What was the consensus surrounding Sandanista after its release in 81' amongst the Clash fanbase?

[Marky Dread]

Could there also be an element of sneering at the band because, unlike the Pistols, they not only didn't self-destruct, they kept at it and got better? There's no romance in that. The Pistols had the better narrative, so fuck the Clash.

Kinda but don't forget the Pistols narrative doesn't end with John leaving.

Well, to most the Pistols story ended in San Francisco or perhaps Sid's death. The Swindle's a weird epilogue, McLaren fucking the corpse. So, yeah, the Pistols story keeps going—more albums, more singles—but the sense of the "real" Pistols was done at Winterland.

(McLaren was so adept with language and concepts, I wonder if he resented how perfect Lydon's closing words were, that they stuck the landing when McLaren obviously wanted to do more.)

I remember Gary Bushell (who I loathe) reviewing London Calling and Metal Box in '79. London Calling got a right kicking for being retrogressive and Metal Box as forward thinking. But he missed the point of LC completely. The Clash letting the world know that they are not stuck in a punk rock rut and acknowledging they are a great rock 'n' roll band. PiL of course also acknowledging that they feel rock 'n' roll is a dead format and yet their sound owes a debt to the past with bands such as Can and Van de Graaff Generator.

LC's a weird record to me in that it is backward looking, but it still sounds like it's thinking about moving forward, the "what next?" of post-punk. But, yeah, Lydon's hold over critics was still ridiculously strong in '79. I remember Lester Bang's review of MB, where he said he was kind of scared of embracing the record for fear that Lydon would turn around and tell everyone it was a joke. Imagine a critic, esp. of Bangs' stature, being scared of an artist. Maybe the Clash' sincerity—or seeming sincerity—irked some critics when you have an apparent prankster like Lydon hovering.

Again everything you say here is damn close to the truth of it all. The problem is the music press here were so far up their own backsides that they believed they could make or break a band. You would read reviews and think did they just listen to same record you bought. Awful hackneyed views and lousy reviews because it was too much effort to actually write about the music anymore.

Yes I agree with your assessment of LC as the title track is very much a forward thinking post punk song. The rest is the band showing their chops and their love of music in general and moving away from that narrow straitjacket that punk was in danger of becoming.

I mean that’s the difference between the class of 77 and later punk in general. Those were punk bands yes but they grew up the Stones, Kinks, Beatles, The Who, Motown etc... some even had their roots in it like Joe and the 101ers. So these were rock influenced punk bands (despite all the year zero bullshit). They played fast and gritty but still knew the importance of a good hook and had an appreciation of songcraft. Some more than others obviously but bands like the Clash and the Jam were so potent because they with piss and vigor yet still knew how to write a good middle 8, and while not super virtuosic, could insert a tasty little guitar within their music. It’s when the PUNK influenced punk bands came along that I believe things really began to be dug into a rut. As much as I love early hardcore and OI this certainly fits that description. The would be Clashes, the eccentric, creative types moved onto post punk, jangle pop, industrial, and New Romantics, etc... That’s the way I see it anyhow. I think Ian Mackaye would be the spiritual successor to the Clash in the American hardcore scene. Made angry pissed off punk records then moved onto Fugazi and experimented greatly. There’s a quote in Azarad’s book “Our Band Could Be Your Life” wherein Ian Mackaye talks about the initial backlash Fugazi received from the old hardcore punk guard. “They said “what the fuck is this shit? Whiteboy reggae?” (In reference to songs like waiting room) these kids came along in 1980 and grew up with Minor Threat and Black Flag, they had no idea about the cross pollination of punk and ethnic music with bands like The Clash.” That’s not verbatim because I haven’t read that book in years but close enough. I like a lot of individual punk songs but there’s only a few groups musically engaging enough to keep me interested in their discography. It’s not even about being able to shred on their instrument. Playing Beatles or Stones songs on guitar or drums is hardly rocket science, but those bands appreciated songcraft, ebb and flow, etc...

Punk went 1-2-3-4. The Clash went 1-2-3-4-5-6-7...

[dave202]

Punk went 1-2-3-4. The Clash went 1-2-3-4-5-6-7...

... and 1-2, 1-2-3-4... quite well.

[Dr. Medulla]

It’s when the PUNK influenced punk bands came along that I believe things really began to be dug into a rut. As much as I love early hardcore and OI this certainly fits that description. The would be Clashes, the eccentric, creative types moved onto post punk, jangle pop, industrial, and New Romantics, etc... That’s the way I see it anyhow.

Hardcore emerged from seeing how easy it was for initial punk bands to be co-opted or assimilated into the commercial structures that punk (supposedly) rejected. Early punk was a beta effort that, however cool the music and shock, didn't succeed because the record industry still believed it could play ball with them … and so did most of those bands. So hardcore worked even harder to not appeal and it worked for a long time, until Husker Du and then Nirvana showed that, crap, even this kind of music can be prey. However unintentionally, they fucked up by building larger audiences receptive to their approach, which is all the incentive corporate music types need. With punk, nothing fails like success.

[Guest1]

It’s when the PUNK influenced punk bands came along that I believe things really began to be dug into a rut. As much as I love early hardcore and OI this certainly fits that description. The would be Clashes, the eccentric, creative types moved onto post punk, jangle pop, industrial, and New Romantics, etc... That’s the way I see it anyhow.

Hardcore emerged from seeing how easy it was for initial punk bands to be co-opted or assimilated into the commercial structures that punk (supposedly) rejected. Early punk was a beta effort that, however cool the music and shock, didn't succeed because the record industry still believed it could play ball with them … and so did most of those bands. So hardcore worked even harder to not appeal and it worked for a long time, until Husker Du and then Nirvana showed that, crap, even this kind of music can be prey. However unintentionally, they fucked up by building larger audiences receptive to their approach, which is all the incentive corporate music types need. With punk, nothing fails like success.

I’m much more a fan of the Clash/Manics style of mass communication. If you got something to say might as well get it out to as many people as possible. It’s funny how I’m the age of social media you have people posting all their political hot takes online, But no one really has the balls to form a band in that vein anymore.

[Dr. Medulla]

It’s when the PUNK influenced punk bands came along that I believe things really began to be dug into a rut. As much as I love early hardcore and OI this certainly fits that description. The would be Clashes, the eccentric, creative types moved onto post punk, jangle pop, industrial, and New Romantics, etc... That’s the way I see it anyhow.

Hardcore emerged from seeing how easy it was for initial punk bands to be co-opted or assimilated into the commercial structures that punk (supposedly) rejected. Early punk was a beta effort that, however cool the music and shock, didn't succeed because the record industry still believed it could play ball with them … and so did most of those bands. So hardcore worked even harder to not appeal and it worked for a long time, until Husker Du and then Nirvana showed that, crap, even this kind of music can be prey. However unintentionally, they fucked up by building larger audiences receptive to their approach, which is all the incentive corporate music types need. With punk, nothing fails like success.

I’m much more a fan of the Clash/Manics style of mass communication. If you got something to say might as well get it out to as many people as possible. It’s funny how I’m the age of social media you have people posting all their political hot takes online, But no one really has the balls to form a band in that vein anymore.

I'm torn because I can see the virtues and dangers in playing ball with the majors to gain a wider audience, but I lean against it because I'm skeptical that the you can succeed at larger goals working from within. Personal success, sure, but greater social success suggests arms length and a middle finger.

[gkbill]

It’s when the PUNK influenced punk bands came along that I believe things really began to be dug into a rut. As much as I love early hardcore and OI this certainly fits that description. The would be Clashes, the eccentric, creative types moved onto post punk, jangle pop, industrial, and New Romantics, etc... That’s the way I see it anyhow.

Hardcore emerged from seeing how easy it was for initial punk bands to be co-opted or assimilated into the commercial structures that punk (supposedly) rejected. Early punk was a beta effort that, however cool the music and shock, didn't succeed because the record industry still believed it could play ball with them … and so did most of those bands. So hardcore worked even harder to not appeal and it worked for a long time, until Husker Du and then Nirvana showed that, crap, even this kind of music can be prey. However unintentionally, they fucked up by building larger audiences receptive to their approach, which is all the incentive corporate music types need. With punk, nothing fails like success.

I’m much more a fan of the Clash/Manics style of mass communication. If you got something to say might as well get it out to as many people as possible. It’s funny how I’m the age of social media you have people posting all their political hot takes online, But no one really has the balls to form a band in that vein anymore.

I'm torn because I can see the virtues and dangers in playing ball with the majors to gain a wider audience, but I lean against it because I'm skeptical that the you can succeed at larger goals working from within. Personal success, sure, but greater social success suggests arms length and a middle finger.

Hello,

Against Me! is an interesting case of this.

[Silent Majority]

I've cited Chumbawamba's line before. The minors are still capitalists. They're just not as good at it as the majors. I don't know necessarily how much I agree with that - there's a purposefulness to some of the more Fugazi minded labels that's missed there - but it is an argument.

[Inder]

I really resent how The Clash are everyone's favourite targets for "working class betrayal" types and people outraged that they didn't live in penury as some kind of cosmic penance for being somewhat successful, especially after all the details on financials have come out in various books etc.

People like Lydon and his real estate stuff don't get picked apart nearly as much as Joe Strummer's father not being a bank robber.

[Dr. Medulla]

I've cited Chumbawamba's line before. The minors are still capitalists. They're just not as good at it as the majors. I don't know necessarily how much I agree with that - there's a purposefulness to some of the more Fugazi minded labels that's missed there - but it is an argument.

This is somewhat true, I think. The guiding principle of a major label is risk aversion. Profitability means avoiding releasing stuff that won't be profitable, which is already a problem in an industry where upwards of 90% of records aren't profitable. Indie labels don't operate with that sense of mass, but rather by niche and often genuine faith or love of their bands. A lack of profitability will still sink an indie, but it isn't the here-all, be-all. You can't fully extricate profit and commodification from indie labels, but I don't think we should be so dogmatic and purist as to ignore those distinctions.

[Dr. Medulla]

I really resent how The Clash are everyone's favourite targets for "working class betrayal" types and people outraged that they didn't live in penury as some kind of cosmic penance for being somewhat successful, especially after all the details on financials have come out in various books etc.

People like Lydon and his real estate stuff don't get picked apart nearly as much as Joe Strummer's father not being a bank robber.

Perhaps because Lydon didn't promote himself as a working-class advocate (beyond using his background as a shield from criticism). His line of politics was a lot more generalized—yay, freedom!—that could be applied to all classes and spectrum politics. I'm not saying it's right, but Lydon's never argued for anything but a noble selfishness, whereas the fact that the Clash claimed to advocate for others set themselves up as targets.

[Flex]

There's probably some happy medium where no one expects you to destroy your own life and ability to be happy and stable because we're all subject to living within the bounds of capitalism, but also that some level of critique, and consideration of how a person can try to ethically navigate a limited set of choices, is worth considering. That's not really about The Clash, per se, more of a general thought.

[Marky Dread]

I really resent how The Clash are everyone's favourite targets for "working class betrayal" types and people outraged that they didn't live in penury as some kind of cosmic penance for being somewhat successful, especially after all the details on financials have come out in various books etc.

People like Lydon and his real estate stuff don't get picked apart nearly as much as Joe Strummer's father not being a bank robber.

I agree it's all a cheap shot really. I think it's just The Clash tried to champion the poor and working class at times. Whereas Rotten/Lydon never tried to deny success and wealth. He was always happy to better himself.

[Inder]

Would've been simpler if Mick and Joe stuck to writing songs about trains. Give 'Em Enough Freight.

[Marky Dread]

Would've been simpler if Mick and Joe stuck to writing songs about trains. Give 'Em Enough Freight.

Choo Choo Ch' Boogie

[Inder]

There's probably some happy medium where no one expects you to destroy your own life and ability to be happy and stable because we're all subject to living within the bounds of capitalism, but also that some level of critique, and consideration of how a person can try to ethically navigate a limited set of choices, is worth considering. That's not really about The Clash, per se, more of a general thought.

I really resent how The Clash are everyone's favourite targets for "working class betrayal" types and people outraged that they didn't live in penury as some kind of cosmic penance for being somewhat successful, especially after all the details on financials have come out in various books etc.

People like Lydon and his real estate stuff don't get picked apart nearly as much as Joe Strummer's father not being a bank robber.

I agree it's all a cheap shot really. I think it's just The Clash tried to champion the poor and working class at times. Whereas Rotten/Lydon never tried to deny success and wealth. He was always happy to better himself.

I really resent how The Clash are everyone's favourite targets for "working class betrayal" types and people outraged that they didn't live in penury as some kind of cosmic penance for being somewhat successful, especially after all the details on financials have come out in various books etc.

People like Lydon and his real estate stuff don't get picked apart nearly as much as Joe Strummer's father not being a bank robber.

Perhaps because Lydon didn't promote himself as a working-class advocate (beyond using his background as a shield from criticism). His line of politics was a lot more generalized—yay, freedom!—that could be applied to all classes and spectrum politics. I'm not saying it's right, but Lydon's never argued for anything but a noble selfishness, whereas the fact that the Clash claimed to advocate for others set themselves up as targets.

All this is fair, but tbh I suspect a lot of this style of animus is rooted in other stuff -- maybe as simple as not really liking their music!

Anyways, I find people like this the most boring people on the planet and have managed to do a good job avoiding them over the years.