|
|
| corgi37 |
Look, i can understand some teeny boppers wimping over the death of some relevant GOD!! but, fuck, Joe Stummer wasnt shit. I mean, wasnt it in 77 he said : No STones, Who, Beatles in 77!! I hate all the punks, for so many reasons. 1. They bagged the Stones(what is Captain Sensible doing now??), 2. They offered nothing, 3. They lied to us .4. They werent Keith. 5. Sid is a poor mans Jimbo. Fuck Stummer, he died, my prayers, all the best but, what the fuck has he done for the past 15 years? Mmmm, similar to George Harrison i guess. Write 2 good songs and get lauded for life, and beyond. Rock the Kasbah!!
|
|
|
| Highwire Rob |
Corgi,
Here's something to consider from the latest (Issue 914; Jan.23 03) of Rolling Stone magazine. It's the last question & answer of the Nov. 8th 02 interview that he gave to RS. It is his final interview with the magazine.
Bill Crandall of RS: What was the first record that you loved as a kid?
Joe Strummer: "Not Fade Away," by the Stones. I remember walking into some horrible room in some horrible school and hearing it blasting out of a huge, wooden radio. The song moved like a steam train, and that was the moment when I went rock & roll forever.
You have to at least agree that he's given some proper respect to the Stones.
--Rob. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
that is kind of joe.
but all that "no stones in 1977:" is the same as "Would you let your daughter/granny marry...."
just marketing
[Edited by Moonisup] |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Moonisup wrote:
but all that "no stones in 1977:" is the same as "Would you let your daughter/granny marry...."
just marketing
rick - i must disagree, it was not just marketing ('tho i admit there was an element of that in it insofar as it was deliberately provocative) - but something that really needed to be said at the time
(and by the way corgi it was "no elvis, beatles or the rolling stones in 1977")
you weren't around then but at the time of punk what i believed (and i wasn't alone) to be the the true spirit of rock and roll and been swamped by a sea of money and pretension - you may or may not recall these names but at the time it was all eagles, fleetwood mac, rick wakeman and supertramp (god help us all) - thanx to punk in general and guys like joe in particular the spirit of rock 'n roll (ie. excitment, passion, new ideas and no reverence for sacred cows - which the stones, not necessarily through any fault of their own, had become)was, albeit breifly, reclaimed by the fans from the under assistant west coast promotion men
(sound familiar - whether they like to admit or not the stones in their formative years and the "punks" were both working from the same blue-print - malcolm maclaren had the book written for him by andrew loog oldham)
you didn't need thousands of dollars worth of equipment or a university degree in "difficult" music or to be some type of virtuoso to play in a band - get a guitar, learn a few chords,write a song,form a band and EXPRESS YOURSELF
i'd be the first to admit there was a lot of crap music thrown up by the so-called "punk" movement but that wasn't the point - the point was that the idea of energy and excitement and that music was something for everybody and anybody to have a part in and not just something handed down to us mere mortals by the demi-gods of "rock" was re-injected in to the music scene - and for me there was a lot of good music made - the clash, the pistols, the ramones,patti smith to name but a few
sure, it didn't last long in one sense - the 10%ers swooped in pretty quickly (as they do) and quickly tried to co-opt and sell out "the movement" - still those of us on that side of the line in those days have ultimately been shown to have been right - the rise of bands like nirvana and red hot chilli peppers have their genesis in those heady days of '76/'77 - as some pundit put it "1991 was the year that punk rock finally broke through into the mainstream"
joe's death was the first "rock and roll death" that affected me personally - i.e. -i felt a genuine, heartfelt sadness as if someone i knew and was close to me (not just someone whose life and/or art i admired) had gone - and i'm still feeling it now
(although the sense of loss i felt when stu went was pretty big - but that was more to do with the fact that he was, in many ways (imo), the keeper of the true spirit of the stones and not so much that i felt some personal identification with him) |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
"No Elvis, Beatles, or Rolling Stones in 1977"
It's easy to pick out that single line and say that Joe was bashing the Stones. But you have obviously not read the lyric to the entire song, Corgi.
That line is a LAMENT! The Beatles were broken, Elvis was a fat, gaudy, pitiful shell of what once was...and about to die on the shitter, and the Rolling Stones were looking like a bunch of poofs. Joe was saying that 1977 NEEDED the '56 Elvis, The Beatles, and the Rolling Stones...the Street Fighting Man Stones.
Have you ever seen the excellent "Westway To The World"? You need to see the twinkle in Joe's eyes when he talks, in detail, about the influence that "Street Fighting Man" had on him. To say that Joe had no respect for the Stones is wrong. What he didn't respect was the way they had turned into a corporate machine, and started to ignore the quality of the music that they were putting out.
And he was right.
Think the Stones didn't take notice? Try Some Girls on. Mick cut his hair, ripped up his t-shirts, and started to snarl out lyrics again. He stopped trying to look like a girl. He stopped prancing around like a drag queen.
You can thank the punks for that.
I don't care if you don't like punk. But you damn well better not misrepresent it. If you don't know what you are talking about Corgi, the smart thing to do is don't talk at all. |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
You're trying to say a whole bunch of things at once
Corgi, and you are not very good at it. Some of that
mush above is a "what have you done for me lately?"
deal (e.g., comparing Strummer and Harrison's solo
successes), but thats not going to go very far
anywhere there is a decent level of rock appreciation,
like here. In fact, that would be something the
"teeny boppers" you mentioned might say.
Basically, I think you are just trying to say you
don't like the Clash and are wondering why others do.
My guess is that you haven't heard much more than Rock
the Casbah, and are not qualified to judge. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
HeyCorgi
I have no idea how old you are or anything, but as for us young adolescents in '76 and '77, no matter where you went you heard the BeeGees, Diana TweakItRoss, Styx, Boston, (and other arena puke acts and disco.)Oh yeah-- there was ToTo too. Real rock n roll, ya know?
And then something happened when the Ramones went to London and started giggin and then came back and spit in our faces. The Clash had been touring with the Pistols, the Ramones went over the pond and thrashed and bashed, and finally we had something to answer our question: "What is real for our ear?"
The bottom line is, any dis Strummer had back then for the elderStonesmen was in response to the musical apathy and laziness permeating the music world-- the lack of relevence-- the bored rock star syndrome. The blitzkrieg bombs of the Pistols and Clash in England and the Ramones when they got back to New York meant a wake-up call to all of us forcefed "Dust In The Wind".
And on top of it-- what made Strummer and Jones and those guys uncork our ears, was that they had something to say ontop of the reggae riffs and swing progressions. While our own Ramones brought back a kind of fiftyish innocence and grace "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend", etc., a simplicity spiced with ironic wit but always hearkening back to a childlike love of fun-- nothing heavy or serious in the beginning-- the Clash spoke what was REALLY going on-- and while they didn't preach, we got the message if we were keen to understand.
While in restrospect i didn't understand some of the griping, i sure did dance to that groove.
And at the time, i needed it like a spanking-- and Joe brandished the whip.
~
|
|
|
| ~AzQb |
sirmoonie
Nice to see you back on the ward! This patient missed you!
~RoTfLmAo~! |
|
|
| purrcafe |
Just to refute two of your statements, Captain Sensible is still playing with the Damned, who are still going strong; and Sid Vicious was far from a poor man's Jim Morrison. Morrison was a poet who had a couple of ideas to communicate. Sid was, as Johnny Rotten said, "a coathanger on stage, nothing more, nothing less."
Oh yeah, by the way, Strummer stopped recording for about a decade to strike back at his record labels artistically and financially strangling demands. That's where he's been, but in the long run, if his actions, or those of Prince or even George Michael help musicians in the future, all of us who care about music will owe him a hell of a debt. |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Damn, Corgi, you are completely uninformed. If anything, the Clash and Joe, were huge fans of these rock acts they cast aside. Same with the Sex Pistols. Haven't you ever heard the story, mentioned in "Who Are You," of Pete Townshend being depressed over the Who's state and the dissolvement with management? Well, he was in a bar in Sojo and Steve Jones and Paul Cook were huge fans and they came up to talk with Pete. Pete kept saying how the Who were finished and the new bands would carry along the spirit. But Cook and Jones pleaded to keep the Who going, praising them and professing how great they thought the 'Oo really were. But of course, they didn't do shit, right? Punk was a joke. Yeah, punk was an excuse to get publicity! Well, maybe it was like that for Malcom McLaren (aka Andrew Loog Oldham Jr.), but not for Joe Strummer. Just like us, he saw bands like the Who and Stones as an inspiration. And though he respected the Beatles too, he though they got waayy to much importance casting the other great bands in their overrated shadow. Basically, they had nothing to say, except "Love." So remember that Joe Strummer was yearning for the days when rock wasn't held hostage by corporate fucks, greedy labels and money-hungry sponsorers. He saw rock going downhill into oblivion. And he was right. Hey, and Johnny Rotten has said that rock was dead when punk came along and it was dead when punk died. How right they were. |
|
|
| Gazza |
Some great retorts there
anyone who doesnt see that by 1977 the Stones needed a creative kick up the arse (as well as a change of attitude) is tone deaf or kiddin' themselves.
The result = Some Girls.
They've never come close to that since. They never will again.
Much better option being inspired by bands like The Clash than by the fucking Bee Gees which seemed the case at the time. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Just a little aside to this thread; our,(for want of a better term), idols owe us nothing. So Strummer, and Co. didn't carry punk on into eternity, so what? Did anybody seriously expect that 75-77 Punk could continue as it was forever?....Someone once said on here that without the break up of The Pistols there would have been no Public Image, truer words, and all. All that Strolling Bones, boring dinosaur rhetoric from the punks, whether they trully meant it or not gave not just The Stones a much needed kicking, but the music industry in general. I'm not sad Strummer died, I'd be sadder seeing him a shrivelled up old tosser to be quite honest, and he and The Clash will always be remembered for 4 great years of music regardless of what came after.....RIP JOE! |
|
|
| Dr. Frankenstone |
The bottom line here is that the Clash f**king ROCKED!!!
Like all punk bands, they were rebelling against the Dinosaurs of the Rock'N'Roll machine, just as the early Stones rebelled against society in general. But the Clash weren't prefabricated or posers either, unlike some other "legendary" punks. Just one look at their teeth and complexion, and you KNOW that they didn't give a crap about anything other than rocking the boat and sticking a thorn in the side of the world. RIP Joe Strummer!!! You shook it up when things were getting boring. Thank You!!! Now go piss off!!! |
|
|
| corgi37 |
Maybe i'm wrong. I dont take back what i said, but i guess i could have said it better. I was born in 63, so i was around at the time the punks hit, though probably 78 was a bigger year as i discovered the Stones. I mean, i was ripe to be influenced by punk being a white, middle class, bored angry little Aussie Corgi. But, to me, punk was as much a fraud as all other music trends, but if it means alot to people, its cool with me. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
to me, punk was as much a fraud as all other music trends, but if it means alot to people, its cool with me.
so, corgi, why take the time to slag the whole thing off??...i mean, you started this thread... |
|
|
| Gazza |
>I was born in 63, so i was around at the time the punks hit, though probably 78 was a bigger year as i discovered the Stones.
you were born the same year as me and got into the Stones at much the same time. I was never a punk, I found most of the music unlistenable and often idiotic and a lot of the attitude bandwagon-jumping in the extreme. but The Clash were never JUST a punk band...(similarly you cant really label the likes of the Stones and The Beatles in the same category as other one dimensional bands that emerged at the same time such as Gerry & The Pacemakers and the Dave Clark Five) - they were playing reggae on that first album for example and their political stance was pretty relevant and struck a chord with what was going on in the UK (and the world) at the time. The Sex Pistols were never in that category. Yeah,a lot of the punk bands WERE a fraud (does the expression 'rock n roll swindle' ring any bells?) but The Clash had class and integrity in spades. Few bands since have come close to doing that. They were a fucking great band and shook up rock 'n' roll more than any band in the 70's did IMO. |
|
|
| jb |
Wuuump, there it is, wuuump, there it is!!!! |
|
|
| TheSavageYoungXyzzy |
I gotta say - punk should have had the decency to kill itself rather than mutate to what it's become now - a bunch of either Ramones wannabes with a Grunge edge ("I hate myself and want to die" with three chords) or Sex Pistols wannabes totally owned by their label. The Clash weren't just punk. The Clash took the lifeless music of the late 70s and grabbed it by the balls and ran away with it. "Spanish Bombs", for an example. Sounds like a happy little pop song initially... and then you realize - hey, waitaminute... not only are they wrecking the pop song structure, they're merrily singing about fascist regimes in mockery of the crap that was out there at the time. We owe the Clash and to a lesser extent the Ramones and Sex Pistols a lot. The Ramones were 3-chord-wonders that got off on huge amounts of energy - but really fizzled out as they ran out of ways to put those 3 chords together. (You get the idea.) The Sex Pistols were the first real punks - not the best, not the brightest, but the first, and the idea gave rise to a lot of better stuff. Like The Clash.
And without Punk, you wouldn't have Some Girls. Some Girls took the best ideas of Black And Blue, the modern music scene (not much, but a start) and the punk crowd nipping at their heels and squished them all together into a New York City backdropped Rolling Stones. Result? One of their best albums ever.
Even if they did want to destroy the Stones (which they didn't - not the big bands, they knew their lords and masters when they saw 'em), after "Fool To Cry" and the creative stagnation following the massive tour from '75 to '77, they needed that threat to put out their best work.
-tSYX --- And you say "Oh my God, am I here alone?" |
|
|
| Fiji Joe |
Oh Good...I thought this was another one of those JB bashing posts |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
I think some of you are dismissing the Sex Pistols just a bit too easily. The Clash would never have been without the Sex Pistols. Well, they may have been, but no one would have ever heard them without the Sex Pistols. And don't blame all the hype on the band....that was mostly Malcolm's doing. The original line up of the Pistols was really good. Sid was all image, but since he was a friend of Lydon's, and there was no better replacement laying about...Sid was in. Sid was the death of the Pistols IMO.
Read John Lydon's book "Rotten: No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs". You'll get a much keener insight to what was REALLY happening with the band...not what Malcolm wanted everyone to THINK was going on with the band.
The guys in the Sex Pistols were all very young, very poor, and easily manipulated by MaClaren.
Where I give The Clash credit is that they learned from the Pistols' mistakes. Guy Stevens tried to get "Complete Control", and got laughed out of the pub! Remember, The Clash toured with the Pistols, and did lots of gigs with them. Joe Strummer saw how the Pistols were being used. He was just a little too smart to get caught in the net.
The Sex Pistols did some really great rock & roll. It's pretty hard to be a poser when you were the first. It's not posing...it's originating. |
|
|
| gypsymofo60 |
Couldn't agree more SS, The Pistols were a band, no doubt about it, and Glenn Matlock was a great muso who simply couldn't get on with Lydon, Lydon's book is a great read, and I don't mean just for punks. The Pistols, and The Clash were chalk& cheese, but both great bands. You always knew The Pistols would self destruct, but by the same token it was obvious The Clash would go well beyond the narrow boundries of British Punk ala; 1976/77....Corgi, don't take this the wrong way, but I always felt Australia never really got British Punk, The British version of punk was born of despair, boredom, and basically kids having no money but the dole. Britain of the 70s& early 80s was a perfect breeding ground for truly angst filled music, Australia on the other hand was extremely well off, and kids had plenty of dosh, and plenty of hope, nothing in common with these disenfranchised Brits. Countdown, Nightmoves, and all the other trendy pop music shows were more concerned with showing rubbish like Smokie, Pilot, and occasionaly having some taste and showing The Stones, and The Who. Commercial radio here was pretty much the same...TAME! unoriginal, and boring. Australia didn't really even begin to accept punk until about 1979, by which time it wass already done. |
|
|
| ~AzQb |
YuPpErPuPpEr~
Of punk and de Raggae-riffin Clash, SS+ knows whereof he speaks, and if you wanna learn a little, take heed 
Yeah Corg{Is that pembroke ? LOL}
You know, of course there were "bandwagon" bands out for the contract and ensuing bucks "that ain't workin'..."video ain't killed the radio star YeT, but we were only a few years away} }but witness Seattle after Nirvana. Same fucking thing, babe.
So you got this Kansas/REO/ToTo/Boston interim, 'tween '76 and '81, where nuthin was HAPpEnNin. Sorta like Lou's
"Jenny said when she was just five years old
You know there's nothing happening at all
Every time she puts on the radio
There was nothing goin' down at all
Then one fine mornin' she puts on a New York station
She couldn't believe what she heard at all
She started dancin' to that fine fine music
You know her life was saved by Rock 'n' Roll
Despite all the amputations
You could just dance to a rock 'n' roll station" Lou Reed
But that's how it WAS.
So yeah, the Pistols couldn't even really play {Sid} but Lydon COuLd scream, and the others tried to put a valid engine on, but point being, the Clash started sniffin the air ---and look, there's Anarchy in the UK. Yeah they loved the Pistols, because it was Rock n Roll at the BlOoD&BonE. So they toured with them, people heard, and the ones who had ears to hear-- not the posers, the wannabes, the televisions-- the ones who dug the riffin and the Voice that was Joe--hell, we were fuckin starving, man.
So yeah, in '91 we got Pearl Jam, fucking soundgarden--all that shit--after Nirvana-- but it appened first with the likes of WendyO and such after the "punk movement" began...which in turn begat "new wave" which in turn begat kids SEEinG before HEaRiNg=MTV...which in turn begat the state of things down to this very day.
The thing you don't understand yet-- and i wish i was fLeABit to explain-- is that all the "begotten" crap-- the bandwagon crap-- had NOThInG to do with Joe and the Clash.
They were fucking geniuses, and fearless. If you don't give them another listen,your only cheatin yerself, ya know
~
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
gypsymofo60 wrote:
Australia didn't really even begin to accept punk until about 1979, by which time it wass already done.
gmf i'd take issue with that to some degree
at the same time as the new musical movements were fermenting in the UK (part. London)and the US (part. NYC) there was a growing ground-swell of similiar feeling here
remeber birdman were doing gigs as early as '74 and the saints recorded i'm stranded at the same time the pistols and the ramones were working up their first efforts
i do agree 'tho it was about '79 when the whole english "punk" thing from a fashion pint of view (i.e. safety pins and tartan bondage trousers) caught on in a big way but that was just posers looking to jump onto a stylistic bandwagon
but make no mistake there was definitely an australian "punk" (for want of a better word and that one itself is prettty loose by definition) scene brewing up as early as '76 - i know - i was there - maybe not so much from a socio/economic point of view but certainly from a musical one
and SS wasn't that bernie rhodes (and not guy stevens) who said he wanted "complete control" and, as you say, got laughed out of the pub??
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Oh hell, SIA, of course it was Bernie Rhodes.
I was just reading the liner notes on the London Calling CD and Guy Stevens name just jumped into my head...don't know why.
Anyone know whatever happened to Guy? Or Bernie for that matter. |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Well, my whole point is that The Sex Pistols were a good band. Great even. If you can get past all the hype and stuff that Malcolm spewed all over everything...you will find a really good thing.
Sure they have done a couple of sell out reunion tours...why not? They didn't get paid the first time around. Lydon didn't even have enough money to fly back to London after he left the band in San Fran...he had to borrow off of some friends. Literally, the Sex Pistols were getting paid about 50-60 quid a week per person. Malcolm got all the money. So yeah, I can understand why they would do some sell out tours. It's not like they weren't up front about it. They called the first reunion tour the "Filthy Lucre" tour. I say good for them. I'm glad they finally got paid. |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
Sir Stonesalot wrote:
If you can get past all the hype and stuff that Malcolm spewed all over everything...you will find a really good thing.
Absolutely right. All you have to do is find an album called "Spunk".
|
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
SS - not sure exactly when but i do know guy stevens has since passed away
[Edited by stonedinaustralia] |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Guy died?
I guess that explains why I kinda lost track of him.
That's a shame. |
|
|
| RubyFriday |
I�m always astonished that a Stones fan doesn�t see the poorness of Bands like the Pistols.Musically they had nothing to offer.Though I liked the Ramones.
In the shadow of the great Punk swindle it were bands as Dr.Feelgood(the Wilco Johnson line up),Inmates,Eddie & The Hot Rods,Jam,Stranglers,Mink De Ville who filled the gap in the mid 70�s Rock�n�Roll.And then came Stiff........ |
|
|
| Sir Stonesalot |
Since when did musical ability have anything to do with how good a band is?
All the guys in ELO are far superior at thier instruments than any of the Pistols could ever hope to be....but I'd rather have a red hot iron poker stuffed into my eyesockets than to listen to ELO.
IMO, musical ability isn't really all that important. What is important is the ability to make your listener FEEL something. That the band display some sort of chemistry. That they play with conviction.
I've ALWAYS liked my Stones sloppy. Right on the ragged edge. In fact, most everything I listen to I'd say is pretty ragged. It's the only way to get any real emotion into the music.
Some people say Queen made brilliant music. I say Queen made brilliant music that is completely boring.
Hey, it's your ears. You can subject them to anything that you like.
I like the Jam, The Strangler, Mink De Ville...all good bands. I was never real keen on Dr. Feelgood though...sounded like run of the mill pub rock to me. |
|
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]