If Music Could Talk

To me BAD will always be better than The Clash, simple reason being my age, born in 72 I was never into or had even heard The Clash before BAD so while I saw BAD live and they were putting out records at a time when I was into music and later going out clubbing I can't say the same for the Clash, so all the while I love their music they will never have the same meaning to me as BAD. Perhaps some of you older boys can compare !

crazyknowledge wrote:To me BAD will always be better than The Clash, simple reason being my age, born in 72 I was never into or had even heard The Clash before BAD so while I saw BAD live and they were putting out records at a time when I was into music and later going out clubbing I can't say the same for the Clash, so all the while I love their music they will never have the same meaning to me as BAD. Perhaps some of you older boys can compare !

Yep that makes perfect sense to me. Though I think it's worth mentioning that Mick Jones did say if he had not been sacked he would've pushed the band in a more dance/rock crossover and they had already dabbled with a winning formula on Radio Clash, The Call Out ....

Nonono
I'm not for a Clash cover

Plus as heston said thay got so many great songs in their catalogue
i'm for some tunes who never played live before

Amen! Pulling that kind of a move would be, well...retro beyond retro, I suppose.

To me BAD will always be better than The Clash, simple reason being my age, born in 72 I was never into or had even heard The Clash before BAD so while I saw BAD live and they were putting out records at a time when I was into music and later going out clubbing I can't say the same for the Clash, so all the while I love their music they will never have the same meaning to me as BAD. Perhaps some of you older boys can compare !

Personally, I'm not into the comparison game all that much, so I don't plan on doing it -- both bands satisfy different needs, then and now. Simple as that. But you make an interesting point: people's perceptions of music have a lot to do with whatever time frame they grew up in. For instance, I recall hearing this clerk (a bit older than me) at one of my favorite record shops saying, when TIGHTEN UP VOL. 88 had just come out: "When's Mick gonna forget all this worldbeat BS and re-form the Clash?" I remember thinking, "Um, you've missed the boat...not by inches, but the proverbial old country mile."

At the same time, I remember a lot of younger people gravitating toward BAD, because they were delving into all the sounds that influenced them, and back again, so the Clash's history wasn't a big issue for them (or barrier to their appreciation, for that matter). As Don's been saying, the world's caught up to a lot of those elements that made BAD so distinctive -- and that's one reason why I think the reunion will pack a greater musical punch than most of these exercises do.

Crazyknowledge, I have similar history to yours. I was too young for the Clash and became aware of BAD before the Clash. The first Clash tune I certainly remember hearing and acknowledged as the Clash was ... ta daa ... This is England. By the time the Clash was already finished. TIBAD received some mediocre publicity here (= Finland), enough still to grab my attention. It must have been in 86. I was not exactly a fan and probably did not hear the music until much later, but I remember being very curious and interested about the idea of mixing rock, rap and dance (at the time I probably understood it as "disco") music and the band's visual image.

I became a fanboy of the Clash and BAD much much later. I prefer the Clash myself, but as Marky put it BAD is very good.

An observation from yesterday:
The Filth and Wisdom directed by Madonna. 1st scene: Eugene Hutz talks. He wears a vest donned with a Clash U.S. Air Force -style badge. 2nd scene: Ballet lesson. The stocky ballet teacher wears a white t-shirt with an air brush -style "BAD" print. Probably not a Big Audio Dynamite shirt though.

Whereas, I was born in 76, and BAD sounded dated by the time I first heard them in 1991, while the Clash still sounded fresh to my ears.

Wolter wrote:Whereas, I was born in 76, and BAD sounded dated by the time I first heard them in 1991, while the Clash still sounded fresh to my ears.

Whipper Snapper!

i first heard the clash around the time of should i stay - the first new release of theirs i bought was this is england.. (which i still view as a bonafide clash classic.. always riled me how they pretended the clash ended in 82..)
i also bought the BAD album when it came out - i loved the fact mick was playing guitar loud.. i didn't love the fact mick sang - his voice has a curious charm.. but i'm not sure it holds up across an album.. it was a still a great debut but does sound really dated now.. thought the follow up album sounded fresher and that holds up better too, more diverse vocals, better mish mash of styles - i think it captured what mick wanted (and i'm curious as to how much joe helped with the sound)- and i still regularly play sightsee MC and c'mon everybeatbox.. after that, theres bits i like but i can take it or leave it...

'Charming' is exactly how I'd describe Mick's vocals. Mick's singing just sounds like a place to live, a friendly instrument capable of expressing an amiability that borders on the profound.

Silent Majority wrote:'Charming' is exactly how I'd describe Mick's vocals. Mick's singing just sounds like a place to live, a friendly instrument capable of expressing an amiability that borders on the profound.

I can fully understand why people mightn't like his voice, but personally, I fucking love it. Saying that, it went very ragged at the time of Higher Power and F-Punk, I don't know if drugs/lifestyle were an issue. It does spoil my enjoyment of those albums, though.

people always say about mik and drugs,dont think he got it any heavy gear he sings about skunk in punk and also smoke a spliff and get redeyed,most smokers i know dont really dabble in the heavy gear......watch the replys bet he was the biggest coke head in west london and me embarrasing myself!!!

I can fully understand why people mightn't like his voice, but personally, I fucking love it. Saying that, it went very ragged at the time of Higher Power and F-Punk, I don't know if drugs/lifestyle were an issue. It does spoil my enjoyment of those albums, though

So do I! Hard to imagine how those records would sound without it: I do remember a BBC interview from 12/79, where Mick makes a joke about getting all the "weedy ones" to sing, because of the way his voice sounds...it's one of those elements that you take or leave, basically.

Mick Jones shouldn't wear jeans during a concert

bazarboy75 wrote:Mick Jones shouldn't wear jeans during a concert

I'm with you buddy.

Maybe his usual trousers got covered in mud!

mick should put one of his old hats on and armarni black jeans on for the gig,,do u think in concerts to come they will do more bad2 tracks or make new material instead.harrow rd would be great and why never applecart at gigs,never heard it live,it would be amazing,teddy pull ya finger out and get em on it

Heston wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:'Charming' is exactly how I'd describe Mick's vocals. Mick's singing just sounds like a place to live, a friendly instrument capable of expressing an amiability that borders on the profound.

I can fully understand why people mightn't like his voice, but personally, I fucking love it. Saying that, it went very ragged at the time of Higher Power and F-Punk, I don't know if drugs/lifestyle were an issue. It does spoil my enjoyment of those albums, though.

His vocal cords were damaged during his severe chicken pox bout in '88 when he was in a coma. The breathing tubes they had to shove down his throat tore up his cords pretty good. He had to re-train his singing voice for Megatop Phoenix, lost an octave of range and a lot of power, he cracks a little when he does belt it (evident on Rush), and his diction's been a little less clear. Kind of gone with the smooth/quieter singing style since to compensate for the more limited range. Certainly post-'88 he was never going to be able to do a vintage live Somebody Got Murdered if he ever wanted to give it a try. Age started taking its toll a little further near the end, and I don't think that ghastly dentistry of his was really helping to counteract. Definitely got a bit mumbly after age 40 and especially with C/Si.

But you can tell he's done some heavy voice training to work up his stamina for the reunion, because his voice sounds the best it's been since The Globe. Really wasn't expecting that, as I thought we'd have to live with a certain amount of inaudibility on the tour based on what was evident in the C/Si performances. But he surprised there and sounds great. Makes me wish he'd been a little more on the ball about maintaining good vocal stamina the previous 15 years, but whatever...wonderful to hear him in good form again.

Still think he could take it to another level if he got some long overdue heavy dental reconstruction on those wrong-angle lime-color chompers of his. The improvement in diction at his age would be more dramatic than the massive improvement Joe's voice underwent after his 1981 corrective surgery got rid of most of the spittle.