The Clash observations thread.

[Marky Dread]

Yeah, I definitely get that vibe as well.

I wonder if it's a weird thing where people who discover/love the band in their adolescence (which is where the most enduring band bonds are forged) see them as an teenage thing to be embarrassed about? Or something like that.

I guess it depends on what company you keep. My mates/friends are my age and aware of the importance of the band. My son loves the band and has shared stuff with friends from his age group and they have all come back positive. That said were they ever considered a "trendy" band.

Like they don’t have the cool nihilistic appeal the Sex Pistols have. Their logo isn’t as sexy as the Ramones. They’re not as a arty as Joy Division, blah blah blah. I think part of the reason why is they cared so much about their art, which is why they always appealed to me so much. Every single recording of there’s is played with such fury and passion that even the more laid back stuff on Sandanista, or some of their lesser B Side cuts have appeal. They had professionalism on par with the likes of classic rock dinosaurs, but with an incredibly pissed of veneer soaked in blood, piss, and vinegar. Another reason why a band like The Rolling Stones is so hard for me to get into. I understand the vibe now as I get older, but the laid back druggy blues man aura never had as much appeal to me. You’d have to correct me on this one Marky, but part of the reason the manics got shat on so much was their love for the Clash when everyone else was namechecking arty stuff like the Smiths and Slowdive right? It seems like especially post nirvana, giving a fuck was considered passé, at least in the states.

I'm obviously older than you and with my age group we grew up with The Clash. So the love I have for the band is eternal. They were not "just another band" their appeal was always positive and it was so much more than just pop music. Image/message/passion. You simply don't get that with The Smiths in the same way. Don't get me wrong I like The Smiths and I have everything they released. But The Clash had working class credentials that little guttersnipes like myself could understand. They were an out and out rock n roll band for people who wanted to go out not stay in your room worrying about your blackheads or whatever. Fuck that, with punk it was "hey look I've got blackheads so fucking what deal with it". Trendy to name drop who cares. The Clash had coolness in spades.

Hello,

Agreed with the above. I put a lot in to the "Only Band That Matters" slogan as well - especially given the time period and a lot of attitudes around back then. The Clash were confrontational when no one wanted to be confrontational. If there were no Clash, who would do songs such as they did? Who would have progressed as they did?

They never called themselves "the only band that mattered" and whomever coined that term was a moron. The Clash new the importance of those great rock n roll bands that came before and were massive fans.

[gkbill]

I guess it depends on what company you keep. My mates/friends are my age and aware of the importance of the band. My son loves the band and has shared stuff with friends from his age group and they have all come back positive. That said were they ever considered a "trendy" band.

Like they don’t have the cool nihilistic appeal the Sex Pistols have. Their logo isn’t as sexy as the Ramones. They’re not as a arty as Joy Division, blah blah blah. I think part of the reason why is they cared so much about their art, which is why they always appealed to me so much. Every single recording of there’s is played with such fury and passion that even the more laid back stuff on Sandanista, or some of their lesser B Side cuts have appeal. They had professionalism on par with the likes of classic rock dinosaurs, but with an incredibly pissed of veneer soaked in blood, piss, and vinegar. Another reason why a band like The Rolling Stones is so hard for me to get into. I understand the vibe now as I get older, but the laid back druggy blues man aura never had as much appeal to me. You’d have to correct me on this one Marky, but part of the reason the manics got shat on so much was their love for the Clash when everyone else was namechecking arty stuff like the Smiths and Slowdive right? It seems like especially post nirvana, giving a fuck was considered passé, at least in the states.

I'm obviously older than you and with my age group we grew up with The Clash. So the love I have for the band is eternal. They were not "just another band" their appeal was always positive and it was so much more than just pop music. Image/message/passion. You simply don't get that with The Smiths in the same way. Don't get me wrong I like The Smiths and I have everything they released. But The Clash had working class credentials that little guttersnipes like myself could understand. They were an out and out rock n roll band for people who wanted to go out not stay in your room worrying about your blackheads or whatever. Fuck that, with punk it was "hey look I've got blackheads so fucking what deal with it". Trendy to name drop who cares. The Clash had coolness in spades.

Hello,

Agreed with the above. I put a lot in to the "Only Band That Matters" slogan as well - especially given the time period and a lot of attitudes around back then. The Clash were confrontational when no one wanted to be confrontational. If there were no Clash, who would do songs such as they did? Who would have progressed as they did?

They never called themselves "the only band that mattered" and whomever coined that term was a moron. The Clash new the importance of those great rock n roll bands that came before and were massive fans.

Hello,

I liked the slogan. I always took it for if "so and so band" disappears, we can find another band just like them. I don't think you could do that with the Clash. That's not to say other bands weren't great but perhaps not as distinctive.

[Marky Dread]

Like they don’t have the cool nihilistic appeal the Sex Pistols have. Their logo isn’t as sexy as the Ramones. They’re not as a arty as Joy Division, blah blah blah. I think part of the reason why is they cared so much about their art, which is why they always appealed to me so much. Every single recording of there’s is played with such fury and passion that even the more laid back stuff on Sandanista, or some of their lesser B Side cuts have appeal. They had professionalism on par with the likes of classic rock dinosaurs, but with an incredibly pissed of veneer soaked in blood, piss, and vinegar. Another reason why a band like The Rolling Stones is so hard for me to get into. I understand the vibe now as I get older, but the laid back druggy blues man aura never had as much appeal to me. You’d have to correct me on this one Marky, but part of the reason the manics got shat on so much was their love for the Clash when everyone else was namechecking arty stuff like the Smiths and Slowdive right? It seems like especially post nirvana, giving a fuck was considered passé, at least in the states.

I'm obviously older than you and with my age group we grew up with The Clash. So the love I have for the band is eternal. They were not "just another band" their appeal was always positive and it was so much more than just pop music. Image/message/passion. You simply don't get that with The Smiths in the same way. Don't get me wrong I like The Smiths and I have everything they released. But The Clash had working class credentials that little guttersnipes like myself could understand. They were an out and out rock n roll band for people who wanted to go out not stay in your room worrying about your blackheads or whatever. Fuck that, with punk it was "hey look I've got blackheads so fucking what deal with it". Trendy to name drop who cares. The Clash had coolness in spades.

Hello,

Agreed with the above. I put a lot in to the "Only Band That Matters" slogan as well - especially given the time period and a lot of attitudes around back then. The Clash were confrontational when no one wanted to be confrontational. If there were no Clash, who would do songs such as they did? Who would have progressed as they did?

They never called themselves "the only band that mattered" and whomever coined that term was a moron. The Clash new the importance of those great rock n roll bands that came before and were massive fans.

Hello,

I liked the slogan. I always took it for if "so and so band" disappears, we can find another band just like them. I don't think you could do that with the Clash. That's not to say other bands weren't great but perhaps not as distinctive.

That statement comes across as arrogant and says hey were so great. But no band can be 100% great. The way The Clash were brave to try so many different styles on an album like Sandinista! and the way that some things worked and others no so was their greatness. The attitude that said "hey let's try this next" that's what made them special. Not being afraid to fail.

[Guest1]

Re: The Manics. Were they really like The Clash?

Early on they used the stencilled slogans on their clothes and offered a good line in polemics. But I always thought they were more like Generation X than The Clash. Their love of Guns 'n' Roses was the tell tell sign they were very different to The Clash.

I mean that would be like The Clash being fans of Queen by comparison. The Clash were total rock n roll fans and it showed big time. The Manics were that "rock" band with attitude that were not just another "drugs and groupies" type.

In terms of politics and intellect absolutely, although the manics also touched on things such as gender politics and androgyny and self harm that the Clash never fully delved into. I mean obviously a band can’t be a carbon copy but who would want that anyways and I would say they come a lot closer in spirit than any other group since. The Manics were definitely more into the snotty, glamorous side of rock stardom but they kind of did it tongue in cheek. The Clash are definitely more life affirming though. London Calling can instantly put me in a good mood regardless of what I’m going through, whereas the holy Bible makes me want to slash my wrists.

[Marky Dread]

Re: The Manics. Were they really like The Clash?

Early on they used the stencilled slogans on their clothes and offered a good line in polemics. But I always thought they were more like Generation X than The Clash. Their love of Guns 'n' Roses was the tell tell sign they were very different to The Clash.

I mean that would be like The Clash being fans of Queen by comparison. The Clash were total rock n roll fans and it showed big time. The Manics were that "rock" band with attitude that were not just another "drugs and groupies" type.

In terms of politics and intellect absolutely, although the manics also touched on things such as gender politics and androgyny and self harm that the Clash never fully delved into. I mean obviously a band can’t be a carbon copy but who would want that anyways and I would say they come a lot closer in spirit than any other group since. The Manics were definitely more into the snotty, glamorous side of rock stardom but they kind of did it tongue in cheek. The Clash are definitely more life affirming though. London Calling can instantly put me in a good mood regardless of what I’m going through, whereas the holy Bible makes me want to slash my wrists.

Both bands are great. I would say common ground would be intelligence and passion.

[Kory]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

[Marky Dread]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

Yes they are one of the classic bands. Punk was always musically a stepping stone to greater things. The attitude is what kept them attached to the punk tag.

[Guest1]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

Beatles and stones still get namechecked a lot though. I agree with you on being removed from punk. They’re almost stuck in this uneasy middle ground between the two. I think part of it also has to do with the fact that the band members have enough integrity and didn’t try posthumously milking the legacy of the band.

[Kory]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

Beatles and stones still get namechecked a lot though. I agree with you on being removed from punk. They’re almost stuck in this uneasy middle ground between the two. I think part of it also has to do with the fact that the band members have enough integrity and didn’t try posthumously milking the legacy of the band.

I guess it depends on what context we're talking about namechecking within. If we're talking about critics and writing, as Inder mentioned, then maybe. But I was just watching the new ep of Breeders last night and they named The Clash among a list of two other things that were deemed "cool," so that's an ultra-contemporary reference right there.

[Dr. Medulla]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

1970s punk has been ideologically defanged, from outsider music to insider. In so doing, it ended up proving McLaren right in his criticism that the music industry is all about selling false rebellion and extinguishing the real stuff. That you will predictably hear the Ramones at any sports event confirms that early punk has been co-opted.

[Marky Dread]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

1970s punk has been ideologically defanged, from outsider music to insider. In so doing, it ended up proving McLaren right in his criticism that the music industry is all about selling false rebellion and extinguishing the real stuff. That you will predictably hear the Ramones at any sports event confirms that early punk has been co-opted.

Oh yeah 100%. This has been this way for a very long time now. The messages if any have long since been diluted to the masses. Dress it up soften the rough edges and sell it on as long as there's a money making market for it.

But individually and politically personal changes will have staying power.

[Dr. Medulla]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

1970s punk has been ideologically defanged, from outsider music to insider. In so doing, it ended up proving McLaren right in his criticism that the music industry is all about selling false rebellion and extinguishing the real stuff. That you will predictably hear the Ramones at any sports event confirms that early punk has been co-opted.

Oh yeah 100%. This has been this way for a very long time now. The messages if any have long since been diluted to the masses. Dress it up soften the rough edges and sell it on as long as there's a money making market for it.

But individually and politically personal changes will have staying power.

There are very few sub-genres that have succeeded in being wholly unmarketable. Maybe not truly mainstream, but still packageable to a target audience. If punk thought it could escape that, it failed. But on the other hand it serves as a warning: you can't play ball with the music industry; subverting from within is a fantasy.

[Guest1]

I get the impression that the Clash have been raised up in to the Beatles/Stones/Who echelon of Greatest Bands of All Time, so namedropping them probably isn't as cool for the same reasons. They seem to have been removed from punk and moved to rock—almost establishment.

1970s punk has been ideologically defanged, from outsider music to insider. In so doing, it ended up proving McLaren right in his criticism that the music industry is all about selling false rebellion and extinguishing the real stuff. That you will predictably hear the Ramones at any sports event confirms that early punk has been co-opted.

Oh yeah 100%. This has been this way for a very long time now. The messages if any have long since been diluted to the masses. Dress it up soften the rough edges and sell it on as long as there's a money making market for it.

But individually and politically personal changes will have staying power.

There are very few sub-genres that have succeeded in being wholly unmarketable. Maybe not truly mainstream, but still packageable to a target audience. If punk thought it could escape that, it failed. But on the other hand it serves as a warning: you can't play ball with the music industry; subverting from within is a fantasy.

The funny thing about of punk was it was ideologically counter culture, but in many ways hyper accessible compared to the the overblown prog rock music that had plagued the better part of the decade. In many ways it kind of was a throwback to the Beatles/Kinks/Stones pop ethos of “the song comes first”.

[Guest1]

I’ll say it again, it still baffles me that the Ramones didn’t end up becoming the biggest band in the world. From the big apple, and writes razor sharp pop songs that could fit perfectly on any advert, and not hyper political like their contemporaries.

[Dr. Medulla]

I’ll say it again, it still baffles me that the Ramones didn’t end up becoming the biggest band in the world. From the big apple, and writes razor sharp pop songs that could fit perfectly on any advert, and not hyper political like their contemporaries.

Marketing marketing marketing. When a big label signs a band, the foremost concern is whether and how to market the band. And in the context of the 1970s and early 80s, the industry didn't know how to market them or most other punk bands. The chief virtue of signing them in the first place was that there was critical buzz and they were cheap to sign and record. So if they flopped, which most did (at least initially), no great loss.