Anything you read about the Clash either proclaims them as utter heroes -- exciting, explosive, daring, and revolutionary. Or, men who have been over-excitedly labeled, and usually the question is asked, "How can anyone live up to that?"
Still, the thought of the Clash being so highly lauded leaves me a little dizzy. When I began my savage musical obsession with "The Only Band That Matters", I was surprised to read that they were thought of as so important. Yeah, I knew the Clash were regarded a pioneer punk band. But even my damn know-it-all self didn't know that London Calling was such a 'classic'. I thought they were remembered as just being another group from a exciting time musically, maybe a little above average. I had never even entertained the idea that they were regarded as one of rock and roll's most celebrated acts. Am I living in a bubble? Is that what their reputation is?
Maybe this idea never reached me because I've been spinning in my own world. A world where I am surrounded by people who are anxiously awaiting this Clash phase to be over. A world in which they are a 'footnote'. But as I sit here with "Charlie Don't Surf" on repeat (and I NEVER put singular tracks on repeat, it tends to be a bore), I've come to the conclusion, "Fuck everybody else, I love the Clash!"
Its a weird admission, because simply, I don't do punk. But they aren't just punk. Before I actually listened to the Clash, I closemindedly thought of them as a PUNK band, with little brains and faces of pubescents, lacking credibility. Well, maybe not. I don't think I ever thought about it so much, actually. What the words 'the Clash' bring to people's minds, and what it all actually is are two different things. You have to give it a chance to be able to figure it out, but if you're already convinced that they're an overrated punk band, well duh, you won't figure it out!
The Clash are one of the first bands that I've really been into that are SUCH a take it or leave it group. You either loathe them, adore them, or don't know enough to care. As such, saying you like the Clash can either provoke intense respect or strange stares.
Discovering the Clash has taught me that if you don't want to like something, you won't. If you have an open mind, you might dig what you find. So sometimes I feel a little foolish when somebody says (or thinks), "Why... are you listening to the Clash so much?" (The play counts on London Calling are exceeding one hundred, and I'm only slowly removing them from my playlist because I'd hate to overdo it and spoil the splendor!) But foolishness, schmoolishness. I've got an open mind, bitches!
Its also taught me that you can't judge ANYTHING until you try it. I'm officially done given poorly thought out judgments of bands (and everything, generally) that I think I don't like. So do it, ask me about Bruce Springsteen or U2. I'll say, "I don't know enough about them." I think Bono looks silly with his ever-present glasses (FUCKING TAKE THEM OFF!), but musically, I can only critique so much.
Even though this entire Clash phase has been a constant, everyday pleasure, it also brings forth the message: Who gives a shit about what people like? Or what people think about what you like? Not because of any philosophies Joe Strummer is humming in my ear, but because, that's just the plain truth. It isn't really anything the Clash are preaching in particular, I've just happen to come to this conclusion during this phase. Despite what I may have previously believed, musical tastes reflects nothing but... musical taste. ASTONISHING! Somebody's collection of music is not their entire character mapped out. Its just the albums they prefer.
I go through musical phases in two ways, usually: One being utter, encompassing obsession. This includes devouring as many books, films, albums, photos, Google searches, and Wikipedia entries as humanly possible. I'm gonna know when each damn album was released, what they went through to make it (i.e. foregoing royalties on Sandinista! to sell the triple-LP for a little above the price of one), and whatever other personal hoopla surrounded the little slab of plastic. Its either that, or a constant mash-up of wildly assorted artists. But within that pile, I'm just searching for the next artist to temporarily warp my world and allow me to entertain the idea of promoting them to 'all time favorites'.
As I bummed over the fact that everyone in the Clash is old/ugly/boring/doing coke with Kate Moss (or dead), I wondered, "Why is this provoking more bummage than the fact that say, half the Beatles are long gone?" BECAUSE, quite a bit of the Clash's allure is just that -- allure. They were young, and their whole get-up was, "We're just normal dudes!" They were the best damn dressed rock and roll band since the Stones, and they had that unwavering optimism. So yeah, the Clash didn't just rely on musical brilliance to cause a stir. I mean, I basically gave the Clash a try because Paul Simonon proved himself to be such a damn late Seventies babe, that I thought, "I can't JUST dig his style, that's too lame of me, I have to make something of the music!" The thought of being intrigued by his unabashed attractiveness, but knowing nothing about the Clash left me cold. It was either, remove that damn good photo from your desktop background or appreciate what it stands for. And victoriously, the background still stands! Had the Clash not tickled my fancy, then sayonara Paul Simonon looking so very striking alongside an immensely beaten up Pete Townshend. What I was initially getting at with this bit is that, whoaaaa, you don't always need crazy amazing musical talent exploding at every minute to have a decent band!
The fateful photo that adorned my desktop.
Here's what I do know: Even though I really revel in the fact that I could win endless battles of musical trivia... I mean, FUCK, I know random facts about every little thing. The other day I impressed somebody by knowing what YEAR Let It Be was released, and I just wanted to say, "Really? Would you like me to awe you with the fact that I could go on for HOURS giving you a detailed history of the Beatles and each of their respective lives, dating from boyish days in Liverpool, to at the very least the highlights of their individual solo careers?" (Ringo's history would stop in 1970, haaaaa.) I've read SO MUCH about rock and roll music that it definitely crosses over to ridiculousness. (Ridiculousness/awesomeness, that is.) But yeah, even though I find that all really amusing, I don't think any of it matters. Just because I know it, doesn't mean it matters. Its like in school when you think, "When am I EVER going to use this in life?!??!" Its just interesting tidbits of information. That's what rock and roll history is to me. The history only has so much to do with the music. I don't care what you fucking do with your personal life. Rock and roll stars aren't required to be geniuses. They aren't my heroes, or my idols. That would require them to be heroic, and for me to idolize them. Nay. That's probably a surprising thing to hear me say, because I'm the one who is constantly gushing about the musical brilliance of these people, and the transcendent feelings they provoke in me. But that IS what matters: the music! It doesn't matter what drugs you take, who you fuck, how you look, or where you come from... If you can play, and make me feel all sorts of foreign emotions, then that's what I'm after. I'm obsessed with music, not musicians.
As I listened to "Charlie Don't Surf", I thought, "I'll have this forever." You're capable of finding those gems in so many random places! If I hadn't insanely decided to listen to Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, then I would have never listened to London Calling. But it wasn't until I wanted to give London Calling a chance that I actually began to like it. The first time I listened to it, I dully sat, awaiting its end, focusing on anything but the music. Well obviously it didn't fucking register. Pay attention, be in tune! Those lucky numbers which make you effortlessly happy and instantly together, they're floating in mysterious locations!
It makes me want to listen to vastly different genres of music. Mystical and elusive artists that I know nothing about, but am taking a wild chance on because maybe they'll be my new obsession.
So where do the Clash sit historically? Are they important? Revolutionary? Influential?* The Only Band That Matters? Answer: It doesn't really matter. Those big titles don't mean anything to ANYBODY, really. The only thing that actually means anything is whether or not YOU dig it. As for me, I say, "Fuck everybody else, I love the Clash!"
* 'Influential' is a naughty word. It usually implies that they ejected a million little brats off their couches and provoked them to pick up guitars. NOW, what is rarely EVER taken into consideration is if those little brats aspired to anything decent. Sure, you've heard of them, but are they actually good? Influential could be a bad title, if they inspired a bunch of talentless fucks to clog up the stations. And thinking about it, nothing too mind-boggling followed in the vein of the Clash, so perhaps we'll eliminate the world 'influential' from my musical vocabulary. I never focus on who bands influence anyway, because it has little to do with the music.
Post script; Its strange that music journalism is mostly about trying to convince people that what you like (or dislike) is relevant. The job basically implies that people should give a damn about what you have to say about a specific album. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and frankly, the relevance of my opinion on a given piece of music ends with me. That's rather perplexing. I just want to write about it the best that I can, purely because I love it. Frankly, I always went after what other people liked, and now I realize, its bullshit. Go after what you like, and if you don't quite know what it is, wander aimlessly until you find it. You will.Source URL: https://jimhensons.blogspot.com/2009/12/clash-evaluating-their-place-in-rock.html
Visit Jim Henson for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment