Not punk.

Not even a good band. Ugh.
I'll let white riot and 1977 off but that's about it.

my two cents on this is yes I get where you are coming from, but all in all- yeah they can get the punk credit. Just as much as when you look back at Led Zepplin and can say they started heavy metal. For the music coming out at the time, there was noone out there that took all these influences and put a harder edge to it. But when you see what is punk these days, 20 years down the road we'll say the same thing again.

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)

So much of a label's meaning is derived from both the context of its use and the experience of the labeler that it's damn near impossible to settle such a debate. In fact, in this particular scenario, the Clash are pretty much interchangeable with the MC5, the Stooges, the Sonics or even - in the hands of the most skilled contrarian - the Beatles and/or Elvis. The best you can hope for is an agreement to disagree. To illustrate my point, I propose that Johnny Cash was far more punk than just about anybody mentioned so far. Further, he was so before such a thing a punk was even on the "scene" radar. What's punker than that? The Clash experimented with lots of different sounds and were largely just ahead of the curve in terms of what the next big thing was. While their s/t was released in the UK the same year as Bollocks, many more bands borrowed from the Clash than from the Sex Pistols, musically speaking and, for better or worse, much more of the Clash's contribution is evident in today's sounds than that of the Pistols'. London Calling incorporated musical styles and production values that other "punk" bands of the time wouldn't have touched. If your criteria is that punk goes against the grain of the times, you have a pretty solid argument for the punk-ness of the Clash. If your criteria has to do with clothes and attitude, that's an entirely different debate, I suppose but it would still be hard to make the argument that the Clash didn't, at least, give it a college try. Personally, - with the exception of Combat Rock - I like the Clash regardless of which categories they might fall into. Additionally, Joe Strummer's solo output serves as evidence that, musically, the Clash were, at the very least, musically capable and, at most, "the only band (punk or otherwise) that matters."

Side note: Generally, these types of arguments degenerate quickly into name calling and sanctimonious name-dropping. I'm new to this forum so it's nice to see some cogent and civilized discourse. Carry on.

WOW! AM i really Glad i stumbled onto this ix!! FOR YEARS i had wondered:"Did i miss SOMETHING??" when it came to these guys.. arriving at the conclusion that i DID NOT.. My "view" (views) ON them.. being EVEN MORE EXTREME than yours.. I bought A CLASH Album.. "ONCE".. The "Green One"!! ~didn't have it long enough to EVEN figger-out the title!! within a week or two.. i took that SUCKER back to the record merchant that i'd bought it from, begging him to:"BUY IT BACK" from me!! i was probably craving "SOMETHING.. LOUDER & FASTER!!"!! around this same time..buying a 7"ep. by a little known Band called:"ANTIDOTE"! &..another 7" Called: "DEAD ROCK 'N' ROLLERS"!!..which seemed to merge with & fit my sensibilities(??!!) ..at The time. Their So-Called POLITRICKS.. WERE Apparrently"LOST".. ON this youth... i have a 10" Of: "GIVE 'EM ENOUGH ROPE"..But Your Comments LEAVE me scratching my head as to: "Why the FUCK i have it??.. haven't given that ONE a spin.. in YEARS!!"...was it because Of The 10" factor?? and, i think, the 45 that came with The aforementioned:"Green Album" might still be floating around my place.. SOME WHERE.. The ONLY tune Of theirs.. that SOLICITES ANY kind Of response or reaction (and SUMS THEM UP Pretty well .. FOR ME) from me is: "Rock The Casbah" a band morphing, changing with the times.."Trying-Out alittle DISCO JOE??!", ..very VERY 80's!! I revisited "LONDON CALLING"..err i think it was.. some years back at the request Of a dearly appreciated musical friend & MUSE.. and don't EVEN REMEMBER my reaction!! ALL that tripe being said,... Its really and Obviously a "matter Of Opinion" man. do i consider THEM SO?? A LOUD & resounding "NO!" ..but Clearly I AM in The minority here.. Which is Alright by me! ME & ME RECORDS have SURVIVED "Quite Nicely".. without THEM.

Thanks, Elpollacko. i was gonna say that very thing. ELpollacko said:

richard holguin said:

punk is self expresion ,

Way to simple. Under that definition nearly everything is "punk" which it is clearly not.

ya know, I can 't say that i've heard a lot of clash punk. i heart punk i hear harmony?

This old chestnut !
Of course The Clash were and still are a Punk band.
They were there at the beginning when it happened in the UK.
Just because a band grows and changes musically doesn't cancel out who they are.
I've heard this argument so many times, by the so-called "Punk Police"
It always comes from someone who wasn't there when Punk happened.
I don't want to sound precious, but I bought their first album when it came out.
I'm a fan...and like any band they made some crap records, I won't deny that.
But when all is said and done...The Clash were a Punk band.
Cheers
Wig

whether or not the clash is punk is in the end irrelevant they were an amazing band hard working producing tons of great songs and giving generations to come the pleasure of rebellion against their parents or something else
remember in the stone roses first big interviews they said this is rave music & then like 5 or 6 years later ravers became xtc popping cokeheads that go to clubs & listen to a rhythm-mashine and call it music or just listen to what they call soul music or rhythm & blues today it makes me puke
yeah i think the ramones started it all wherever they went they left a trail of new bands but one of my all time favorites of british 77 era punk were the drones or what about the jam the first 2 albums were very punky before they got labeled mods
anyway i just got the dvd called unknown passage it's the dead moon story, now check this movie out and tell me why aren't they in the r'n'r hall of fame
love
tobi joi

Isn't PUNK the name the tough guys in prison called the little guys they fuck in the ass?? That's what I heard!

I know I'm taking this a bit further off topic, but I think Johnny Singles brings up a great point about the Sex Pistols being considered THE defining British punk band. I would take this a step further, and say they've been anointed as THE defining punk band period. And it's a bit nauseating. It's as if it's too difficult for the listening public, and music industry as a whole to actually listen to the music - but instead define the pioneering punk movement based solely on perception. You mentioned their Today Show appearance. I'd say that, along with the 60 Minutes piece done in the U.S., defined not only the band, but the entire punk rock scene to an unacquainted audience. Since then, I think there's been a bit of a backlash by the true music fans, such as yourself - annoyed that punk became this label, associated greatly with the Pistols, and upset about the lack of recognition for the other great punk acts of the era - most notably the Clash. And while I agree there are things to scoff at regarding the Sex Pistols - you mentioned both McLaren and Vicious (and the band was over once Matlock left, as far as I'm concerned). Also, it's annoying seeing the overly simplistic recognition place upon the Sex Pistols. However, the backlash against the Pistols by music fans is generally unwarranted, and is often not based on the music itself.
Btw - we all know that THE defining punk band is really the Ramones.

yeah i hear what you're saying ... but that's my point, i don't think you can categorize The Clash's sound.

the clash are punk, it is their attitude that was punk all the way from the way they looked to the way they sounded
did you know that the word punk was first used by a radio dj from texas in 1966 describing the standells sound?

This has got me thinking, which makes a change, so here is my 2p worth, rightly or wrongly, but just my opinion.

I remeber at the time that a lot of stuff that could not be classified nicely was labelled initially as punk, when in fact they were mainly pub bands jumping on the bandwagon at the time or idiots trying to cash in on a then new movement. Who can forget the anarchic Jilted John?

I kinda belive in the two waves of punk, firstly the likes of The Pistols, The Clash , The Damned et al were a new sound, as opposed to the mediocrity on the radio. Their roots totally in line with pure Rock & Roll. Listen to The Pistols "Spunk" album. They sound like a bloody good pub band but were in the right place right time, with the right attitude. The Clash were always being accused of wanting to be the Stones but they were far more deeper than that. As for the Damned, a bunch of nutters who did the right thing and got up and played, not caring who liked them. They brought fun back into music. The rebel attitude was pouring from these bands ala Brandos' character Johhny in The Wild Ones. It was this lot that changed and mapped out my life so I will always be grateful to them.

It took a while for the movement to settle down and then the split.

One portion, did sort of distance themsleves from the media circus that was punk, such as Joy Division, Killing Joke, Bauhaus, The Banshees and The Ants. The second wave of punk bands however, were as created in the main by the media, leathers, mohicans, glue, crazy colour hair and loud fast music. Nothing wrong with that, saw The Exploited, Actifed and Vice Squad loads of times, but I guess it was not really saying much.

To answer the question (finally) whilst The Clash were sincere and wanted to change the world, they did drift away from the punk ethos of the media but retained their intergrtiy by trying new stuff all the time. I woudl still rate The Clash as one of my all time top ten Albums. Top Ten punk album? Not so sure now I think of it.

Hope taht makes sens and was not too long winded.

Aaah, to be fair, hands up, I think you've got me there to a certain extent...

I'll admit that I'm probably guilty of the all too common failing of looking through my rose-tinted-clash-fan glasses and ignoring some of Joe's less admirable and contradictory characteristics; his socialist rhetoric vs. his actual money grubbing ways and so forth (but too be wholly fair who's never been caught in that trap? Dylan soon flung away his principals when Microsoft came a-calling).

It's no secret that the early days of London punk had no real agenda. Haircuts, tight trousers and posing took precedence over any coherent political ethos beyond angry sloganeering and god ol' fashioned unfocused teenage rebellion (and I've absolutely no problem with that...) and obviously everything about The Pistols fits perfectly in that mould. The fact that The Clash were one of the first to attach a slightly more articulate political message makes them a slightly more interesting listen for me personally, but I'll agree that this alone isn't enough to elevate them above any of their punk contemporaries. On pure musical chops though I still think that first Clash album has the edge over most. Don't get me wrong, I do rather like The Sex Pistols but I've always found them just a touch lacklustre in comparison to some other bands of that ilk, and their status as THE defining British punk band has always annoyed me somewhat (this is just my opinion based on the tunes, and I know I'm in the minority here...). The Pistols' stature seems founded more on their image and media outrage at the time (which was largely based on the 76 Today Show appearance which is just cringeworthy - with regards to both the band and Bill Grundy's behaviour) rather than their actual musical efforts.

I think possibly your giving Lydon a little too much credit there, for me his early antics have always smacked a little of teenage petulance rather than any considered subversive performance - and yes, that is very in keeping with those early punk ideals, but I just find it a little hollow.

It maybe sounds like I'm being a bit harsh on ol' Lydon and The Pistols, obviously Nevermind The Bollocks... deserves a place in the punk pantheon, just maybe not the top-spot, and hell, for his faults Lydon isn't nearly as vacuous as some we could mention (...cough - Sid Vicious - cough...)

Aaaanyway, seem to have got a little off topic here...

Interesting take Johnny Singles. We're on the same page regarding the first Clash album being supreme. I do disagree with your views on Strummer compared to Lydon though. I really do love the early Clash stuff, and Strummer is tremendous (I enjoy the 101ers quite a bit too). I think you're attaching way too much importance on the Clash (and Strummer) being "political" - as if that somehow elevates their importance as a punk band. It doesn't. All that matters is delivering the goods - which the Clash certainly do. Where I really find fault in your opinion is that Strummer is quite disingenuous. The immediate event that comes to mind is his spouting B.S. communist propaganda at the Us festival - while collecting (and later blowing) a healthy amount of cash from Steve Jobs. Lydon on the other had is completely captivating (and the Sex Pistols also deliver the goods musically - don't discredit them because of that clown McLaren). I have no idea where he stands on "issues", and that is part of what makes him so utterly fascinating. He's like the Andy Kauffman of rock-n-roll. He never gives you a wink, and lets you in on the joke.

I'd agree that the eponymous first LP is the only truly 'punk' of The Clash's albums but that's precisely why it's my favourite. For me White Riot is pretty much one of the quintessential 70s British punk tracks (far more so than Anarchy in The UK or any of The Sex Pistols' other offerings).

I'm always quite surprised when people knock the first Clash album, it's not exactly flawless but I do think it's by far one of the best albums of that ilk. I know the slightly remixed, slightly different US version is a little less frantic and a touch poorer than the UK version for some reason, but that really doesn't explain the degree to which it get criticised... Oh, I don't know...

I'd would agree that Joe wasn't exactly the most charismatic or overtly passionate of interviewees but I disagree that this somehow makes him disingenuous or not authentic as a punk figure, especially in comparison to Lydon. Yes, Lydon is/was more extraverted and full of 'angry young man' punk rhetoric in interviews, but then I've always found The Pistols as a whole to be a bit of a one trick pony and a more that a little all-mouth-and-no-trousers (after all this is a band constructed by McLaren with their image as the primary concern). For all his punk posturing and insipid social commentary Lydon's actual politics have always been somewhat lacking (this is of course a 53 year old man still flogging his punk credentials whist shilling butter for a living...)

Personally I think in both musical and political terms 'The Clash' is an archetypal British punk album, and surely punk album = punk band regardless of whatever style of band they might later transform into?

AL PLASTIC said:

Fierce Play said:

I completely agree. I get shit every time I bring this discussion up. Granted I love some of The Clash's tunes but there is something phony about strummer when he is being interviewed. I can't quite pin point it. But watch both The Ramones documentary ( End of the Century) and The Clash documentary (The Future is Unwritten) back to back and you might see what I mean.)

I AGREE! I was again disapointed by The Future Is Unwriten, I want to love this guy, but he seems totaly uninspired like boring musiscians or something. If you see The Filth and the Fury (the Sex Pistols Dir by Julien Temple) the difference is striking (Lydon seems honest and inspired, and suprisely more "social" than Strummer. Excuse my bad english.

I'm kinda with you on that one. I put it down to a bit of trendy west london self-concious cool. Include the politics and it puts The Clash somewhere between Bob Dylan and U2. That apart, I loved them at the time and they were boss live...

Fierce Play said:

I completely agree. I get shit every time I bring this discussion up. Granted I love some of The Clash's tunes but there is something phony about strummer when he is being interviewed. I can't quite pin point it. But watch both The Ramones documentary ( End of the Century) and The Clash documentary (The Future is Unwritten) back to back and you might see what I mean.)

I AGREE! I was again disapointed by The Future Is Unwriten, I want to love this guy, but he seems totaly uninspired like boring musiscians or something. If you see The Filth and the Fury (the Sex Pistols Dir by Julien Temple) the difference is striking (Lydon seems honest and inspired, and suprisely more "social" than Strummer. Excuse my bad english.

Blaine said:

Who cares.

Well you read this shit... ;)

Lord Muck!! said:

I lived thru the punk thing in the UK and in my view The Clash were punk. Punk in itself didn't last that long, but punks of that time did. What they created could be described any way you like. The fact is that the people involved in the early British punk movement were creative, active, making statements, energetic and kicking out the crap. The fact that they flew off in different directions is a testament to how great the movement was at the time; the fact that these bands were not tied down to a narrow idea of what punk should be is all to their credit. The bands that followed that called themselves punk (the little brothers' bands), and any other band that reckons to play punk rock since, can't hold a candle to the people in this early movement in UK and other scenes round the world. So the question of whether The Clash are punk is irrelevant really, whether their later albums were punk is also. Punk was about a lot more than music, it was a revolution. These recent bands that think they're making punk rock are about as punk as my arse.

Not Punk?Punk?Arse?Ass?....Let's call the whole thing off!

Who cares.

I lived thru the punk thing in the UK and in my view The Clash were punk. Punk in itself didn't last that long, but punks of that time did. What they created could be described any way you like. The fact is that the people involved in the early British punk movement were creative, active, making statements, energetic and kicking out the crap. The fact that they flew off in different directions is a testament to how great the movement was at the time; the fact that these bands were not tied down to a narrow idea of what punk should be is all to their credit. The bands that followed that called themselves punk (the little brothers' bands), and any other band that reckons to play punk rock since, can't hold a candle to the people in this early movement in UK and other scenes round the world. So the question of whether The Clash are punk is irrelevant really, whether their later albums were punk is also. Punk was about a lot more than music, it was a revolution. These recent bands that think they're making punk rock are about as punk as my arse.

I agree and disagree with ixnayray: I'd certainly categorize "The Clash" as the band's ONLY punk album, although I still love that album. I also like "London Calling" and --dare I say it-- "Combat Rock". But I'm going to like what I like, whether it is labeled "punk" or not, so what difference does it make?

Well said GAS-HOUSE GORILLA - i see your point. Hey, i'm not a fan of GIVE 'EM ENOUGH ROPE and you are... and that's what makes the world go round. As for SANDINISTA - after listening to it many, MANY times I have narrowed the 38 tracks down to 23... and i think its a classic when i listen to it my way. They were a band that transcended the 70's punk genre, and they are one of my favorite bands of all time - so i hope no-one thinks i'm running them down, as i listen to them on a daily basis. It's just that it's the punk stuff that i don't like as much - and thats what got me thinking and made me start this whole discussion.