|
Unsung Forum » Cope vs. The Clash |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 02:29
|
||
Reading through Cope's review of the month I was really chuffed to read someone put into words what I've always felt about The Clash. I've never liked them, even though I've often felt on my own on this one. They've always struck me as humourless and overly earnest with a daft load of macho posturing and, at their worst, patronising. And anything that feels the need to declare itself as 'authentic' has always struck me as suspect. Protesting too much to be convincing. And the same goes for The Manic Street Preachers whose only difference is the willingness to use make-up. At last it's OK to say that The Clash say nothing to me about my life.
|
|||
Citizensmurf 1703 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 02:59
|
||
C'mon, it's four guys on one . . . even the puniest could do some damage with three of their buddies.
|
|||
zphage 3378 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 04:11
|
||
|
sANDY pEARLMAN'S production really did suck the life out of "Rope". I wish someone would remix it. Punk was a small world, built upon rock'n'roll's larger world. Strummer loved rockabilly, soul, reggae, r&b, jump, jazz, conjuncto, country, blues, etc, so it was only natural that the US would provide the larger canvas. They may have sold out punk, but in the process made some great rock'n'roll. If they had been sloppier and more obscure in their love and execution of the musics they would be lauded ala the Cramps, Mekons, etc. Any way the Clash left so Weller could be the big fish:)
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 06:22
|
||
Well I like the Clash but I don't see in them what most people see in them.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Dec 14, 2009, 15:56
Dec 14, 2009, 08:51
|
||
|
Lord Lucan wrote: They've always struck me as humourless and overly earnest with a daft load of macho posturing and, at their worst, patronising. And anything that feels the need to declare itself as 'authentic' has always struck me as suspect Well yes. That could apply to pretty much any British rock band that has ever got to a level of mass popularity having started as a Melody Maker / NME / Sounds favourite. When bands like The Clash and U2 get to be stadium big the authenticity thing is something they take on to try and prove they are not all about the box office. Radiohead did the same thing with their art rock gestures. Deliberately abandoning traditional uses of melody and pretending you are living in Memphis in '54 are just two sides of the same coin marked "guilt" and "denial". U2 did both! First after "Joshua Tree" and then again after "Achtung Baby". For "Sandinista" see "Rattle and Hum". You could possibly say the same thing about Springsteen's "Nebraska". I don't think The Clash are uniquely sinning in this respect but because they started out "on that revolution stuff" their success when it came was all the more offensive to the puritanical. And don't forget the backlash started with the critics not with the fans. The worst thing you can do in the eyes of a rock writer is change the story unless change *is* the story, like Bowie. The Clash are a myth now, a musical theme park, like Hendrix at Woodstock is a myth, like Zeppelin are a myth or Dylan in 66 is a myth. I would guess that the vast majority of people listening to them today and buying into their shtick were not even born in 1977. The really sad thing is when devout fans of rock bands say "never change" they really do mean it. Which is why as an art form Rock n Roll rarely escapes the infantile and why so many artists get caught in a loop of recreating the music that gave them their early successes over and over again. And which is of course also one reason why we love it so much. When Joni Mitchell said in response to an audience request "no one asked Van Gogh to paint The Starry Night again" she had a point while completely misunderstanding why most people go to Rock shows in the first place. Then again looking for artistic truth (whatever that is) or real insight in rock n roll (especially in something as plastic and dead-ended as Punk Rock) is a fairly pointless exercise. Needle in the proverbial haystack.
|
|||
|
Toni Torino 2299 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 09:00
|
||
I think they're a great pop band.
|
|||
|
Popel Vooje 5373 posts |
Edited Jul 09, 2015, 22:44
Dec 14, 2009, 09:01
|
||
Agreed. I always disliked them as well. Too po-faced and serious, which - given that Strummer was always a posho pretending to be a working class hero - is not a positive attribute. Plus, "Sandinista" bores the ass off me. There's never been any excuse for triple albums (awaits recriminations from angry Yes and ELP fans).
|
|||
|
wychburyman 951 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 09:29
|
||
|
[quote="Lord Lucan"] daft load of macho posturing quote] Hmmm, y'mean a bit like Black Sheep?
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Dec 14, 2009, 09:50
Dec 14, 2009, 09:49
|
||
|
wychburyman wrote: [quote="Lord Lucan"] daft load of macho posturing quote] Hmmm, y'mean a bit like Black Sheep? Nail. Head. Though can Rock n Roll be Rock n Roll without "daft macho posturing"? Without that it's a bit like Touch Rugby.
|
|||
Squid Tempest 8761 posts |
Dec 14, 2009, 09:51
|
||
|
I thought it was a bit odd, to be honest. Didn't JC call the busking tour the Joe Strummer Memorial tour or some such? Mind you, I certainly agree re Give 'em Enough Rope. A pretty lousy album. Then again, I have very fond memories of seeing them live at the Victoria Park RAR festival thing. One of the best gigs I've ever been to. Maybe they were much better live? I do like the first album though - very fond of it.
|
| Pages: 16 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| Unsung Forum Index | |
