Flossie T Sheep Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 All of the clash's albums (apart form cut the crap) are better than never mind the bollocks...Sandinista was a load of shit too and London Calling and Combat Rock are overratedThe Clash's first album is pretty good but too repetitive, they're like the punk rock Status Quo at times Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 speaking of the Quo - where were they? innovators of three chord boogie rock....also where were the wurzels, genesis and yes?i've not really watched the programme, what are they looking for? i mean its daft to put up a band like the pistols against the likes of bowie or pink floyd. are they looking for most talented artists (probably bowie from that lot) or an artist that had an influence on popular culture (definately the pistols)yours confusingly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Personally I loathe ABBA, sick of people being "ironic" and dancing to them when at the time everyone knew they were a joke. Totally up themselves too. Think The Clash are pretty overrated, for me its Bowie or Floyd for both being unique. Any track by them you play and you know its them and no one else before or since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would say The Clash. The Pistols may have created punk, but they also destroyed it. You just have to watch The Filth And The Fury to see that, like the guy who's sitting on a wall shouting "Piss, fuck, bollocks, Bill Grundy's a cunt" and the Amercian guy who goes "get the fuck outta here!" They made people think punk was just an excuse to say fuck, whereas the Clash were trying to say it was about challenging the status quo. The Pistols' songs said they were angry. The Clash's songs were saying they were angry, WHY they they were angry and what could be done about it. What was going on inside the band may have been a little bit contradictory to this, but it's what they were saying that is important.Never Mind The Bollocks is an amazing album if you do what it says on the cover. The Clash may have it's fair share of pish too (the UK version anyway), but when it's good, it's better than the Pistols stuff. And the stuff between the debut and Give Em Enough Rope is absolutely phenomenal. The Clash have their fair share of pish songs, but then they did release over 9 albums worth of material, so that was obviously going to happen.What it all comes down to, for me, is that while those neanderthal fools Oasis may claim that the Pistols were an influence on them, the Manics would name the Clash as their big influence. So I vote for the band who instigated intelligence rather than ignorance: The Clash.If not them then Led Zep, cos they created heavy metal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have to agree with the idea that the Pistols created but also destroyed Punk...Silly Thing?!?!But The Clash to me were just a good rock 'n' roll band, not much very punky about them, and yet some say they were the only true punk act...But I adore Oasis... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HummerOfIntenseEvil Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have to agree with the idea that the Pistols created but also destroyed Punk...Silly Thing?!?!But The Clash to me were just a good rock 'n' roll band' date=' not much very punky about them, and yet some say they were the only true punk act...But I adore Oasis...[/quote']Well the whole Grundy thing meant everyone thought punk was about being an anti-social little twat, and then you got all those arseholes who said to themselves "oh I'm going to be a punk cos it means I can shout swearwords at grannies and I'll look coooooool." Also it meant none of the bands could get gigs anywhere... pretty destructive in my eyes.As for The Clash, to be honest they're probably more of a reggae band if anything, but they were at their best when they were classed as punk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HARRY Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 no i was also reffering to queen and zeppelin(although not a fan' date=' i appreciate their influence). So why don't you like Clash or Sex Pistols?[/quote']I don't remember saying that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 New Wave was where it came together for me, The Passions, Pink Military, The Jam etc... Punk I found a patchy affair and a pretty much a dead end street as a genre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Elvis Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Stevie Wonder no contest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would say The Clash. The Pistols may have created punk' date=' but they also destroyed it. You just have to watch The Filth And The Fury to see that, like the guy who's sitting on a wall shouting "Piss, fuck, bollocks, Bill Grundy's a cunt" and the Amercian guy who goes "get the fuck outta here!" They made people think punk was just an excuse to say fuck, whereas the Clash were trying to say it was about challenging the status quo. The Pistols' songs said they were angry. The Clash's songs were saying they were angry, WHY they they were angry and what could be done about it. What was going on inside the band may have been a little bit contradictory to this, but it's what they were saying that is important.Never Mind The Bollocks is an amazing album if you do what it says on the cover. The Clash may have it's fair share of pish too (the UK version anyway), but when it's good, it's better than the Pistols stuff. And the stuff between the debut and Give Em Enough Rope is absolutely phenomenal. The Clash have their fair share of pish songs, but then they did release over 9 albums worth of material, so that was obviously going to happen.What it all comes down to, for me, is that while those neanderthal fools Oasis may claim that the Pistols were an influence on them, the Manics would name the Clash as their big influence. So I vote for the band who instigated intelligence rather than ignorance: The Clash.[/quote']i think your views sound like the mythologised stuff you read in books. The Sex Pistols didn't create punk, they hated the term "punk" and never called themselves a "punk band", they were the Sex Pistols, simple as that. the media defined the term "punk" with what they saw and defined an uniformed image from it which people bought into.The Bill Grundy thing wasn't about what you perceive it to be anyway, Bill Grundy was trying his best to ridicule them and devalue their music as a pile of shite, go and watch it again and listen to the questions he asks and the things he says, he was trying to be snide and smug and he got it thrown back in his face.The Sex Pistols were meant to destroy rock n roll because rock n roll was terrible at that time, music at that time was bloody awful and badly dressed, the Sex Pistols were meant to be the be-all and absolute fucking end-all of rock n rollMalcolm McLaren tried his best to create a band that would be like the "Bay City Rollers of outrage" and have a band that sweared and who played dreadfully and who would go to number 1 and sell millions of records because they were crap or awful or offensive but instead he got a band who played great, fast aggressive music and who inspired other people to start up their own bands and who spawned an entire new movement of musicians and artists from it so McLaren pretty much failed in his efforts to have a band like the one he fantasised about having, they left an indelible mark on music as a whole that i don't think The Clash could've if the Sex Pistols hadn't happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have to agree with the idea that the Pistols created but also destroyed Punk...Silly Thing?!?!Silly Thing was a Steve Jones and Paul Cook composition, it had nothing to do with the band as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camie Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 I would say The Clash. The Pistols may have created punk' date=' but they also destroyed it. You just have to watch The Filth And The Fury to see that, like the guy who's sitting on a wall shouting "Piss, fuck, bollocks, Bill Grundy's a cunt" and the Amercian guy who goes "get the fuck outta here!" They made people think punk was just an excuse to say fuck, whereas the Clash were trying to say it was about challenging the status quo. The Pistols' songs said they were angry. The Clash's songs were saying they were angry, WHY they they were angry and what could be done about it. What was going on inside the band may have been a little bit contradictory to this, but it's what they were saying that is important..[/quote']exactly what i was trying to say-in a confusing way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdman Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 If not them then Led Zep' date=' cos they created heavy metal.[/quote']hahahaha(not the opinion of Birdman) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 The Clash's songs were saying they were angry' date=' WHY they they were angry and what could be done about it. What was going on inside the band may have been a little bit contradictory to this, but it's what they were saying that is important.[/quote']let me ask you these questions - what were they angry about it?, why were they angry? and what did they sing in their songs that amounted to a solution to these so-called things making them angry?i don't mind The Clash but i fail to see this big mythologised political significance they were supposed to have, they were a decent band who played adequate rock n roll records but i think all that stuff about their anger that you're talking about was nothing more than a gimmick, they were just a pub rock band adopting a rebellious pose and waving some Marxist slogans about , nothing more nothing less.i think the only reason people cite The Clash as better is because their music is more easily accessible, i only saw them as cheap frauds, a bunch of middle class art school types trying to slum it as working class rockers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Android Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 let me ask you these questions - what were they angry about it?' date=' why were they angry? and what did they sing in their songs that amounted to a solution to these so-called things making them angry?i don't mind The Clash but i fail to see this big mythologised political significance they were supposed to have, they were a decent band who played adequate rock n roll records but i think all that stuff about their anger that you're talking about was nothing more than a gimmick, they were just a pub rock band adopting a rebellious pose and waving some Marxist slogans about , nothing more nothing less.i think the only reason people cite The Clash as better is because their music is more easily accessible, i only saw them as cheap frauds, a bunch of middle class art school types trying to slum it as working class rockers [/quote'] now you're just being silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 What was with Rollins heaping praise on both Queen and Led Zep? And just a couple of weeks ago he was digging The Spice Girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 now you're just being sillyyou obviously don't know very much about The Clash then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 What was with Rollins heaping praise on both Queen and Led Zep? And just a couple of weeks ago he was digging The Spice Girls.i think Henry Rollins is a person who doesn't take himself too seriously, his humour is more self-deprecating than you would probably think go see one of his comedy shows and you'll see for yourself, i saw him at an Edinburgh Festival show a few years back, he isn't the greatest stand-up comedian you'll ever see but he's got some pretty amusing stories from Rollins Band and Black Flag tours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 i think Henry Rollins is a person who doesn't take himself too seriously' date=' his humour is more self-deprecating than you would probably think go see one of his comedy shows and you'll see for yourself, i saw him at an Edinburgh Festival show a few years back, he isn't the greatest stand-up comedian you'll ever see but he's got some pretty amusing stories from Rollins Band and Black Flag tours[/quote']I caught one of his spoken word shows on C4 a few years ago. Just gotta say that I found his remarks regarding Queen and co pretty amusing, patricularly when you consider that punk sought to sweep away such acts. Anyway, I don't wanna get back in to that discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 i don't mind The Clash but i fail to see this big mythologised political significance they were supposed to have' date=' they were a decent band who played adequate rock n roll records but i think all that stuff about their anger that you're talking about was nothing more than a gimmick, they were just a pub rock band adopting a rebellious pose and waving some Marxist slogans about , nothing more nothing less.[/quote']And it was for this very reason that The Damned were so critical of The Clash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I caught one of his spoken word shows on C4 a few years ago. Just gotta say that I found his remarks regarding Queen and co pretty amusing' date=' patricularly when you consider that punk sought to sweep away such acts. Anyway, I don't wanna get back in to that discussion.[/quote']the thing that struck me most about Henry Rollins when i spoke to him after the show was that he's pretty small in height, he is an approachable bloke though, no airs or graces about him, was like talking to a mate almosta lot of punk acts back in the day were into artists like David Bowie and glam acts like Roxy Music though weren't they?, Steve Jones and Paul Cook were into Roxy Music in a big way i am sure and John Lydon was into bloody Hawkwind and Alice Cooper for god's sake!The Clash themselves were big fans of The Who as well apparently! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 a lot of punk acts back in the day were into artists like David Bowie and glam acts like Roxy Music though weren't they?The Clash themselves were big fans of The Who as well apparently!Indeed. They believed that folks such as Bowie and RM were producing still interesting and cutting edge music. However, a lotta once cool acts (such as the Stones and The Who) had lost their way - their music thought no longer vital. A lotta punks were disgusted too by the rock excess of folks such as ELP, Yes, and Led Zeppelin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Indeed. They believed that folks such as Bowie and RM were producing still interesting and cutting edge music. However' date=' a lotta once cool acts (such as the Stones and The Who) had lost their way - their music thought no longer vital. A lotta punks were disgusted too by the rock excess of folks such as ELP, Yes, and Led Zeppelin.[/quote']Punk came about in 1977 and Queen launched their first album in 1973 and probably hit their creative stride in 75-77 so to say that their music was no longer vital seems to be a contradiction. Queen were doing tracks like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'the prophets song' etc in 1975. They were a band who were rooted in the excesses it's true but they helped change the way music was perceived and along with Bowie brought huge showmanship. It was ratehr the fact thta if you paid to go to a show, you deserved a good show. I've never quite understood why thats excessive in itself. Rollins has pretty much always admitted to being a fan of Queen from what I remember, not sure about his prediliction for the Spice Girls though. My favouroite Queen/Sex Pistols story is one Rogetr Taylor told:"We were recording an album next door to the Sex Pistols, and one day Sid Vicious stumbled in and yelled at Freddie, 'Ullo, Fred, so you've really brought ballet to the masses then?' Freddie just turned around and said 'Ah, Mr. Ferocious. Well, we're trying our best, dear!'"I always thought Queen just did what they wanted to and never particularly cared about the media or what anyone thought, whichto me to a degree was what I always thought punk was about, people getting out and doing their own thing regardless of trends etc, the only time Queen ever went with trends was the terrible 'hot Space' album. CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Punk came about in 1977 and Queen launched their first album in 1973 and probably hit their creative stride in 75-77 so to say that their music was no longer vital seems to be a contradiction.I was talking about 60s acts who'd lost their way, but apologies if I didn't make myself very clear.Regarding Rollins' love of Queen, it just seems kinda srange to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 And it was for this very reason that The Damned were so critical of The Clash.i think the main reason some people are sceptical of The Clash is because of the band they were before they became The Clash - The 101'ers, they were playing some awful trad rock/50s style rhythm & blues music that teddyboys were into and then overnight they cut their hair, stuck some slogans on their shirts and started yabbering on about Marxism, i think thats why some people around that era were pissed off with them because they were perceived to be jumping on a bandwagon so to speak.i think the Ruts were probably more authentic with their politics than The Clash ever werei think another reason people disliked The Clash was because they seemed to view the whole thing as a competition and missed the point of it all, Strummer even said himself "we want to be bigger than the Sex Pistols" and it wasn't meant to be about being the most successful band or being bigger than anyone else, it was these big bloated rock dinosaur bands they were trying to destroy in the first place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.