terminology.Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 4:22amThe important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
I remember standing in the record store holding the UK album in one hand and the US edition in the other and trying to decide which to buy. Even though I could intuit that the UK version must have been the original as they were a UK band, I still went with the one that had White Man on it as I already knew and loved that song. I listened to that album to death and to this day its one of my all-time favorite records, whatever one wants to call it.
I love the snapshot it captures. Song-wise it's very similar to the Fall '77 setlists, where they're still wielding the raw power of the debut album material while really branching out with the new singles. It's a perfect storm, capturing the peak of their repertoire right before they ebbed a bit with the GEER material, which was overall less visceral than the debut songs and less experimental than the singles that preceded it. Just in my opinion, of course!
- motorsmell
- Junco Partner
- Posts: 478
- Joined: 08 Sep 2011, 7:59pm
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
I've got the Japanese pressing called Pearl harbor that has ( the same track list as the U.S press, I think). Rather than the usual OBI strip with Japanese info on they gave it an extra sleeve completely changing the art and title..Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 4:22amThe important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 59038
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Your opinion is correct of course and it's a fantastic listen. But you simply can't have "I Fought the Law" on the debut hence it will always be a compilation. Why in 1979 the US label felt "Deny" "Cheat" "48 Hours" and "Protex Blue" were not fit for US punk ears is beyond me.msza2 wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 9:41amYeah, I think that's a fair assessment, though I'd argue that distinction is baked into the UK/US terminology.Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 4:22amThe important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
I remember standing in the record store holding the UK album in one hand and the US edition in the other and trying to decide which to buy. Even though I could intuit that the UK version must have been the original as they were a UK band, I still went with the one that had White Man on it as I already knew and loved that song. I listened to that album to death and to this day its one of my all-time favorite records, whatever one wants to call it.
I love the snapshot it captures. Song-wise it's very similar to the Fall '77 setlists, where they're still wielding the raw power of the debut album material while really branching out with the new singles. It's a perfect storm, capturing the peak of their repertoire right before they ebbed a bit with the GEER material, which was overall less visceral than the debut songs and less experimental than the singles that preceded it. Just in my opinion, of course!
Loads of rougher sounding punk rock released by then. The truth has to be they knew a compilation would sell way more. But why make fans pay for expensive imports when they could've just as easy released it and a second comp of A's and B's.
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
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 59038
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
Yes I have that with the extra outer sleeve. Plus the 7" of Gates of the West/Groovy Times.motorsmell wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 12:24pmI've got the Japanese pressing called Pearl harbor that has ( the same track list as the U.S press, I think). Rather than the usual OBI strip with Japanese info on they gave it an extra sleeve completely changing the art and title..Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 4:22amThe important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
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
Re: Sequencing of US Debut
The extra outer sleeve is actually the obi for the album.Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 3:02pmYes I have that with the extra outer sleeve. Plus the 7" of Gates of the West/Groovy Times.motorsmell wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 12:24pmI've got the Japanese pressing called Pearl harbor that has ( the same track list as the U.S press, I think). Rather than the usual OBI strip with Japanese info on they gave it an extra sleeve completely changing the art and title..Marky Dread wrote: ↑03 Oct 2022, 4:22amThe important thing to remember is it's not a debut album it's a compilation. In my opinion this album should've had a different title and packaging.msza2 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 10:46amI'm listening to the US s/t this morning and went hunting for this thread.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑03 Aug 2021, 10:56pmYes, the group sequenced the US version. Hes is right, they would never have let anyone else do it. In fact, they have sequenced every release, all the official compilations, even the Singles collection where Mick agreed to include This is England, which he regrets.
We've solved the sequencing question but I'm curious Teddy if you or anyone else may know the circumstances behind track selection of the US version. Did the band also have "complete control" over which songs were dropped from the original and which singles were added?
If so then it seems to imply that they weren't in favor of releasing it in the States in it's original configuration. At first that seems a bit surprising as the most famous example of reconfigured US versions of UK albums comes from the Beatles's early catalogue and they supposedly hated that the original albums were altered for the US.
I can see a scenario, though, in which the label tells the Clash that they have finally come to their senses and decided to release the debut in the States, and then the band, in keeping with their value-for-money ethos, says, "well a lot of people have bought it as an import already so we'll add some newer material." Then again they could have just preferred the newer songs and/or dropped the songs from the album that they had already dropped from their live repertoire.
But then it makes me wonder why they wouldn't have thrown on other songs like the Prison, City of the Dead, and Capital Radio. So many questions!
Joining the Street Parade