I can maybe understand that from say Mick and Paul's perspective but not from the fans.
I think fans have simply latched onto that name because of the BAD and BAD II thing which is kind of ironic. But either way they were "The Clash" in name at least even if you disliked the idea of CtC and that line-up.
Well, from my perspective, when it came to getting tickets for my gig, at MSU, I don't recall anyone in our circle of friends who went -- about five or six of us, all squeezed into one subcompact beater -- debating whether to go, with only the "old firm" of Strummer & Simonon resent. if anything, it was a bigger incentive, and the curiosity factor was just too strong to ignore.
What would that new band sound like? This being the pre-Internet era, you had to buy the record, and/or the ticket, and find out for yourself. So, to me, it was writers who coined that term, whenever they were reaching for some type of jook for whatever angle of the week that they were pushing.
But you're right, whatever anyone said, they were still the Clash, from the standpoint of the name, and of course, playing those songs. It'd be interesting to see how Mick's departure would play out today, in an era of bands circling the globe with just two (The Damned, before Rat rejoined recently), one (Black Flag, The Godfathers), or no original members left (Dr. Feelgood). I suspect it'd be different, since you don't see the same degree of anguish or outrage that greeted a key member's departure back in the day.
