I’m all for the kind of deeper ideological reading of the Clash that Stephen Metcalf does in Slate. I’m even receptive to an argument that the band performed its authenticity. But I’m wondering where the author comes up with this:
With London Calling, the Clash merged the arty daring and political sincerity of the ’60s with the rage and trashy nihilism of the ’70s…. Why were the Clash so well-positioned to take punk rock beyond punk rock? This will strike some ears as heresy, but the first reason is simple: The Clash weren’t a punk rock band.
Actually, the reason is simpler: by 1980, almost every punk act not slipping into self-parody was taking punk rock beyond punk rock. Johnny Rotten was doing pared-down rock minimalism with P/I/L, the Buzzcocks, already incorporating Krautrock into their style early on, were becoming poppier and better produced by their Different Kind of Tension LP, the Jam had left punk almost entirely behind in the polished gem Sound Affects, Wire was abandoning their minute-and-a-half terse, angular energy in favor of keyboard-washed postpunk, and the Undertones were attempting an “art album” with Positive Touch. And that doesn’t begin to include the whole slew of postpunk and new wave acts that sprung up to take the structure and energy and DIY model of punk rock and, well, move beyond punk rock.
There is such thing as reading too much into a moment, especially if it involves your favorite band.
No comments have been added to this post yet.