A Blog Whose Author Did a Very Poor Job When It Came To Naming It.

Just another WordPress.com weblog

“ARRRGHHHGORRA BUH BHVH DO ARRRRGGGGHHHHNNNN!!!!”

Posted by jsoliver on March 22, 2007

When they started calling Simon and Garfunkel “rock and roll,” something had to be done, pronto.

As the sixties wound down, so did rock music. In the fifties, rock and roll was something new and dangerous—back then a country boy raised in Tennessee could swivel his hips to something that sounded like blues hopped-up on steroids and cause an outrage. Then through the sixties, as Vietnam, the civil rights movement, and the Cold War adversely affected the minds of millions, rock musicians appropriately reflected the zeitgeist of a culture spiraling out of control. They weren’t afraid of anything, and they did whatever the felt like. But then things cooled down, and what used to be that damned devil music decided it was content lay down its guns and become the easy, ordinary, plain-old mainstream music. And that’s why we have punk.

Around ‘74, a new wave of musicians came to the understanding that rock and roll needed to get its bite back right now. In an attempt to regain that lost edge, they decided to forgo the complex arrangements and the polished studio effects in favor of stripping down to a handful of instruments and really bad attitude. They were loud, they were fast, and they were pissed—these were the criteria, and although musical aptitude was preferred, it certainly wasn’t required. The punks evolved: the Ramones were too mellow and the Sex Pistols were too untalented, but before long we got the Clash, and there was plenty to be happy (angry?) about.

Having started out as a supporting act for the Sex Pistols in 1976, the Clash released its first, self-titled record the following year to great commercial success in the U.K. and displayed an unusual amount of sophistication for a punk group. The Clash contained influences of early rock and roll and even reggae, but most of all it was loud, loud, loud and fast, fast, fast. It was followed up by Give ‘Em Enough Rope, and by that point the band added a degree of polish the previous record lacked, but don’t think that means the essential sound changed too much. It was possibly even louder and even faster (yet more slick), but above all retained the all-important sense of RAGE (caps warranted). And thus the Clash spoke to the pent-up restlessness of everyone who was discontent with rock’s coma, but their importance wasn’t much greater than that of all the other young punks around. They were playing angry for an angry fan base—essentially, they weren’t doing too much more than riding the coattails of the movement.

Then there was London Calling.

In 1979, the Clash released their unquestioned magnum opus to commercial and critical success which had previously eluded them, and solidified their place in cultural history. With London Calling also came a breakthrough in the U.S., something the previous records couldn’t manage. Incorporating blends of rockabilly, ska, reggae, and R&B, the new album not only pushed punk rock in a direction in which it had never dreamed of going, but also gave a new spark to rock music on the whole. With one album, the Clash made the penultimate accomplishment that was the goal of the punk movement from the very beginning—rock was new, experimental, and dangerous once again. But that’s not to detract from the previous punk bands and their accomplishments, since London Calling couldn’t have happened without them. But in the grand scheme of things, the punk movement on a whole was building up to this record—consistently ranked these days as one of the ten or so greatest albums of all time, London Calling was the punk flagship.

But things went downhill for the boys from there. 1980’s Sandinista! saw them getting a big head, releasing a monstrous three-disc album in which they did whatever sort of weird stuff they felt like (it’s been called their White Album, but being so out of control and unbalanced, it gives me a headache that John, Paul, George, and Ringo couldn’t rival). It wasn’t a bad album though. There’s some great stuff to be heard on it, but there’s also a lot of crap. Besides, there were problems within the band itself by the time Combat Rock was released in 1982, notably drummer Topper Headon’s heroin addiction and subsequent sacking. Then, when frontmen Joe Strummer and Mick Jones’ differences resulted in Jones being booted, the shattered remnants of the Clash (now Strummer, bassist Paul Simonon, and a few other guys) gave it one final shot with the aptly-titled Cut the Crap in 1985 before calling it quits less than a year later. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Clash captured the spirit of a movement more adequately than any other, and for while they really were the only band that mattered.

6 Responses to ““ARRRGHHHGORRA BUH BHVH DO ARRRRGGGGHHHHNNNN!!!!””

  1. jsoliver said

    Author’s Note: The Clash were important because they captured the spirit of an entire movement. They embodied an idea of righteous outrage that few others could, and the result was music that we just felt like killing somebody to. I know this next statement is very opinionated and hard to defend in a scant 800 words, but the Clash were hands-down the best punk band ever, and anyone who calls themselves punk these days (i.e. some band like Green Day) is a damn dirty liar. Punk was a genre particular to its time, and the Clash were the epitome of that.

  2. thesimmons said

    Well, I love the review…though that could greatly be due to the fact I am a huge Clash fanboy.

    It covered the bases dealing with that Clash and the beginnings of punk, so there is not complant there. I would argue thought that the time table for mild rock was off. Simon and the Afro King had ben performing together since 57 and then hit their own in the 60s, so how are they a measure of rocks decline. Also the hippie/psych rock movement was not until the mid-60s-early 70s. I mean they were still out there. I would say that punk was due to the musical cool down in Europe and that it caught on here due to disco burnout. I mean London Calling wasn’t even released until 1980 in the US.

  3. Good job. One thing I want to note is that I think you need to make sure you dont get too out of hand. While the review is fun to read, you dont really get into any critical analyzes until the fourth paragraph. I think you need to find a balance between style and substance. Other then that great job.

  4. I loved the history section. It was really cool how you kept the reader from knowing exactly what was being discussed until the middle. I also like the short phrases like “Then there was London Calling.” The only question is did you start running out of words toward the end? It just seems to get a little choppy in the last paragraph.

  5. Dammit. WTF. I read something, comment, and it doesn’t show up.

    I’m not much on The Clash. I’m not one of those people who will call someone banging on a guitar brilliant. It takes more than just lyrics, or just music, to strike my fancy. It has to be a combination of the two. I could only see myself listening to The Clash like I listen to Tenacious D – rarely, sparsely, and comically.

    Did I blaspheme? Probably so. They have my respect, however. I just… won’t listen to them.

    Good review, though! I enjoyed it lot-o-mucho.

  6. Sarah said

    So if I had read this before I had heard the band (as I so often do with our posts it seems), I would be ever so inclined to jump on the nearest bike (mine or not) and hightail it to a CD selling location. However, I have heard The Clash, and they’re just not for me. I’m a smooth kid with smooth tastes I suppose (ha), but I recognize the validity of what you say. You outline wonderfully why we should like them, and I am missing that in so many writers these days. Why does The Clash rock so hard? You tell us in succinct, meaningful words. I love the history, though I agree with Laura. The last sentence is well written, but thrown in there rather after the fact.

    Jacob, I wish I had something more constructive to say. I just love your writing.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>