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.
