Guest allsystemsfail Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 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' date=' 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']Only Strummer was a member of The 101ers, and then wasn't aware of punk. He saw the Pistols, and his life was changed forever. His politics? I don't know. The Ruts? I'm with you there. Those guys were way better than The Clash. The real deal.I gotta say that I was never big on The Clash. Sure, their debut was pretty cool. Give 'em Enough Rope too. But London Calling? I thought it was awful. And don't even get me started on Combat Rock. Way overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmd040 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 If it were up to me, I'd bin the lot and induct Wire. So influential it's really quite scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Mel 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']i think rollins just manages to be a very successful punk act without following the rules of punk so closely as you seem to think every punk should. he's also a very intelligent guy with an appreciation for a wide spectrum of music and that's why i think his opinion was so valued for this series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I never liked Queen except for the Queen II album which I love, but what I can't understand is that they were never dumped on like other pomp rock bands of the era...what made them immune? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I never liked Queen except for the Queen II album which I love' date=' but what I can't understand is that they were never dumped on like other pomp rock bands of the era...what made them immune?[/quote']Queen were a hugely innovative band with consumate musicians, and probably the best showman and vocalist that the UK's ever produced, I think it was the live show that made the difference as to their perception. They were never the greatest songwriters, ut they did have some gems, they wrote good, commercial rock, but they were phenomenal live. I've been lucky enough to see Brian and Roger play several times since Feddie died and they've always been a touch above just about everyone else I've ever seen.CheersStuart 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 rollins just manages to be a very successful punk act without following the rules of punk so closely as you seem to think every punk should. he's also a very intelligent guy with an appreciation for a wide spectrum of music and that's why i think his opinion was so valued for this series.Hey, I'm not for a moment criticising Rollins' musical output, and fully recognize his important contribution to punk/hardcore. The man's got my respect. Just thought his love of Queen and Led Zep kinda amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HARRY Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I never liked Queen except for the Queen II album which I love' date='[/quote']Same as you, except the only album I like is "Sheer Heart Attack" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I know they were amazing live and all that, but then so were Marillion, ELP and Genesis and yet they are less credible than B.A. Robertson these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester1470 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 I know they were amazing live and all that' date=' but then so were Marillion, ELP and Genesis and yet they are less credible than B.A. Robertson these days.[/quote']I think its to do with the genre of music as well, Queen moved into a more mainstream market and they also broke the states in a way that neither Marillion or early Genesis did. Queen's songs were also a lot more accessible than any of the bands mentioned, at least until Genesis went pop in the 80's. Queen also have the benefit of Bohemian Rhapsody that changed everything for music video production and was such a huge hit. Genesis are not so credible primarily because they changed so dramatically from a prog group into a pop group and Phil's solo career is more than patchy, whereas Queen never had that they were consistantly strong throughout their career.CheersStuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmygoodein Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 all of them. but pink floyd mostly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pop-notmyface Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 don't be silly... there were no great bands in the 70's. disco ruled at that time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Got to be the Clash for me. Wouldn't argue with Led Zeppelin though. In my opinion, The Clash were far better than the Pistols, but thats not for everyone. Maybe i just 'don't get it' as i'm always being told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flossie T Sheep Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Only Strummer was a member of The 101ers' date=' and then wasn't aware of punk. He saw the Pistols, and his life was changed forever. His politics? I don't know. The Ruts? I'm with you there. Those guys were way better than The Clash. The real deal.I gotta say that I was never big on The Clash. Sure, their debut was pretty cool. Give 'em Enough Rope too. But London Calling? I thought it was awful. And don't even get me started on Combat Rock. Way overrated.[/quote']Strummer was a member of the 101ers yeah and Mick Jones and Paul Simonon were members of a band called The London S.S, who were playing the same kind of glam rock stuff that the likes of T.Rex were playing back then, these bands of their's had been going for about a year before the Pistols hit the London music scene in 1976i think the difference between the Pistols and the Clash is that the Pistols were a natural punk band, they just came out of nowhere and then suddenly everyone wanted to be like them or do the same kind of thing as them, sure The Clash had better musicians in their numbers but that was supposed to mean fuck all back in those days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouse Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Fucking idiots, where the hell is Rush, Thin Lizzy, Boston, Kansas, Steely Dan, Black Sabbath etc?! (I only read to page 2 if some people metioned them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NARC Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Does anyone get the feeling a huge mistake was made when it was decided that groups should be voted on by era? It's getting increasingly more ludicrous (woah' date=' bad grammar) as the weeks go on. Blur, but no Elvis Costello. RHCP but no T. Rex. The 60's is going to be impossible to call. How do you choose between Dylan, The Who and the Stones? Not to mention Spector (if he's in), the Supremes, Cream and The Velvet Underground. Would any of the acts from the previously announced lists have existed without them?[/quote']you're absolutely right, as most bands in this thing overlap into the next decade, but I suppose what can you do? you cant really do it by genre as there would be even more debate. Also, people will disagree over what era of a bands lifespan is best, for example I much prefer 1980 Cure to 1990 Cure - its a difficult decision. There should just be a vote for the Top 50, be much more democratic and give people the choice to choose bands that arent "nominated" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HARRY Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Fucking idiots' date=' where the hell is Rush, Thin Lizzy, Boston, Kansas, Steely Dan, Black Sabbath etc?! (I only read to page 2 if some people metioned them)[/quote']I was actually surprised there weren't any metal acts 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.