Confessions of a ex-Clash fan
See Gnolls
I haven't listened to the Clash in a long time. When a Clash song comes on
the radio, I change the channel. When I see an article on them in a
magazine, I look at it, but never buy it. What happened? Did I learn too
much about them? Did I realize that the Clash was just a load of shit,
just an empty rock and roll myth? Or did I just get tired of waiting for
them to ever vindicate their past failures?
I wasted way too much time obsessing on the Clash, like they were some
great tragic heroes who were too good for Rock and Roll. But they aren't.
They were just a bunch of really dumb pub rockers who got lucky when they
allowed themselves to be packaged by Bernie Rhodes. The great rock and
roll songs they did write were written on instinct and fannish enthusiasm,
and the garbage they put out (Combat Rock, Cut the crap) was written when
they started thinking about what they were doing. After years of trying to
figure out the secret of the Clash, I realized their secret was their
stupidity. The Clash got to the point most bands can only dream about, and
they blew it.
But they blew it for a very important reason, because they are not
smart and they know it. I read a stack of articles on the Clash awhile ago
and I realized that they could not speak in a coherent fashion. Mick
Jagger, John Lennon, Ray Davies, Sting, Michael Stipe, Brian Eno and Pete
Towhshend are all very articulate men, possesing serious intellectual
capability. Joe Strummer is not articulate and is not an intellectual.
Which is no shame in and of itself, Joe to me is like the loveable drunken
Irish guy who mangles the English language but has a big heart and a keen
sense of humor. But to be a really big Rock star requires some kind of
intellect, and if not, a keen ambition. Joe is neither smart nor
ambitious. And neither is Mick and certainly not Paul. But in a way the
appeal of Joe's lyricism is it's appalling wrongness and the appeal of
Mick's music was it's fannish plagiarism. But that can only get you so
far. I think they had run out of ideas in 81, and their demise was
probably inevitable. The dreadful Combat Rock b-sides and the shitty
Futura 2000 and Janie Jones singles was the product of a band that no
longer was a viable creative unit.
The Clash's burden that crushed them was the whole mythology that they
were intellectual street fighters( have you ever seen the ludicrous "Punk"
cover with hthe Clash sporting machine guns?). Can you imagine any Clash
member in a fight, nevermind a serious debate? The Clash's image was a
lie, a lie which they should have shed after they sacked Bernie. They
should have presented themselves honestly, as lower middle class bedsit
Rock fans in macho drag. One thing the Clash had was a real sense of
humor, a virtue that was buried under the posing. The Clash took their
fiction so seriously, when the best way to carry it would have been a
self-mocking, ironic sense. It's interesting how British critics were
totally unimpressed with the Clash's imagery while American writers
swallowed it whole. But after London Calling the Clash played to the
Robert Christgaus of the world, when they should have played to their
fans.
For ten years after the Clash wimped out for good I was waiting for their
unexpected triumphal return. But no longer. The Pistols tour has showed
that no one cares about these old Punks anymore. The Clash may still one
day reunite, but I doubt anyone would care. Joe apparently is happy living
off his inheritance and Clash royalties, and Mick still holds out hope for
BAD. Well good luck to them all, their myth kept my mind occupied for a
good run. But it's over for me. I am an ex-Clash fan.
Geoff Lupton
See Gnolls (seeg...@aol.com) writes:
> I haven't listened to the Clash in a long time. When a Clash song comes on
> the radio, I change the channel. When I see an article on them in a
> magazine, I look at it, but never buy it. What happened? Did I learn too
> much about them? Did I realize that the Clash was just a load of shit,
> just an empty rock and roll myth? Or did I just get tired of waiting for
> them to ever vindicate their past failures?
Well, if you're like me, you just got bored of their self-indulgence,
which removed them further and further from their punk roots in the UK.
> I wasted way too much time obsessing on the Clash, like they were some
> great tragic heroes who were too good for Rock and Roll. But they aren't.
> They were just a bunch of really dumb pub rockers who got lucky when they
> allowed themselves to be packaged by Bernie Rhodes. The great rock and
> roll songs they did write were written on instinct and fannish enthusiasm,
> and the garbage they put out (Combat Rock, Cut the crap) was written when
> they started thinking about what they were doing. After years of trying to
> figure out the secret of the Clash, I realized their secret was their
> stupidity. The Clash got to the point most bands can only dream about, and
> they blew it.
Too true. The Clash started out as punk revolutionaries and ended as just
another "new wave" video pop band. How disappointing that evolution was.
> But they blew it for a very important reason, because they are not
> smart and they know it. I read a stack of articles on the Clash awhile ago
> and I realized that they could not speak in a coherent fashion. Mick
> Jagger, John Lennon, Ray Davies, Sting, Michael Stipe, Brian Eno and Pete
> Towhshend are all very articulate men, possesing serious intellectual
> capability. Joe Strummer is not articulate and is not an intellectual.
> Which is no shame in and of itself, Joe to me is like the loveable drunken
> Irish guy who mangles the English language but has a big heart and a keen
> sense of humor. But to be a really big Rock star requires some kind of
> intellect, and if not, a keen ambition. Joe is neither smart nor
> ambitious. And neither is Mick and certainly not Paul. But in a way the
> appeal of Joe's lyricism is it's appalling wrongness and the appeal of
> Mick's music was it's fannish plagiarism. But that can only get you so
> far. I think they had run out of ideas in 81, and their demise was
> probably inevitable. The dreadful Combat Rock b-sides and the shitty
> Futura 2000 and Janie Jones singles was the product of a band that no
> longer was a viable creative unit.
I would argue that "Sandanista!" was the nadir of the Clash. However, even
by "London Calling" in '79, they had already abandoned their punk roots.
The only relevant punk Clash albums were their first two.
> The Clash's burden that crushed them was the whole mythology that they
> were intellectual street fighters( have you ever seen the ludicrous "Punk"
> cover with hthe Clash sporting machine guns?). Can you imagine any Clash
> member in a fight, nevermind a serious debate? The Clash's image was a
> lie, a lie which they should have shed after they sacked Bernie. They
> should have presented themselves honestly, as lower middle class bedsit
> Rock fans in macho drag. One thing the Clash had was a real sense of
> humor, a virtue that was buried under the posing. The Clash took their
> fiction so seriously, when the best way to carry it would have been a
> self-mocking, ironic sense. It's interesting how British critics were
> totally unimpressed with the Clash's imagery while American writers
> swallowed it whole. But after London Calling the Clash played to the
> Robert Christgaus of the world, when they should have played to their
> fans.
I agree. The Clash were ultimately defeated by their own pretentiousness
and their tendency to actually believe their marketing strategies. When
America beckoned, The Clash's posture as pseudo-socialist poseurs sold
lots of albums stateside, where bored rock fans bought "revolution rock".
> For ten years after the Clash wimped out for good I was waiting for their
> unexpected triumphal return. But no longer. The Pistols tour has showed
> that no one cares about these old Punks anymore. The Clash may still one
> day reunite, but I doubt anyone would care. Joe apparently is happy living
> off his inheritance and Clash royalties, and Mick still holds out hope for
> BAD. Well good luck to them all, their myth kept my mind occupied for a
> good run. But it's over for me. I am an ex-Clash fan.
Your sentiments likely speak for many ex-fans like myself. I still have
their early stuff ('77-'78) but anything after that is irrelevant to me.
The Pistols' reunion is interesting but no longer revolutionary. A Clash
reunion, given their ridiculous reputation, would be both tragedy and farce.
--
Don't damn me
When I speak my piece of mind
Silence isn't golden
When I'm holding it inside - Guns N' Roses
Bradley Kimmel
On 15 Sep 1996, Geoff Lupton wrote:
[Annoying ramblings about The Clash and the "roots of punk" removed for
obvious reasons]
> The Pistols' reunion is interesting but no longer revolutionary. A Clash
> reunion, given their ridiculous reputation, would be both tragedy and farce.
> --
> Don't damn me
> When I speak my piece of mind
> Silence isn't golden
> When I'm holding it inside - Guns N' Roses
>
>
Guns N' Roses, on the other hand, were a truly important band. Sheesh.
Try posting to alt.music.cheesy-metal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Brad Kimmel bd...@acpub.duke.edu http://www.duke.edu/~bdk3 +
+ "Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think." -The Specials +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Smith
it seems to me that you expected too much of them. Apart from jo they
were just a bunch of kids having a good time, they were swept up and
swept away by it, that's the rock industry for you, there are few
intellectuals in it (well no more than in any other industry).
n
PS { :¬ )
u
Peter M. Gruhn
> good run. But it's over for me. I am an ex-Clash fan.
God, you're thick.
JT BCSound
In article <51fr25$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, seeg...@aol.com (See
Gnolls) writes:
> They
>should have presented themselves honestly, as lower middle class bedsit
>Rock fans in macho drag. One thing the Clash had was a real sense of
>humor, a virtue that was buried under the posing. The Clash took their
>fiction so seriously, when the best way to carry it would have been a
>self-mocking, ironic sense.
ie U2/Bono durring the ZooTV/Fly persona...
SteveSatch
I agree that this newsgroup isn't the most active. It was pretty cool
about a year or a year and a half ago. I have also been known to try to
stir things up a bit, but I know I'll always be a Clash fan.
Satch
Brad Casemore
jtbc...@aol.com (JT BCSound) wrote:
Are you sure he wasn't serious? He's probably the biggest megalomaniac
in rock today.
Bexley College
Sorry to destroy your dreams but every band has sold out, become
self-indulgent, etc, etc
Scurvy Dick
jim f.
>
>
Rock n Roll is about myth, not reality. As for Mick Jagger, Stipe, Eno
etc, being intellectuals...c'mon! If Joe's lyrics were "appallingly
wrong" and Mick's music just "fannish plagiarism", on what basis were
you a fan to begin with? I agree that the band finished badly,
terribly, and put out some mediocre stuff at the end....but I dont
think you can denigrate their whole career on that basis....
jim f
BUILDaFIRE
So, when can we expect Clash City Showdown #2?
John