"The Clash were, I am fairly sure, playing the Apollo — so if it was the Apollo... you were only too aware of the way this small but potent punkish enterprise was scaling itself up rapidly and quite aggressively. The group were evidently no longer an organic continuation of their scrotty urban environment, existing somehow independently of the cogs and flywheels of an egregious industrial machine — and if you are younger than sixty you will have to take it on trust that there once was a time when rock groups really did appear to operate independently of good industrial practice, represented, regulated and approved by that chafing machine.
"You yourself rocked up in all your teased out tousle to the chipped-Deco embrace of the Apollo’s mighty frontage, highly conscious that this was rather more than a halfway house to the big time, and once inside and facing the framing device of a hefty proscenium arch, you were instantly visited by the sense that the Clash, this small aggregation of individuals in military trousers was no longer a socio-political pustule exploding with electric guitars; this was a show. Something that had been put on for an audience by professionals who know how things work. Showbusiness. A put-on, not a turn-on.
"I have no other way of addressing this strange perceptual contortion except to say, in a self-reproaching tone, that I loved the Clash at the time. I did not regard them as fakes or put-ons. They obviously were not fakes or put-ons. And yet I remember finding myself unable to swallow the Kool-Aid that night.
"I fear I may have made too much afterwards of Mick Jones in his white jumpsuit (white!) and the way he appeared to turn a bright eye on himself, as all rock guitarists have done since a shapely Fender was first slung over a young person’s shoulder, observing themselves almost as the Method actor does, from the inside, looking out from within, and then back at his or her outer form with a critical edge on their gaze — as if their inner selves must seal the deal formally with the outer cladding in getting the look, the moves, the face, the grace, la figura, the right stuff right. The ideal projection of self. Mick Jones was getting very good at this kind of eyeless self-scrutiny and projection and I thought it was very bad form. I may have even used the word “narcissistic” when among friends. And I’d have then probably punched you if you’d said to me that I was carrying my responsibilities as a paying member of the audience a smidge too far. No, of course I wouldn’t. But I would have probably fantasised about punching you."
Nick Coleman, at his Substack, which is full of interesting musings about music and the roles it's played in his life. The post is titled "the death of rock: and it was on my watch!"
I think what I would say about the Clash is that if you were to look, today, at footage of them from even their very earliest days, the elements of theatre would scream out to your eyes - there's a rhetoric of bodily movements, from the way Simonon held his bass and pumped his leg, to the quasi-military formation of the players on stage, to how Strummer is projecting towards the mic and the audience.
Well, looky here, footage of The Clash at the Manchester Apollo, two years before Coleman saw them at the same venue.
Yet it must have seemed at the time to have a quality of unvarnished urgency that felt like Reality arriving on the stage, instantly outmoding the Old Wave ways of going about rock performance.
But I mean, quite quite early on they started having backdrops of photos taken on the war torn streets of Belfast, right? So that's already in the realm of theatre, even as it projects towards the Real and tries to bring it onstage with them.
Jump to 4.46 for a satirical scene from Rock Follies in which Old Waver Stevie Streeter tries to go New Wave with staged urban decay. Tim Curry in top form!
My sense with the (early) Clash is that their purpose was entirely dialectic - they were there to combat the divergent nihilisms of the Sex Pistols and The Stranglers. That they were totally shit was overlooked for this very reason - as long as they injected a certain degree of progressive liberal humanism into the culture (and therefore a continuity with the hippy era) they could expect support from "the critics".
ReplyDeleteThis also explains why when they actually started to be quite good (Sandinista onwards), there was a comparative lack of interest in them - their dialectical purpose was no longer a pressing concern.
An interview with Bill Janovitz, on his new book on the Cars:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/the-cars-book-ric-ocasek-drive-1235426597/
'The thing you always hear about the Cars is they were lifeless live. Do you think that’s been a bit exaggerated?'
They say that was by design. I talk about this quite a bit in the book. If you saw them in the early days —before all the stage stuff, where it’s just them on a stage — you’d go, “This is a really compelling.” First of all, they sounded amazing. They sounded like a record, which is, depending on your taste, good or bad. With the Cars, I think that’s good.
[...]
They also decided early on that they were going to be anti-rock star. Punk rock had its own stance as well, but it also had its own theater. It was like, “We aren’t that, but we are this.” They gave an alternative theater to the whole thing. The Cars were like, “We’re going to be cool, detached. We’ve got this amazing, beautiful singer here. Every once in a while, the guitar player will come out and just do his solo, but then recede back into the shadows. We’re not going to talk to the audience.”
Isn’t the reality of the Clash that they were a manufactured showbiz proposition right from the start, just as much as the Sex Pistols were? Their manager Bernie Rhodes was a fashion designer who had been a friend and collaborator of Malcolm McLaren. The story goes that he discovered Lydon for the Pistols, but when McLaren shut him out of managing the band, he realised he needed to go off and launch his own project.
ReplyDeleteStrummer and Simonon have both been very open about how their ideas and strategy were shaped by Rhodes. Strummer said: “He constructed the Clash”. Simonon: “He set up the whole punk scene”.
The big difference was that where McLaren loved pulling back the curtain to reveal the rock’n’roll swindle, Rhodes’s schtick was authenticity. And Rhodes didn’t have the same ego that drove McLaren to claim the spotlight for himself.
I mostly agree with you, Phil, that the Clash’s pre-Sandinista output is terrible, but there are a few highlights. Complete Control is a rave-up that would not disgrace the Pistols or the Buzzcocks, with some cool lyrics.
And White Man in Hammersmith Palais anticipates this whole critique, just about in real time in 1978. Coleman’s experience watching the Clash is pretty much exactly what Strummer felt watching Dillinger and Leroy Smart.
I went and read the Coleman piece, and it is terrific. I’m always happy to see the live 1980-81 Talking Heads getting some respect.
DeleteBut isn’t the other point that the experience he describes is an inevitable consequence of getting older? You can be - and millions of people were - enthralled by music that seems like it is giving it to you straight for the first time. It happened with Dylan, it happened with Punk, with Hip-Hop, with Grime… But once you have seen enough to learn a bit about how the entertainment industry works, it is never going to be possible to capture quite the same excitement again.
When the MM was gushing over the Manic Street Preachers in the 90s, I felt envious of the generation that was young enough not to know that this had all been done before. There was no way I was ever going to feel the same.
Those two songs are my favorite songs of the first-phase Clash - actually it would be closer to say, the only 1st-phase Clash I like.
DeleteBoth fit in a weird way - 'Complete Control' is a staged-on-vinyl drama of their own struggle with Showbiz, and as you say, 'White Man in Hammersmith' is an example of rock's anti-theatricality - rootsrockrebel fantasies about reggae as truth-telling revolution vaporize on contact with the reality of it as a form of entertainment, all glitzy suits and rehearsed movements.
Aren't you lot being quite unfair to the Clash, and the Sex Pistols for that matter? One obvious lesson to draw from Bernie Rhodes and (especially) Malcolm McLaren is that they weren't especially good at managing bands. They might have sought to be Svengalis, but let's remember that the Clash album Rhodes had most influence over (producing under a pseudonym) was Cut the Crap, and do I need to explain McLaren's ineptitude? Just because the management had an agenda doesn't mean the musicians lacked one.
DeleteGood point, and I don’t want to undervalue the contributions of the bands themselves, which were obviously important for both the Clash and the Sex Pistols, as you say. I think my point was more to emphasise the artifice and strategy behind the rise of the Clash. They were not just four mates who had some tunes they wanted to share with the world.
DeleteOn White Man in Hammersmith Palais, the other aspect I find interesting is how resigned it is. Not so much condemning showbiz as accepting that that is the business they are all in. Punks and Rude Boys alike, they are all just looking for fun.
My first post was a bit overly strident (alcohol assisted, alas), and I do think White Man in Hammersmith Palais is great. Also there are a couple of outstanding tracks on Give 'Em Enough Rope - Safe European Home and Guns On The Roof are both great.
DeleteHowever I think the manufactured aspect of The Clash goes hand-in-hand with the dialectical one. It seems that they were nurtured almost as a foil to the Pistols - providing a responsible humanitarian context for all the nihilism. It's a bit like the Pistols were the vandals, and The Clash were the social workers calling for more youth clubs.
Definitely. Someone - Greil Marcus? Lester Bangs? - has a great line about how the Clash’s project was to take the Sex Pistols’ incoherent howl of negation and make sense of it.
Delete