Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Joe Strummer Dead

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru January 2003 » Arts & Other Philosophical Sundries » Joe Strummer Dead « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through December 23, 2002Admin25 12-23-02  11:45 pm
Archive through December 26, 2002Lordhobgoblin25 12-26-02  2:14 am
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of British punk.
But, the bands from that era that I still listen to are the ones that are more pop than punk, like: The Vibrators, The Buzzcocks, The Undertones, The Stranglers, The Damned, X Ray Spex, The Only Ones, The Skids, Siouxie And The Banshees.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I mean "political" in the broadest possible sense. If Punk was just good-time music, then it was no different than Disco.

And "taking itself too seriously"? The Pistols, Clash, Gang Of Four wrote some of the funniest damn shit ever.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 10:20 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Actually, I thought it was taking the wind out of gurus, back when you couldn't twirl a pointed stick without poking one in the third eye. But it did take a long time to make that point. That's probably Pete Townshend's doing.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:39 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The least interesting rock and roll on the planet is the shit that takes itself too seriously.
Even worse than political rock is the self-important concept crap like The Who's
TOMMY. Wretched.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 9:24 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The same thing that was happening in New York in 1975 was happening in London, only they called it "Pub Rock". Simple, aggressive, ironic Rock'n'Roll. In 1975 it was already happening in every major city in the Midwest, too. I don't think it got really interesting until the Brits put the politics up front and turned it into PUNK.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 8:40 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I will accept that Punk may have existed in New York for a few months before it existed in the UK. I'll also accept that Dictators Go Girl Crazy was the first punk album. But the Voivoids were not in existence before 1976 and The Ramones' Blitzkrieg Bop was released in 1976 as was The Damned's New Rose. So in the scheme of things Punk happened in London and New York really at the same time, anyway it was all over by 1979. I'll also agree that Punk was not about Politics.
Posted on Friday, January 3, 2003 - 7:37 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Practically everything that is uttered on this forum is an opinion, in fact most of what is uttered by any human being on this planet is an opinion. Should we all go around starting practically every sentence with "In my opinion..." and finishing every sentence with "...but on the other hand you may well be right and I may well be wrong"? Life would be so tedious, so liberal, so non-confrontational. If I believe what I'm saying is a fact then I'll state it as a fact.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 10:15 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


This is the Joe Strummer thread. What better place to talk about the reason why the Clash started playing back in 1976?

No, I mean don't start the I-know-what-the-absolute-definition-of-punk-is bullshit, because we went around in circles for 3 weeks, last time. If you will phrase your OPINIONS about the nature of punk as such, instead of as empirical fact, I might be willing to have a discussion.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 3:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

WHOOO-HOO!! It's the rematch of Battle Of The Punk Greybeards! New York vs. London!
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 2:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Punk started in New York City in 1975 with bands
THE DICTATORS, and STEEL TIPS. It had nothing to do with politics.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 12:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Punk had been and gone by the time Thatcher became Prime Minister. James Callaghan was Prime Minister from 1976 to 1979. Punk was born and died during a Labour government.

But it was about boredom rather than politics 'London's burning with boredom now'.

All the icons of the past few years were livings as tax exiles (our hearts bleed for how they suffered having to pay a bit more tax) on yachts and luxury penthouses abroad, snorting fortunes worth of cocaine up their noses and regarding themselves as artists. Meanwhile back on the council (public housing) estates of London, young white males had no money and fuck all to do. They got angry about this and punk was born.

Punk was about hating the likes of Mick Jagger and John Lennon, and about hating all the peace and love hippy crap. What's the point of all that to a bored, unemployed, poverty-stricken teenager, living on a dirty, crime-ridden housing estate with no money and no prospects? Smash the place up, sniff glue and drink a load of cheap booze, at least it alleviates the boredom, that was Punk.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 11:59 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"No, the question is, why does an angry man pick up a guitar or a pen instead of just throwing a brick through a window?"

Some people are better at throwing bricks, others are better at using guitars.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 7:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

If you believe Greil Marcus, it's to blow a hole through anti-revolutionary boredom. Maybe, but a few years later things got much less boring. Thatcher's nihilist economics and warmongering put punk in the shade. Be careful what you wish for...

For me anyway, The Clash made more sense in the context of Reagan rather than Thatcher; back then I had only a vague idea about British politics.
Posted on Thursday, January 2, 2003 - 6:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

No, the question is, why does an angry man pick up a guitar or a pen instead of just throwing a brick through a window?
Posted on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


"Let's please not start that again."

This is the Joe Strummer thread. What better place to talk about the reason why the Clash started playing back in 1976?

So what was the purpose of Punk Rock? To create music? To create fashion? To create an alternative sub-culture? To create something cool or hip? Bollocks, it was the role of Mick Jagger and the 'cocaine scum' to do that sort of thing. To be artistic? To create a better world? Leave that to John Lennon as he prances around naked with Yoko Ono giving press interviews with a sheet over his head. Or leave it to George Harrison as he leads the world to a better future by chanting Hare Krishna and ringing bells.

Does an angry man scream to create a good scream or is his scream a secondary by-product of his anger and serves no real purpose in itself?
Posted on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 2:09 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Pop-o-Pies! I missed them when they came through Houston, but I got their 2 EPs.

All you chicks and all you guys
Gotta dig this thing called the Pop-O-Pies.
We play only one song and you know the score
They don't pay us enough to want to play any more

I saw the Clash at the Summit (er, Compaq Center), on their Combat Rock tour. They were good, but too slick. I think this was some years after Strummer had thrown Topper Headon out of the band and Mick Jones (and Don Letts?) had gone off to do B.A.D.

BAD have aged pretty well, I think.

"You're Jack the Lad!"
Posted on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 2:02 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


As their original purpose was not to produce music, punk bands (and punk rock) by their nature had a very short shelf life.

Let's please not start that again.
Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 6:44 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

For all things Shane:

Shane Fanclub website.
Posted on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 2:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


"I just wouldn't want to be in a band with him, especially if my livelyhood depended on him."

The Pogues had a real dilemma. Do you kick out the main focus of the band, the main reason people come to see you play, the writer of your songs, the embodiment of The Pogues? Or do you put up with someone whose drinking makes him impossible to work with, obnoxious and rude, who doesn't turn up for rehearsals, rarely turns up for recordings and is usually blind drunk when he does?

The Pogues probably did the best thing, get rid of him for the sake of their sanity, accept the fact that their record sales and concert numbers will diminish vastly as a result, but still be able to make a living.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page