Artist: The Clash
Album: London Calling
Release Date: December 14, 1979
Look, I don’t mean to be “that guy”, the meathead who defends mainstream music alongside the independent, tooth-and-nail bands who work for every ounce of success they get. But I feel as though there’s a bit of a double-standard around The Clash. If any active band today did things that The Clash did in terms of expanding their sound and garnering widespread fame for it, they’d get crucified.
When The Clash had their first bit of mainstream success on their self titled debut record two years prior to London Calling’s release, it was with a dynamic and texture far different from this sound. The Clash had a very flat-out, fundamental punk rock sound; easy chords, no solos sloppy instrumentation across the board. And it worked wonderfully. It was and is a landmark album for punk rock. Now cue up London Calling. Vastly different sound. The production value is a little sharper. Tracks like “Wrong ‘Em Boyo” and “Spanish Bombs” have fuller instrumentation, and by God, there are solos and hints of musicianship on this record! It’s no wonder that this album was a success, and is considered a great album then, and a classic now.
Nowadays, if a band grows like that and with that growth comes fame, it’s called “selling out”. For example, look at what’s happened to Green Day. For the better part of the 90s they’re snot nosed brats giving punk rock a much-needed revival. Fast forward to the mid-late 2000s, and Green Day release two albums with broader sounds, deeper lyrics and a slew of hits in American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown (I’m going to assume that the latter album spawns at least one more single, bringing the combined total from the two albums to 8). But this time, the music listening public spends more time slamming Green Day than they do embracing them. A year ago, if you had brought up Green Day to the average music fan, you’d be met with eye rolls and scoffs.
Fundamentally, what they did a few years ago and what the Clash did in the late 70s are the same. So why do the Clash get hailed as heroes, while Green Day are called sellouts?
Honestly, you’re guess is as good as mine. It could be a function of increased animosity toward record labels and mainstream radio (which in and of itself doesn’t make a whole lot of sense). It could also be because the two bands have different fan bases. But the point is the notion that a band discovering a new sound that results in greater visibility makes them somehow a lesser band than they were before is ludicrous. The music that comes out today has its own merits. They may not be as great as that of 30 years ago, but they have their own place in history, and it certainly shouldn’t be maligned just because the system under which music is made and released now is different from then.
That said, I still hate record labels. End rant. Disagree with me? Tell me so in the comments. I’ll be happy to start a dialogue about this.
The Clash – London Calling [iTunes] (YSI)
==TJ==
Filed under: Album A Day | Tagged: 1970s, Album A Day, The Clash
I’m not sure it makes sense to “hate” record labels. For most of the history of professional music, either music publishers or recording companies (in some instances, the same entities) were an absolute necessity to become known to the wider public.
They had access to markets that no individual could have on his/her own. They could protect the artist and/or songwriter from copyright infringement with their deep pockets. They could connect an artist or writer with others with whom they could collaborate for greater esthetic and monetary results. (Example: It is unlikely that any of the most famous Motown groups from the Supremes to the Temptations to the Four Tops could have reached their success levels if Gordy Berry hadn’t hooked them up with the likes of Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson and Holland-Dozier-Holland.)
Are they still needed now, in the internet age? Perhaps not. But I think what has been lost in the past decade or two is a sense of music that EVERYONE knows…in the way that, in my youth, everyone knew the music that made up the Top 40. Everything’s fragmented…balkanized…
I think a major problem in the comparison of The Clash and Green Day is the musical style involved. Green Day went from “simple punk” to “The Who.” This is not really a musical revolution – instead it’s the evolution of a band to a point that had already been seen in the musical past. Not a bad change by any means, just not a revolutionary one.
London Calling may not sound it today, but it’s revolutionary in how it pulls together so many new and unrelated styles and propels them with the punk force seen from the group’s earlier work.
Clearly all the styles seen in London Calling were seen before (ska, blues, punk, R&B, reggae, hard rock, jazz), but never were they all put in one double-album and given such mass-exposure. For a band made popular on pretty basic punk, this move to experimental rock (for the time, it certainly was) this shift is stunning.
Many critics argue that The Velvet Underground are the godfathers of all alternative rock. I’d say that the album London Calling is the runner up. The band creates a brilliant template for all followers and continues to sound powerful today.
Green Day may be socially important today and is doing a good job to remind people of bold rock statements. However, they did not prove the original catalyst of such styles (that honor goes to The Who, Pink Floyd, etc). The Clash were the first to bring it these divergent alternative styles together like this.
ee, where to start? For one thing, Green Day’s “development”… doesn’t leave them sounding that much different to me. They added strings, the odd piano etc, but essentially they still sounded the same, just more mainstream. The Clash on the other hand were exploring different musical forms – notably reggae, and on the London Calling album some quite 50s sounding rock n’ roll. Sure The Clash revealed some musicianship, but they showed some imagination, too. It’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t see Green Day as being that imaginative.
Now, one final point I’d like to make. You say, “If any active band today did things that The Clash did in terms of expanding their sound and garnering widespread fame for it, they’d get crucified.”
I can think of at least one exception to this rule. Take for example, The Flaming Lips. In the 80s they were a noisy punk band whom very few had heard of. Moving into the 90s they started making what I would call “pop songs made with noise”, but still few knew of them. In the late 90s you had the electronic/orchestral stylings of “The Soft Bulletin” – for many their breakthrough album, then the VERY accessible “Yoshimi”, which saw them playing to large packed venues here in the UK etc, etc…
Now the thing is, I don’t hear anyone saying The Lips have sold out, and perhaps the reason for this is that their music is still fricking brilliant. I wouldn’t say that about Green Day.
You make some pertinent points, though, and your hypothesis does tend to be “the rule”. Perhaps in some cases though, more commercial or more accessible can still be great music, and can still have integrity. Were the Beatles popular? Yes. Were they great? Yes.
On the other hand, are Green Day great?… mm… no.
Again, only my opinion. Good post though.