I think they're great and can do very little meringue. I'm one of the fortunates who saw them live, twice. Don't take your bile out on me or others who think they were not only great but important.

not with you, in fact nowhere close to you, not even same planet hatdude

I've got no bile whatsoever for Clash fans. And I keep giving them a chance. But...nothing.
Maybe you had to be there. Which is no bad thing. Somethings are all about the time and the place.

I understand, I'm like that with the Manky Street Cleaners, and they inspire similar devotion. Me I can't see or hear it.

i'm afraid i'm not with you either. Never got to see them live, but I love most of their recorded output, the divisive 'Sandinista' being one of my favourites, a band experimenting and having fun doing so.

I guess we all have bands that we cannot understand the fuss that surrounds them

is a superb album. Can take or leave the rest of their stuff.

I even like B.A.D.

And I bought Sandinista. Which I didn't not like. But really.

As for musicianship, they were about 7% of the band that The Attractioins were.

Topper was / is one of the best drummers ever.
And Broadway.... what's crap about the lyrics to this? Or Straight To Hell? Or..... splutter splutter....
Anyway.. each to their own.

The Clash are like The Stone Roses. You had to be there.

If you weren't you don't quite get it. I adore(d) the Roses but feel nowt for The Clash but understand why those who saw them in their heyday (both theirs and the band's) do.

I didn't like the first Clash album when it came out - too tinny and weedy - and I still don't like it, for the same reasons. I like certain tracks, like 'London's Burning', but as I have said again elsewhere about another song, this is one of those records that will never sound as good on my CD player as it sounds in my head.

I saw The CLash live in 1978 at the Victoria Park Rock Against Racism gig and they weren't very good at all, their musical ambitions being evidently thwarted by their limited musical abilities.

I then saw them at Coventry Tiffanies (Feb 7th 1980) and they were excellent. They had learned to play by this time, or at least could play their own stuff better, the sound had beefed up and they rocked big-time.

Their records were notoriously hit-and-miss affairs. What they really needed was strong quality control, but like lots of bands that end up believing their own publicity, they unfortunately thought they knew better. But, there is some truly cracking stuff to be found and for that reason (together with being responsible for one of the best gigs I have ever seen), I'm glad they bothered.

...and your opinion is perfectly valid, but I've got to say it: the first Clash album changed my life, and White Man In Hammersmith Palais remains the best record I've ever heard.

Now, Bruce Springsteen. He is terrible...

Why don't you list all the other bands you don't like ? Why choose the Clash? It all seems a bit odd and faintly arrogant. Clearly any hugely popular band aren't shit otherwise they'd not have millions of fans they must have something even if it's not to your taste. They obviously where good enough musicians and wordsmiths to pen songs many people like/love etc which is the central genius in all pop music. They may well also have been at the right time in the right place but that's the truism of every big band.
And as for fashion well you're the one wearing a hat indoors.

would surely be a slightly more controversial topic on the Word Blog no? I mean The Word is hardly Punk Rock friendly is it?

Anyway, tell me some of your favourite bands and I'm sure there will be a few that I think are s**t.

Emperor's New Clothes indeed.
I also have given it many tries, but I just don't get it.

I's also agree that The Word is hardly punk rock friendly. In fact, I almost choked when they reviewed Glastonbury and gave the Stranglers thumbs up.
It's one criticism I'd make of the magazine. They fill it with numerous references to the people tagged at the bottom of this page.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want it to turn into Classic Punk magazine, but just one 4 page interview with Jet Black, septuagenarian rock drummer, would surely be the basis of a great article?

Just love it, especially side one. And "London Calling" would be magnificent if it were half as long. "Rudie Can't Fail" would make any top ten songs of all time, if I were the compiler.

I've never bothered with "Sandanista!", and generally speaking I don't like punk, but The Clash were something else. A fabulous rock band, not that consistent, but fabulous nonetheless.

Fairport Convention, on the other hand - now they were shit.

*ducks below parapet, sniggering*

and quite a few songs, but I wouldn't call myself a fan.

However of Fairport Convention I would. They were never shit. Okay, once or twice.

They played my university supporting their debut album. I went to see them out of academic interest. It was OK if you like that sort of thing but being a fan of Yes & Genesis I didn't like it much or what it stood for. I certainly don't understand why they are held in such high regard but it is very much an age thing; I was at 20 already too old for them. I like London Calling and that's it.

I don't think I experienced the best of The Clash as I never saw them live. Their first two albums are a struggle to listen to for me, despite containing some good songs. London Calling is a great record. Not flawless, but great. Thereafter they had some brilliant moments - The Magnificent Seven, Rock the Casbah. I'd love to have been at the shows they played at Bond's International Casino in NYC.

And Big Audio Dynamite, and Strummer's stuff, and Carbon/Silicon and Strummer's time working with The Pogues. So I'm probably not without bias here.

What I've never been able to get my head around is prog. And Pink Floyd. And apart from Johnny Marr, who I think is a beautiful guitarist, I've never really been moved by The Smiths.

And I don't like The Godfather films.

But I like what I've heard. London Calling, Train In Vain, Rock The Casbah, all stone cold classics.

Proper poopy pants.

So read my post over on the Controversial Posters Opinions thread.
17 ups later, I've never felt so supported in my view that Fedoraboy is the Blog's most blatant example of The Emperor's New Clothes and more deserving of a Massive mauling than a thousand LuxExteriors.
I've tried. I've really, really tried. I must have read half a dozen Fedoraboy compments on Word websites over the years and every time I give it my full consideration. But really. Phrasing that would embarrass Jeffrey Archer. Penmanship that made DaVinci Code read slick. And those hats...

Who's with me?

(N.B. Just kidding. Luv ya really ;-))

is Black Market Clash (the original 10" vinyl, not the almost totally different later CD Super Black Market Clash).

I really like their reggae stuff.

I think he might have been our only decent teacher.

Tru dat.

..., Combat Rock and Rope are half baked affairs, the debut is a tad samey but...

London Calling (album)
Straight to Hell (12")
This is England (single)
Janie Jones (album track)
Police and Theives (album track)
Complete Control (single)
White Man in Hammersmith Palais (single)
Safe European Home (album track)
Bankrobber (single)
Magnificent Seven (album track)
Rock the Casbah (single)....

....are so good that all of their misfires should be forgiven.

The problem with getting too into most bands is that most have released at least as much crap as they have decent stuff. I loved Roxy Music, Queen, Elvis Costello and Madenss more when all I owned was their greatest hits collections - it all went down hill when I bought too many of the albums. So with the Clash - one good compilation ("Essential Clash" is best) and London Calling is all you need.

Wasn't even close to being around at the time but to me they are one of the great bands, maybe one of the last really great rock n' roll bands. I saw Joe Strummer live three times and those gigs have really stayed with me. As for Pink Floyd, I have tried and tried but I still thing that the best thing associated with them, by a country mile, is the Easy Star All-Star album and I'd say exactly the same thing about Radiohead.

I've tried (repeatedly), but it just ain't happening - for me they are the U2 of punk and Bernie Rhodes answer to McLaren's efforts with the Pistols.

Musically (apart from a few Mick Jones winners) I find them a bit lacking. London Calling was a rag-bag dressing up box of influences, Whereas The Damned's Machine Gun Etiquette, recorded at the same time moved punk into prog, psych and soundtrack territory.

The character of Joe Stummer (and let's not forget it was a construct) is built along the lines of Bob Dylan and Bono..all are people who created an identity and lost themselves. Note the pseudonyms, preference for sunglasses and non-smiling portraits. I'm sure he was a genuinely personable person and I'm not saying Strummer is the only rock star to ever inhabit a character: Bowie, McCartney and countless others have all created careers projecting a personality. But it's when there's no off switch and someone is permanently in character - they begin to become a bore.

Perhaps you had to be there at the time. I was two years too late for punk, and by the time I got onboard the bondage bus (79/80). The Clash were generally the pet-punk band of heavy metal kids and sixth-form proggers..while most of my punky peers were listening to the Pistols, Crass, UK Subs and The Damned.

I really don't think a band should be untouchable, or stamped with the legend 'we are great - no arguments'. I'm the first to slag off a band I can't stand - and there are many - and I like to hear why other people don't like a band I do.

An OP like this thread's might seem like to trolling to some, but if it inspires debate then all well and good. Additionally, it's also been agreed with by a lot of people. I'm not saying that makes it right of course, as far as I'm concerned The Clash were the perfect Rock N Roll band, the template in my head for what a band should be. And if you want I'll go on all day about why I love them.

But if you don't even like them, well that's not going to diminish my love for them.

I have a real soft spot for the Clash. Arriving in London from Ireland in the late 80's, what I thought was my expansive musical tastes stretched all the way from The Smiths to House of Love. Also, understanding of multi-ethnic and cultural society was pretty much based on Huggy Bear. The music of the Clash really captured something of my first experiences of the city, the reggae, the half baked socialism, the undercurrent of angst. To this day, those tunes can take me back 25 years and were instrumental in me being a lot less precious about music - I got into dub, rave and reggae at the time, soaking up the city, the people and the music like a sponge.

It is almost certainly a time and place thing - for instance, Stretham and Brixton sounded exotic in my wide eyed inexperience. But I do think that their music is so rooted in London that perhaps it is easier for outsiders to digest without the cyncism brought on by familiarity.

OK, some of the albums were patchy but there was genius sprinkled throughout. Train in Vain and White Man In the Palais - you just can't argue....

...you'd go far to find.

London is a hermetically sealed city state where many things apply that are simply beyond the experience of anyone elsewhere in Britain & Ireland, be that Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh&Glasgow, Dublin or wherever...

The Clash were a very London band, and with the benefit of hindsight their political posture does seem as adolescent as some Roger Waters or Bono lyrics (clutching at something meaningful within the schedule of a recording studio hire period) ...

They were also recording music at a particular point in London's history and British history: post-imperial, depressed, post-oil crisis, post-IMF intervention, towards the end of the post-war consensus, just as laissez-faire conservatism was set to appear and blow all that away ... the yowl of rage and energy was very time-specific and place-specific ... since then, or since 1979, we've had nearly 32 years of economic liberalism which in its own way has transformed London into a much richer, shinier, buoyant and even more multi-cultural world city, where the poor are more hidden away than ever before ...

So perhaps an opinion that "the Clash are rubbish" or whatever is analogous to saying that they belong to a different era, they were riding on a wave of revolt that went nowhere, and it was a very different kind of economic energy that really transformed London, while the rest of the UK and Ireland looks on like kids outside the proverbial sweetie shop, thinking of the Clash, shrugging shoulders and saying, "So what? They were 'then', they were 'London' and I'm sick to the back teeth of middle-aged metropolitan critics telling me how important they are because, really, they now just seem like characters from a Peter Akroyd book..."

Sealed With Your Tongue?

I just like the way it sounds. Is that a legitimate view to hold?

Didn't really expect this sort of fuss. But then I wasn't what you call trollin'.
'The Clash are shit' was from a thread full of one-liners. Mine received a bit of support and I did indeed feel that it maybe needed a bit more of a debate. As I wrote, but has been chiefly ignored, I want(ed) to like The Clash. I have tried. The passionate mauling - and forensic analysis of my posting history - has at least illustrated the passion they still inspire. But clearly I need to know my place. And know which are the right opinions to have - any chance we can put these in the FAQ?

I love The Clash. Proper love. Everything a great rock band should be. The "you had to be there" comments are well wide of the mark. I'm still the right side of 40, and didn't get into them properly until the early 90s, thanks to a C60 that I filled with as much of Plymouth City Library's copy of "Story Of The Clash" that I could and played over and over and over

And as for fedoraboy's crowing over the number of ups his silly throwaway comment got, well this blog, where he tries to expand on his point by basically saying he's listened to them every once in a while, and doesn't like their fashion sense, has (at the time of writing) several less ups. You're haemorrhaging support! Give up while you still can!

surely you must appreciate The Clashes place in the pantheon of great bands, deny the wonder of "Londons Calling" and enduring legacy of Joe Strummer.

Nothing else has come close. I was 26 at the time. What's more, I also like ABBA and Pink Floyd. Is that allowed?

How Long Has This Been Going On?

then you've got to take it.

As long as those rules are observed then it's all a bit of fun

In theory, The Clash (like Led Zeppelin) are the very defintion of what a band should be like. But somehow the sum of its parts don't always add up. I admire both bands for what they were, but I've never had a desire to commit myself to them.

for my not continuing to see a particular Championship side play football (the main reasons were having to sit instead of stand, the ludicrous wages/prices, and the fact that if they were successful I'd have to pay money to see Spud features, 'JT', Fat Frank, Cashley etc.)

.....but the playing of the dire 'London Calling' at about 2.40 p.m. every second Saturday meant completely changing my normal routine just to avoid it and, on more than one occasion, I was reduced to stick my fingers in both ears and singing 'la, la, la' to myself.

I guess you had to be there but The Smiths meant more to me than any other band. I can listen to The Clash on a compilation but I've never felt the urge to go & buy their albums. Similarly (I prepare myself to be slaughtered!) Led Zep, Floyd, Stone Roses, Nirvana...I could go on but you get the idea. All bands who have probably shaped music history & undoubtedly have some classic songs, but (so far) haven't really grabbed me.