|
|
Post by Franklin on Jun 24, 2021 15:07:55 GMT
Steady on old chap. I was agreeing with the punk and reggae point and what he said about "the myth" and the anarcho scene.
My politics were not mentioned?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2021 15:12:10 GMT
Steady on old chap. I was agreeing with the punk and reggae point and what he said about "the myth" and the anarcho scene. My politics were not mentioned? That's right you didn't say anything.👍 |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 25, 2021 10:41:42 GMT
"The radical politics of the Clash is a myth." Never thought that "myth" existed and never thought they particularly pushed radical politics. Apart from some RAF faction nonsense in the Rude Boy movie, I can't remember it being on the agenda back then. The "RAR" stuff was hardly radical, most bands joined in to show solidarity between the punk and reggae movements back then and the Clash certainly embraced it more than most and were musically brave enough to embrace the other cultures musically. Only the Ruts did it better IMHO. Most of the bands that stayed "true" to the punk mythos just played white boy rock 'n' roll with safety pins attached. The "myth" is that many of the bands cared much beyond getting a label and some dosh and getting pissed and laid. Of course there were exceptions but they were largely in separate scenes like the anarcho movement which was far more about being politically motivated in causes like animal rights etc. doug61 telling it like it is Of course you can conflate the two. The Clash just weren't communicating and there is no evidence to suggest that they did anything about the racists. Steven Blush was an eye witness. Were you there? Besides, it wasn't you suffering the abuse as a black person. The radical politics of the Clash is a myth. You should read anything by Red Saunders whereby he states that the Clash only became involved in RAR because it was a perfect career opportunity for them and they didn't want to get left behind. You don't like The Clash. We get it. Never been too fussed if the music was great, posturing and being "true" to the genre is fine, but was too often limiting and led to many bands just stagnating and ending up on the modern "rebellion" cabaret circuit. Stagnation in music was what punk was fighting against from the beginning. Yes. I agree doug61 The more interesting bands realised punk was a creative dead end
"The more interesting bands realised punk was a creative dead end" I'm not sure it is necessarily a good or bad thing though, it's just about what a band has in mind from the start. Bands like Quo, Dire Straits, and millions more are happy to keep to a signature sound and hardly ever vary and their fans are more than happy to keep buying effectively the same album over and over again. i do it myself with certain bands who's sound I love. The Clash were at a point where America had opened up not just as an audience but as an experience (similar to U2 later) and they wanted to embrace everything. Somewhere along the line they would have settled down and sadly no doubt ended up as a stadium rock outfit, we were lucky that for a few years they did some belting tunes that have stayed the course. Somewhere along the line they became the whipping boys for the idea of "selling out" (whatever that means given the nature of the music business), no doubt due to the CBS deal and Crass lyric, when every band were happily selling out just as much without complaint. Maybe the real dislike was the fact that they were capable of moving beyond the scene and that people don't like success as it points out a lack of success elsewhere. The very nature of punk meant that the "punkest" album a band would do would be their debut (I'm sure there may be exceptions) and then you'd get the outtakes and quickly written stuff on the follow up and then the third which moved away from their original sound as the members started arguing about direction. I've slagged off the whole "Rebellion" scene at times and I really don't get the whole nostalgia circuit and the old men, listening to old men, getting away with some embarrassingly poorly under rehearsed performances whilst flogging overpriced t shirts, Is that really what Punk was meant to be about? Perhaps, even the fact that a "punk" message board exists discussing the 70's and 80's scene is somewhat depressing given the original aims and ideals of the movement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 10:48:05 GMT
Good post Doug.
The reason I don't like the Clash's later stuff is because I don't really like the music.
I hate the radical posturing of musicians too as it's just a brand.
Crass were the exception and knew when to call it a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 25, 2021 11:36:49 GMT
Good post Doug. The reason I don't like the Clash's later stuff is because I don't really like the music. I hate the radical posturing of musicians too as it's just a brand. Crass were the exception and knew when to call it a day. If you want rid of the posturing we need to ban anyone that's ever been to art school from being allowed in a band.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 11:41:30 GMT
doug61 telling it like it is You don't like The Clash. We get it. Yes. I agree doug61 The more interesting bands realised punk was a creative dead end
"The more interesting bands realised punk was a creative dead end" I'm not sure it is necessarily a good or bad thing though, it's just about what a band has in mind from the start. Bands like Quo, Dire Straits, and millions more are happy to keep to a signature sound and hardly ever vary and their fans are more than happy to keep buying effectively the same album over and over again. i do it myself with certain bands who's sound I love. The Clash were at a point where America had opened up not just as an audience but as an experience (similar to U2 later) and they wanted to embrace everything. Somewhere along the line they would have settled down and sadly no doubt ended up as a stadium rock outfit, we were lucky that for a few years they did some belting tunes that have stayed the course. Somewhere along the line they became the whipping boys for the idea of "selling out" (whatever that means given the nature of the music business), no doubt due to the CBS deal and Crass lyric, when every band were happily selling out just as much without complaint. Maybe the real dislike was the fact that they were capable of moving beyond the scene and that people don't like success as it points out a lack of success elsewhere. The very nature of punk meant that the "punkest" album a band would do would be their debut (I'm sure there may be exceptions) and then you'd get the outtakes and quickly written stuff on the follow up and then the third which moved away from their original sound as the members started arguing about direction. I've slagged off the whole "Rebellion" scene at times and I really don't get the whole nostalgia circuit and the old men, listening to old men, getting away with some embarrassingly poorly under rehearsed performances whilst flogging overpriced t shirts, Is that really what Punk was meant to be about? Perhaps, even the fact that a "punk" message board exists discussing the 70's and 80's scene is somewhat depressing given the original aims and ideals of the movement. Re the last paragraph. This question has been asked many times over the years on here(my 13th year believe or not) Why do we do this? A habit, good or bad?Some of us have been doing it so long we've forgot?Sad old bastards? What I comment on doesn't really reflect on the reality of my modern life as I left the punk scene when I was around 18. I still maintained an interest however over the years. Punk was and is essentially a youth movement and growing up in the late 70's and early 80's I didn't really have fuck all as a kid. Wouldn't change that for a minute though as that spark has lasted a lifetime. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 11:42:22 GMT
Good post Doug. The reason I don't like the Clash's later stuff is because I don't really like the music. I hate the radical posturing of musicians too as it's just a brand. Crass were the exception and knew when to call it a day. If you want rid of the posturing we need to ban anyone that's ever been to art school from being allowed in a band. True, all musicians do it to some degree. |
|
|
|
Post by zeopold on Jun 25, 2021 11:50:08 GMT
Crass turned The Clash's posturing up to 11 and slagged them off while they were at it |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 11:55:31 GMT
Crass turned The Clash's posturing up to 11 and slagged them off while they were at it All bands have a shelf life. For me the Clash were over and done with by 79. If people get enjoyment out of the later stuff that's up to them. It wasn't really punk and if it was a choice between listening to Discharge and Combat Rock then it was the former for me especially after seeing Discharge live in 81. It's all just down to personal taste. I didn't wake up one day and think the Clash were a pariah. |
|
|
|
Post by andyloneshark on Jun 25, 2021 14:00:11 GMT
With the benefit of hindsight i'd say the thing i've learnt over the long haul, is not to believe any band no matter how idealistic they once were, has all the answers and has the right to be a puritan and throw stones at some other band/Artist
CRASS and Jello Biafra dissed The Clash for being only "in it for the money" ended up in court or threatening legal action, arguing between ex band members about money and the re-release of their 'product' ...and Discharge may have been in the vanguard of UK Punk in 1981, but only five years later they were a truly appalling Heavy Metal band. I'd rather listen to Combat Rock than Grave New World any day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
The Clash
Jun 25, 2021 14:17:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 14:17:52 GMT
With the benefit of hindsight i'd say the thing i've learnt over the long haul, is not to believe any band no matter how idealistic they once were, has all the answers and has the right to be a puritan and throw stones at some other band/Artist CRASS and Jello Biafra dissed The Clash for being only "in it for the money" ended up in court or threatening legal action, arguing between ex band members about money and the re-release of their 'product' ...and Discharge may have been in the vanguard of UK Punk in 1981, but only five years later they were a truly appalling Heavy Metal band. I'd rather listen to Combat Rock than Grave New World any day. Absolutely. However, I wouldn't include Jello and Crass in the same bracket as the Clash. Jello did it because he didn't want his ideas used for unsavoury mainstream advertising although the rest of the DK's will claim it was for unpaid royalties. Pete Wright and initially Penny Rimbaud wanted Crass' legacy protected by'banning' Steve Ignorant performing Crass' songs live. In an ideal world I would agree with Pete Wright but Steve Ignorant had the right to those songs too. Likewise with Jello, he was the creative force behind the DK s ideologically. In both cases neither band broke into the mainstream and as any purist would argue it might have tarnished their accomplishments. For me, in the case of Jello and Crass, it never did. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 25, 2021 14:24:22 GMT
"The more interesting bands realised punk was a creative dead end" I'm not sure it is necessarily a good or bad thing though, it's just about what a band has in mind from the start. Bands like Quo, Dire Straits, and millions more are happy to keep to a signature sound and hardly ever vary and their fans are more than happy to keep buying effectively the same album over and over again. i do it myself with certain bands who's sound I love. The Clash were at a point where America had opened up not just as an audience but as an experience (similar to U2 later) and they wanted to embrace everything. Somewhere along the line they would have settled down and sadly no doubt ended up as a stadium rock outfit, we were lucky that for a few years they did some belting tunes that have stayed the course. Somewhere along the line they became the whipping boys for the idea of "selling out" (whatever that means given the nature of the music business), no doubt due to the CBS deal and Crass lyric, when every band were happily selling out just as much without complaint. Maybe the real dislike was the fact that they were capable of moving beyond the scene and that people don't like success as it points out a lack of success elsewhere. The very nature of punk meant that the "punkest" album a band would do would be their debut (I'm sure there may be exceptions) and then you'd get the outtakes and quickly written stuff on the follow up and then the third which moved away from their original sound as the members started arguing about direction. I've slagged off the whole "Rebellion" scene at times and I really don't get the whole nostalgia circuit and the old men, listening to old men, getting away with some embarrassingly poorly under rehearsed performances whilst flogging overpriced t shirts, Is that really what Punk was meant to be about? Perhaps, even the fact that a "punk" message board exists discussing the 70's and 80's scene is somewhat depressing given the original aims and ideals of the movement. Re the last paragraph. This question has been asked many times over the years on here(my 13th year believe or not) Why do we do this? A habit, good or bad?Some of us have been doing it so long we've forgot?Sad old bastards? What I comment on doesn't really reflect on the reality of my modern life as I left the punk scene when I was around 18. I still maintained an interest however over the years. Punk was and is essentially a youth movement and growing up in the late 70's and early 80's I didn't really have fuck all as a kid. Wouldn't change that for a minute though as that spark has lasted a lifetime. Best leave it to the Boss to decide.... |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 25, 2021 14:29:24 GMT
Crass turned The Clash's posturing up to 11 and slagged them off while they were at it Hearts were in the right place though, even if way too po faced. That was always gonna be a problem letting old hippies on the bus. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on Jun 25, 2021 14:31:55 GMT
With the benefit of hindsight i'd say the thing i've learnt over the long haul, is not to believe any band no matter how idealistic they once were, has all the answers and has the right to be a puritan and throw stones at some other band/Artist CRASS and Jello Biafra dissed The Clash for being only "in it for the money" ended up in court or threatening legal action, arguing between ex band members about money and the re-release of their 'product' ...and Discharge may have been in the vanguard of UK Punk in 1981, but only five years later they were a truly appalling Heavy Metal band. I'd rather listen to Combat Rock than Grave New World any day. Absolutely. However, I wouldn't include Jello and Crass in the same bracket as the Clash. Jello did it because he didn't want his ideas used for unsavoury mainstream advertising although the rest of the DK's will claim it was for unpaid royalties. Pete Wright and initially Penny Rimbaud wanted Crass' legacy protected by'banning' Steve Ignorant performing Crass' songs live. In an ideal world I would agree with Pete Wright but Steve Ignorant had the right to those songs too. Likewise with Jello, he was the creative force behind the DK s ideologically. In both cases neither band broke into the mainstream and as any purist would argue it might have tarnished their accomplishments. For me, in the case of Jello and Crass, it never did. Think it was more about Ignorant playing at a commercial venue than actually playing live. If it had been a squat with half a dozen in it they wouldn't have objected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 14:49:47 GMT
Initially Pete Wright didn't want any of the songs performed live much less at a commercial venue!
Rimbaud succumbed due to his friendship with Ignorant.
In Crass terms....was it a sell out?
I'm in two minds.
Seeing as they've been defunct for 37 years it's a moot point.
The only real people with their knickers in a twist are the crusty hipster anarcho police.
|
|
