The Clash

[detlef]

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...25&start=25

 

Post #48 is where the person that owns more music that you, I, and two of our closest friends plus knows more about music than God determined that the Stones were a Folk music group....they don't qualify as a rock group.

 

Thought you got the memo on that.

Lost in some of his inane rants were some overlooked nuggets of truth that I think he got unfairly attacked for.

 

For starters, I do think the Beatles and The Stones morphed from Rock Bands into styles that could only be (poorly) defined as pop because it was nothing else. Hell, The Stones were practically disco by the late 70s. The Beatles were a genre unto themselves (which is why they may best end up in the catch-all of pop). I think "pop" gets a bad rap so people take umbrage to having such iconic bands labeled as such. But by the mid 60s the Beatles were really not a rock band and nor were the Stones by 77. Of course, this is not to say they didn't dip back into that genre from time to time.

 

He was also attacked for calling KISS mainstream pop rather than metal. I think this is absolutely true. They were nowhere near heavy enough to be metal. They were a precursor to the 80s hair bands who were also, rather incorrectly labeled as metal. I mean, was Poison really metal? I don't know, maybe there's degrees, but when I think metal, I think Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Anthrax, Sabbath, guys like that and I simply can't put them in the same category as Poison and other hair bands.

 

FWIW

[Ursa Majoris]

Lost in some of his inane rants were some overlooked nuggets of truth that I think he got unfairly attacked for.

 

For starters, I do think the Beatles and The Stones morphed from Rock Bands into styles that could only be (poorly) defined as pop because it was nothing else. Hell, The Stones were practically disco by the late 70s. The Beatles were a genre unto themselves (which is why they may best end up in the catch-all of pop). I think "pop" gets a bad rap so people take umbrage to having such iconic bands labeled as such. But by the mid 60s the Beatles were really not a rock band and nor were the Stones by 77. Of course, this is not to say they didn't dip back into that genre from time to time.

 

He was also attacked for calling KISS mainstream pop rather than metal. I think this is absolutely true. They were nowhere near heavy enough to be metal. They were a precursor to the 80s hair bands who were also, rather incorrectly labeled as metal. I mean, was Poison really metal? I don't know, maybe there's degrees, but when I think metal, I think Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Anthrax, Sabbath, guys like that and I simply can't put them in the same category as Poison and other hair bands.

 

FWIW

All this presumes that it is necessary to classify music in neat little boxes but personally I think that's a total waste of time.

[detlef]

All this presumes that it is necessary to classify music in neat little boxes but personally I think that's a total waste of time.

Fair enough but that goes for both sides of the argument that came up in that thread.

[Ursa Majoris]

Fair enough but that goes for both sides of the argument that came up in that thread.

Correct. Who really cares what classification Kiss have other than crap?

[Scooby's Hubby]

where is this thread?

he is referring to the remark I made when explaining that the Stones are whatever type of music that is hot. Yes they play good music and they have been doing it longer than anyone; my point was that when the british invasion began (early 60's)they were just that b/c that was selling, when blues took over (late 60's early 70's) they did that, when disco got hot (mid-late 70's)they did that, the only thing they didn't do was be a hair band (although they did make some pretty crappy albums during the hair band era). Hell, they were even publically traded as a corporation at one time. That is not jsut a rock band, that is a company concerned with profits. Jagger is surrounded by excellent musicians and I really like thier albums from the 70's so please do not think I am hating on the Stones. But I will say that if there was no money in music then they would not be playing music. They are all about the money.

 

What a drag it is getting old ... ( I hear every mother say) - Mother's Little Helper

[Scooby's Hubby]

All this presumes that it is necessary to classify music in neat little boxes but personally I think that's a total waste of time.

And I could not agree with you more ...

[whomper]

They aren't punk, especially if you ask a hardcore punk fan. They were actually despised in that scene and considered a bunch of sellouts. To me they were just a good pop-rock band.

 

 

Leave Green day out of this

[Azazello1313]

As far as the sellout thing goes, that could apply to any band that develops musically as The Clash did - the early fans always feel "betrayed", whatever that means.

 

kinda like the morons who booed bob dylan when he stared playing with the band. GOMZ electric guitars! SEEELLL OUT!

 

as far as punk "purity", I dunno, probably my favorite "punk" band of all is the ramones, and they stayed pretty true to the original formula. but the clash just got better as they expanded their sound. and to be honest, I might like some of the stuff from big audio dynamite and public image, ltd more than the sex pistols and early clash.

[Ursa Majoris]

kinda like the morons who booed bob dylan when he stared playing with the band. GOMZ electric guitars! SEEELLL OUT!

 

Exactly. Excellent example. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people very disappointed with Led Zeppelin's third album too.

 

as far as punk "purity", I dunno, probably my favorite "punk" band of all is the ramones, and they stayed pretty true to the original formula. but the clash just got better as they expanded their sound. and to be honest, I might like some of the stuff from big audio dynamite and public image, ltd more than the sex pistols and early clash.

 

This whole "purity" thing is just silly. Some people want a band to stay stuck in a single rut and no artist worth a crap does that in any artistic field. I'm a hugh fan of The Clash's first (entirely punk plus a couple of most excellent reggae tracks) but their later stuff is just as compelling, merely different. There are other bands that developed as they went along that I didn't really like much any more but that's a matter of personal taste, not some ridiculous "purity" stand.

[detlef]

All this presumes that it is necessary to classify music in neat little boxes but personally I think that's a total waste of time.

 

 

And I could not agree with you more ...

 

So, why'd ya do it?

 

It kinda goes like this... Just a few samples of groups that I believe fall into these categories

 

Folk - Bob Dylan, CSN, Joan Baez

Mainstream beat 60's (and the girls all scream) - Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones

Blues Rock/Mainstream - Led Zepplin, Stones

Southern Rock - Lynard Skynard

Country Soft Rock - Eagles

70's Mainstream ,Radio Rock - KISS, Foreigner, Styx, Boston, Blue Oyster Cult, Steve Miller Band, Foghat

Rock N Roll 70s - AC/DC , Van Halen, Queen, Aerosmith, Rush, Heart

Piano Radio - Elton John, Billy Joel

70's Heavy Metal - Sabbath, Motorhead, Priest

Punk - Ramones, Sex Pistols

80's Rock Mainstream - Def Lep, AC/DC, Aerosmith, Motley Crue

80's Heavy Metal - Metallica

Hair Bands - Poison, Motley Crue

90's Stoner Rock - Kyuss

90's Grunge Rock - Alice In Chains, Nirvana, Soundgarden

 

FWIW, I actually think it's sort of fun but mostly came to your defense because, if you're going to bother, I do think that you were rather on the money with your categories. However, you seemed rather hell bent on defining groups into genres for someone who seemingly thinks the idea is "a waste of time".

[detlef]

kinda like the morons who booed bob dylan when he stared playing with the band. GOMZ electric guitars! SEEELLL OUT!

 

as far as punk "purity", I dunno, probably my favorite "punk" band of all is the ramones, and they stayed pretty true to the original formula. but the clash just got better as they expanded their sound. and to be honest, I might like some of the stuff from big audio dynamite and public image, ltd more than the sex pistols and early clash.

That could have a lot to do with the fact that punk sort of gets old pretty quick. Once you're not 18 and angry, what the hell use is it? I go back and listen to nearly everything I've ever liked from time to time, but almost never my old punk. At a point, it becomes a novelty, like the Beegees. Someone sneaks a track into a mix, it's a funny little diversion, but if they actually put an album on, a few tracks in and you're thinking, "Are we going to listen to this whole freaking album?"

 

None the less, I get your point in general and have certainly enjoyed the evolution of a number of bands.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

The Clash

Give 'Em Enough Rope

London Calling

Black Market Clash (EP)

Sandanista

Combat Rock

 

If you exclude This Is England which was released after Mick Jones was booted from the band, you would be hard pressed to find many other bands that never released a stinker, and that had that much musical relevance, and growth. Still the best white reggae band I can think of. Still relevant, though waht we thought of as really tough music back then seems quite musical, and toe tapping today (dixit sex pistols, x-ray specs, ramones etc...)

[Furd]

kinda like the morons who booed bob dylan when he stared playing with the band. GOMZ electric guitars! SEEELLL OUT!

 

I remember this happening in the reverse for Husker Du. Bob Mould caught a lot of grief when he pulled out the acoustic guitar.

[Ursa Majoris]

That could have a lot to do with the fact that punk sort of gets old pretty quick. Once you're not 18 and angry, what the hell use is it?

I'm currently working my way through nearly 50 CDs containing 1,200 songs I taped off the radio between 1977 and mid-1981. A lot of it is extremely obscure punk / new wave, a lot is by bands that became well known then and later. To say it sounds fresh even today is understating it. Some of that has to do with having been there and strongly identifying with it at the right time.

 

Not all of us want to listen to Burt Bacharach just because we've reached the age where society thinks we should.

[detlef]

I'm currently working my way through nearly 50 CDs containing 1,200 songs I taped off the radio between 1977 and mid-1981. A lot of it is extremely obscure punk / new wave, a lot is by bands that became well known then and later. To say it sounds fresh even today is understating it. Some of that has to do with having been there and strongly identifying with it at the right time.

 

Not all of us want to listen to Burt Bacharach just because we've reached the age where society thinks we should.

Not a fan, btw.

 

Now, there's one thing to be taking a trip down memory lane, and yet another to actually session the stuff years later. Tell me in a month if City Baby's Revenge is still in the daily rotation.

Edited September 22, 2010 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Not a fan, btw.

 

yer boy elvis costello certainly is.

[Ursa Majoris]

Not a fan, btw.

 

Now, there's one thing to be taking a trip down memory lane, and yet another to actually session the stuff years later. Tell me in a month if City Baby's Revenge is still in the daily rotation.

What rotation?

[detlef]

yer boy elvis costello certainly is.

Yep, and I cringe when I hear him doing those songs. In fact, there are very few songs that he does of other people that I much like. Mostly because I think his biggest strength is song writing.

 

In fact, while we're talking about bands evolutions, as much as I love Elvis' stuff, all I ever listen to is prior to '86. Partly because that's when I first started moving on to other sounds, so when I came back to it, it's all I had. Partly because I've just had trouble getting into the other stuff. I don't much like Spike and there are only a few tracks of When I Was Cruel and Brutal Youth. I am not at all into his whole southern kick.

Edited September 22, 2010 by detlef

[detlef]

What rotation?

All GBH all day?

[Scooby's Hubby]

So, why'd ya do it?

 

 

 

FWIW, I actually think it's sort of fun but mostly came to your defense because, if you're going to bother, I do think that you were rather on the money with your categories. However, you seemed rather hell bent on defining groups into genres for someone who seemingly thinks the idea is "a waste of time".

I think that was kinda my point that there are so many facets of rock that there is almost no such thing as rock in general. and I just wanted to throw an example of each little type off the top of my head. anyone can make up a rock category b/c it is all ear and taste (eww).

 

personally, I like the one Bart Simpson created called "Crap Rock" wich would be all those albums made by posers that should have never been made.

[FWmaker]

meh

 

Never liked them.

 

Best memory of the Clash:

 

10/12/1981 at Shea Stadium - In center field general admission, SRO (obviously). Lineup was David Johanssen (post Animals, pre Buster Pointexter), The Clash, and The Who.

 

Some rude Punker kept trying to get in front of me during Clash portion. Onloaded on him and he was carried out. Afterwards, I was cheered on by those around me. He was such a d|ck. Awesome concert by the Who, btw!!!

[Kid Cid]

meh

 

Never liked them.

 

Best memory of the Clash:

 

10/12/1981 at Shea Stadium - In center field general admission, SRO (obviously). Lineup was David Johanssen (post Animals, pre Buster Pointexter), The Clash, and The Who.

 

Some rude Punker kept trying to get in front of me during Clash portion. Onloaded on him and he was carried out. Afterwards, I was cheered on by those around me. He was such a d|ck. Awesome concert by the Who, btw!!!

That was you? Unfreaking believable.

[Big F'n Dave]

London Calling