First album. The rest is sometimes interesting rock. Actually the pre-1st album demos are probably closer to capturing their true sound, without CBS' conservatism taking some of the balls out of their recordings...

Great article. Thanks for that. Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Here's an interesting article on the subject of what kind of band they were

http://www.slate.com/id/2113829/

Here's an interesting article on the subject of what kind of band they were http://www.slate.com/id/2113829/

None of these comments are "off the mark", everyone is entitled to their opinion and this is what this chat is all about. I agree with you that The Clash were a rock & roll band, plain and simple.

I'm surprised how off the mark alot of these comments are, especially for people on a site like this...They were simply a fantastic rocknroll band, who climbed across genre's fearlessly...THEY didn't think of themselves as 'punk' & never wanted to be called that...'early punk' was rocknroll? All punk is rocknroll! Something 'phony' about Strummer, and you can't pin point it?! That's the phoniest thing ever! He gave all his money from the US festival to people in fucking East LA!...Sandinista! is in one (3) lp more than most bands have done in a career: documenting the real moment & weave through jazz, rock, dub, gospel, motown, soul (and more) all the while still maintaining their own sound and never pandering...to get off at the first bus stop (of music) & to only dig punk, is so unpunk!

i think lots of people like to say LONDON CALLING---because they cant stomach most of THE CLASH. As a band they were way intense and you had to have mroe patience to wade through an album...they were a revolutionary band, after all. Plus, London Calling is a pretty aweseom title--its like a call to arms,,,so its no surprise to me

The Clash are Alternative. They headlined the US Festival on New Wave Day. Should I Stay or Should I Go was to the 80s what Smells Like Teen Spirit was to the 90s.

I can't believe I made it to the end of this thread! The problem with this debate is that the terms are not defined, and in the case of punk, not definable. This is not a winnable argument for either side. For the term "punk" you may as well substitute some foreign word that none of us can define. We've all got our ideas about what it means based on our experience, and it is going to be different inside each of our heads. It makes sense for us to say they are/were punk to me. But that's it. My personal position with The Clash is that there is something different about them, even the radio hits, that made me want to find out more about them. I used to hear them on the radio and everytime they came on, I would wonder who it was, until I went and found them. They opened up most of the rest of the punk rock world to me. Love every record (excluding the unmentionable one). Some songs that don't sound very punk to me don't make them less of a punk band to me any more than the Villiage People's "Food Fight" song makes them a punk band. Billy

Reesenik said:

I think people are trying too hard to classify each records sound as punk or not. Sure London Calling is a "rock and roll" record by todays standards but so is Never Mind The Bullocks. I consider the Clash a punk band. I consider their records punk as well. The albums may not fit the stereotypes that have developed of what punk is now, but then? I think they were redefining punk in their time. I sometimes think people (myself included) get wrapped up in hardcore as true punk and occasionally dismiss anything lacking its aggressiveness. Just my two cents. X are considered one of the great punk bands and they don't fit the stereotypes either which suits me just fine. Great topic.

I think people are trying too hard to classify each records sound as punk or not. Sure London Calling is a "rock and roll" record by todays standards but so is Never Mind The Bullocks. I consider the Clash a punk band. I consider their records punk as well. The albums may not fit the stereotypes that have developed of what punk is now, but then? I think they were redefining punk in their time. I sometimes think people (myself included) get wrapped up in hardcore as true punk and occasionally dismiss anything lacking its aggressiveness. Just my two cents. X are considered one of the great punk bands and they don't fit the stereotypes either which suits me just fine. Great topic.

Thanks for the info. Never heard of the London SS but with a name like that, you can tell they're trying to be rebellious. Gas-House Gorilla said:

Yeah man, check 'em out. Well worth it in my opinion. Most of their stuff is compiled on "Elgin Avenue Breakdown". About a dozen tracks are studio cuts. They've got a good R&B/garage vibe. I'd say their sound is similar to Eddie & The Hot Rods.

How about the London SS? Anybody heard them? It's Mick Jones' first band (as well as a lot of other notable London punks). I understand there are some demo cuts out there, but I've never heard them. I'm curious if they're worth a listen.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Would anyone recommend searching for recordings by the 101ers, Joe Strummer's band before the Clash? I think most of them are live but they've been brought to my attention a few times.

Yeah man, check 'em out. Well worth it in my opinion. Most of their stuff is compiled on "Elgin Avenue Breakdown". About a dozen tracks are studio cuts. They've got a good R&B/garage vibe. I'd say their sound is similar to Eddie & The Hot Rods. How about the London SS? Anybody heard them? It's Mick Jones' first band (as well as a lot of other notable London punks). I understand there are some demo cuts out there, but I've never heard them. I'm curious if they're worth a listen. Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Would anyone recommend searching for recordings by the 101ers, Joe Strummer's band before the Clash? I think most of them are live but they've been brought to my attention a few times.

I think we can come back to this topic after we read all the letter sections in back issues of Maximum Rock and Roll. Gawd! Either this topic is really old or I am.

Then I propose a new question- What is Punk? Does it have to be leather jackets and mohawks? Is punk the same today as it was back in the 70's? I think it is interesting cause I don't think punk is this specific style... it is a way of thought....

white riot is only generic cause of all the hacks that copied it after Roo
At the time it was inspiring (it inspired Toronto punks to destroy 3 rows of seats in the O'Keefe center - now the Sony center for the performing arts) gotta be one of the dumbest venues I've seen a punk act in but it was fun. it's too easy too look back and judge music in terms of what has come since. frequently though what has come since exists because of what came before. I think up to London Calling the clash were stellar, Sandinista should have been a single album, not a triple but they were trying to get out of a shitty contract. I spent an afternoon drinking with joe on one trip through Toronto and we talked about how shitty a lot of us though Sandinista and combat rock were. He took it well but justified it in terms of being able to get out of the contract so they could have more freedom to do what they wanted.

Its not really harmoniezed rebellion would be more the word but i think your forgetting white riot (generic punk though it be) and clash city rocker i think could be classified as punk

FREDDI said:

I think they began as a punk band and became a good rock band,maybe their
political lyrics give them that rebel-with-a-cause attitude,
but overall they were a great rock band (Joe Strummer was a great Creedence C.R. fan,so he said)
able in mixing various styles of music as might have been the WHO,ROLLING STONES in past years,
or TALKING HEADS in another country (and some calls them punk too).
And as many great rock band they end in the crap..
And then,what means punk? It's a much larger use term,a word like rock,pop..
Is the one who read it that gives its intent. Not most of us..

Well, almost everybody who graced the stage of CBGB's between 1974 and 1980 was considered a punk band, but most of the bands never sounded alike. Television, Talking Heads, Blondie, Ramones, and Suicide really have nothing n common except being in the same scene at the same time.

Would anyone recommend searching for recordings by the 101ers, Joe Strummer's band before the Clash? I think most of them are live but they've been brought to my attention a few times.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said: Billy Childish also did a cover of "1977" with Thee Mighty Caesars that appeared on one of those DOPE GUNS AND FUCKING IN THE STREETS compilations on Amphetimine Reptile. Probably not a record label you'd enjoy but there was some decent stuff on the comp that they appeard on.
<. That is a great recording. I don't dig the Clash version so much but the childish version would obviously not exist without it. Best song on the whole DGaFitS album I think.

I think they began as a punk band and became a good rock band,maybe their
political lyrics give them that rebel-with-a-cause attitude,
but overall they were a great rock band (Joe Strummer was a great Creedence C.R. fan,so he said)
able in mixing various styles of music as might have been the WHO,ROLLING STONES in past years,
or TALKING HEADS in another country (and some calls them punk too).
And as many great rock band they end in the crap..
And then,what means punk? It's a much larger use term,a word like rock,pop..
Is the one who read it that gives its intent. Not most of us..

Hey, thanks Rod! Turns out I know at least a half dozen or more Clash songs without even realizing - or remembering it. I just performed my 1st ever internet (or otherwise) search on the Clash. I think I'll seek out those early recordings. I'm expanding my horizons! Rockin Rod Strychnine said: Billy Childish also did a cover of "1977" with Thee Mighty Caesars that appeared on one of those DOPE GUNS AND FUCKING IN THE STREETS compilations on Amphetimine Reptile. Probably not a record label you'd enjoy but there was some decent stuff on the comp that they appeard on. Maybe but maybe not, you'd probably like their first album whether the UK or US versions. The Clash do a decent version of Vince Taylor's "Brand New Cadillac" but it's stuck on the LONDON CALLING album,which I feel is kind of overrated.

Michael Kaiser said:

Now that you mention it, I recall Billy Childish referencing that song in an interview, so I guess I've heard of it by proxy. I also remembered that I have those Thee Stash recordings. So there's 4 more, I suppose.

One can gather what an impression the Clash has made on me. I think it must be due to despising that "Rock The Casbah" song so much in my youth that I figured it wasn't worth pursuing the band much further. Heck! for all I know they may be the greatest thing since Emmett Lord!

Strike my testimony from the record.

YOU GOT GOOD TASTE said:

What about ''I'm so bored of the USA' ?
Michael Kaiser said:

Besides "Rock The Casbah" and "Should I Stay..." I can't name one Clash song.

Billy Childish also did a cover of "1977" with Thee Mighty Caesars that appeared on one of those DOPE GUNS AND FUCKING IN THE STREETS compilations on Amphetimine Reptile. Probably not a record label you'd enjoy but there was some decent stuff on the comp that they appeard on. Maybe but maybe not, you'd probably like their first album whether the UK or US versions. The Clash do a decent version of Vince Taylor's "Brand New Cadillac" but it's stuck on the LONDON CALLING album,which I feel is kind of overrated.

Now that you mention it, I recall Billy Childish referencing that song in an interview, so I guess I've heard of it by proxy. I also remembered that I have those Thee Stash recordings. So there's 4 more, I suppose. One can gather what an impression the Clash has made on me. I think it must be due to despising that "Rock The Casbah" song so much in my youth that I figured it wasn't worth pursuing the band much further. Heck! for all I know they may be the greatest thing since Emmett Lord! Strike my testimony from the record. YOU GOT GOOD TASTE said:

What about ''I'm so bored of the USA' ?
Michael Kaiser said:

Besides "Rock The Casbah" and "Should I Stay..." I can't name one Clash song.

What about ''I'm so bored of the USA' ? Michael Kaiser said:

Besides "Rock The Casbah" and "Should I Stay..." I can't name one Clash song.

Besides "Rock The Casbah" and "Should I Stay..." I can't name one Clash song.

fast eddie said:

I have to agree with lord muck, they were most definitely punk. Punk at the time was more about the social revolution not just music. The press added the label not the artists. I'd rather listen to white riot than any pistols track, live it was an inspiration. If you can't call the clash punk you'd better rule out the ramones (who really wanted to be a surf band , just didn't have the chops to play it at the time), plus as Lord muck said they were great live
I have friends who's band in 76/77 hated the punk label and called themselves hoodlum rock, but they were probably the best of the Toronto punk bands (the ugly - good luck finding their stuff) If you look back now most of the stuff seems pretty tame in comparison, but if you were there it changed music and art for the better (not to mention the fact that a lot of what we listen to now would likely never have come about without the first wave kicking down the walls of mediocrity that had developed in the music scene)

Hoodlum rock:That's a great term. I mean think of it. That's what a lot of these sixties bands look like and bands like the Ramones and Dead Boys sound like...a bunch of hoods.