Never mind.

/yeah, I know

I'm glad he's a good painter. There's still nothing interesting in this article, though.

I never was too fond of the Clash. Not only weren't they as good as the Pistols or the Ramones, they also weren't as good as the Buzzcocks or the Damned. Or the Banshees, or the Slits, or the Adverts.

But then, punk rock was half music half image, and the Clash were definitely great at constructing an image. Barely anybody knew or would have guessed Joe Strummer was an expensively-educated child of privilege. Or that the band all attended art school, apart from the jazz drummer they recruited later on.

MikoSquiz: I never was too fond of the Clash. Not only weren't they as good as the Pistols or the Ramones, they also weren't as good as the Buzzcocks or the Damned. Or the Banshees, or the Slits, or the Adverts.

But then, punk rock was half music half image, and the Clash were definitely great at constructing an image. Barely anybody knew or would have guessed Joe Strummer was an expensively-educated child of privilege. Or that the band all attended art school, apart from the jazz drummer they recruited later on.


Respectfully, I might suggest you go back and listen again.

I'll give you The Ramones as they are the greatest band of all time, and and the Pistols are singular, but the Clash were 10X the band as The Damned. I like "New Rose" as much as anybody, but they were really quite a silly outfit.

The Buzzcocks, despite a few fantastic singles, never rose to the Clash's level. The Slits weren't really even a band as much as performance art, and Siouxsie just a notch above that.

I like that you mention The Adverts, as I always felt they were the most underrated of the UK punk bands (along with Gen X). But you can't compare 4 or 5 great songs to the Clash's body of work.

But the Clash really came to define the movement, and were successful in staying true to the punk energy and principles and moving it in a new direction. Don't judge by Combat Rock -- go back and listen to London Calling from start to finish. It's absolutely astounding in every regard -- songwriting, performance, production, variations of style... There are reasons LC is often selected as the #1 LP of all time.

It's incredible.

No, they couldn't not keep up that level of output. It weakened with Combat Rock (by far their most successful) and they saw it falling apart so they broke up. It's tough to remember why, in retrospect, as punk rock is so fashionable and important now. But when they broke up, around 1986, there were few more ridiculous things you could be than an old school punk rocker.

Just my opinion. I am not saying you're wrong, just saying I disagree.

Paul Simonon says the Clash were a load of Pollocks

He's just still bitter about the split with Garfunkelel.

MikoSquiz,

The Clash were just as good as any of those bands that you compared them to, if not better in some of those cases.

At least for their early singles and first three albums, the music doesn't sound dated or come off as a product of its time. London Calling sounds as contemporary as anything out right now. Though I like Siouxsie and the Slits, those records will always have an 80's stamp on them.

With the exception of Combat Rock and Cut the Crap ( hey, most bands start to suck after 3 records, look at Zeppelin!), the Clash's records are timeless because they have great songwriting, smart production, and some of the most ferocious performances in the history of ever-lovin', mother-farking Rock and Roll.

/end drunken rant
//the Buzzcocks are kick-ass too for the same reasons as above

Stupid Guitar: MikoSquiz,

The Clash were just as good as any of those bands that you compared them to, if not better in some of those cases.

At least for their early singles and first three albums, the music doesn't sound dated or come off as a product of its time. London Calling sounds as contemporary as anything out right now. Though I like Siouxsie and the Slits, those records will always have an 80's stamp on them.

With the exception of Combat Rock and Cut the Crap ( hey, most bands start to suck after 3 records, look at Zeppelin!), the Clash's records are timeless because they have great songwriting, smart production, and some of the most ferocious performances in the history of ever-lovin', mother-farking Rock and Roll.

/end drunken rant
//the Buzzcocks are kick-ass too for the same reasons as above
Zeppeiln started sucking after their sixth album.

/Rudie can't fail

I read that as Paul Simon and was preparing to suggest he go DIAF. Never mind then.

MikoSquiz: I never was too fond of the Clash. Not only weren't they as good as the Pistols or the Ramones, they also weren't as good as the Buzzcocks or the Damned. Or the Banshees, or the Slits, or the Adverts.

But then, punk rock was half music half image, and the Clash were definitely great at constructing an image. Barely anybody knew or would have guessed Joe Strummer was an expensively-educated child of privilege. Or that the band all attended art school, apart from the jazz drummer they recruited later on.

I don't spend any time listening to the Clash, either, but I don't think they were a bad band. I think a lot of what hurts them is HORRIBLE production values on their studio recordings.

Stutters.

filth: I think a lot of what hurts them is HORRIBLE production values on their studio recordings.

Really?

On what records per se?

filth:

You sure about that? Are you just listening to realmedia files or something?

Did I miss something (entirely possible; I just woke up), or were there no examples of his artwork to found in conjunction with that article?


MikoSquiz:

I never was too fond of the Clash. Not only weren't they as good as the Pistols or the Ramones, they also weren't as good as the Buzzcocks or the Damned. Or the Banshees, or the Slits, or the Adverts.

You didn't care for them particularly, fine. But "weren't as good as... The Slits"?

Oh I forgot to add... good headline subby! +1

/ as in never mind the pollocks
//pistols pun not clash but applicable nonetheless
/// pretty good to me but I am easy to amuse

shadowself: Paul Simonon says the Clash were a load of Pollocks

He's just still bitter about the split with Garfunkelel.

Well played, my friend.

Interesting read.

/The Clash rule

In what way were the Clash not a well produced band? Of the punk bands i think the Clash benefited the most for their highly produced songs and album arrangements. I am bias though they are my favorite (the only) band (that matters).

Gunny Highway: In what way were the Clash not a well produced band? Of the punk bands i think the Clash benefited the most for their highly produced songs and album arrangements. I am bias though they are my favorite (the only) band (that matters).

No, you are spot on, I think it was a troll. Kinda silly to argue otherwise.

I came here for Simon and Garfunkel jokes and wasn't disappointed

Clampdown is as good a punk song as any. True it's not thrashing hardcore, but it's a genuinely great song with hard, biting lyrics and a helluva guitar riff as good as any Pistols or Ramones song.

Anyway, if you don't like the Clash then you are probably just a f&*kin queer- who here don't think so?

Thanks subbie, I really enjoyed that.

Like many painters, Simonon has a passion for the sheer physicality of the job. For his Thames series, he carried his huge canvases up on to the roofs of various high buildings along the river and often had to rope them to railings to stop the wind carrying them off.

'I was on top of the Shell Mex building for weeks,' he laughs.

The Dynamite Monkey: filth: I think a lot of what hurts them is HORRIBLE production values on their studio recordings.

Really?

On what records per se?

I don't like the production on London Calling. I think I'd like the studio stuff better if it had more of a live feel.

filth: don't like the production on London Calling. I think I'd like the studio stuff better if it had more of a live feel.

Wow. I think LC is one of the best produced records of that decade... it's not supposed to sound like a live record.

to each his own, I guess