"why is Lydon considered more authentic than Joe Strummer?"

I'll take Strummer any day. The Clash made better records. I can't remember the last time I actually enjoyed listening to "Never Mind the Bollocks..." It's a very one-note record. And PIL were shit after "album" (the beginning of the end).

Nitey nite mark s.

Oh PUH-LEEZE. First of all, what does this have to do with the question of "authenticity"? That Lydon's politics are somehow "deeper" or "more developed" than Strummer's (which I don't agree with by, the way) - that makes him more "authentic"? Explain.

As for making me think - that's a laugh and a half. The last memorable thing I can remember Lydon doing was telling an MTV cameraman that the Filthy Lucre tour was "because every note of every song we play is a nail in the coffin of everything you represent." A statement which is bald-facedly horseshit. If he believes it, he's deluded, and if he doesn't and he's taking the piss, it isn't funny and the joke is painfully obvious. It certainly didn't enlighten me about any deeper political issues....

"strummer always stops you thinking (fake politics)."

Explain. I take it you say this because Strummer is more classically didactic, prone to sloganeering, etc. than Lydon is, thus lending the impression that Lydon's politics are somehow more subtle and nuanced (when in fact their just as sloppy and self-serving as anything the Clash ever said/did). But I just think Lydon is more nihilistic and basically doesn't like people - whereas Strummer is more of a populist who generally DOES like people.

"Bollocks is a far deeper LP than *any* Clash LP in part because its failings — some of which are absolutely deliberate — are more powerful. "

This does not make any sense. How could an album be made better by virtue of the performers deliberately making it worse? Unless this is some sort of po-mo ironic stance about their sub-par, sub-speed classic rock riffs being a "comment" on rock n roll. The bottom line is the Sex Pistols album is good n snarly, but it's completely bereft of subtlety or depth. All the songs sound the same, all the lyrics are basically the same sentiments over and over...

Frankly, I can't see how the Clash naming their worst album after the Sandanistas is any worse than Lydon's "World Destruction" turn with Laswell and Bambataa. It seems to me that making the kinds of distinctions between which public figure is more "authentic" or "deep" in their politics is largely a question of how much you choose to read into a given figure's behavior. Because you can't tell me that Lydon has a coherent political philosophy - certainly not one that's any more coherent or nuanced than Strummer's. Lydon's political strokes are just as broad, his "piss-takes" just as predictable and facile, his commercial pandering just as blatant (maybe moreso in some cases).

Anyway, in the end I just think Strummer made the better records ("Earthquake Weather" or whatever it was called notwithstanding), has made me think more, has given me more inspiration, and that's what really matters. More than anything else, Lydon's just annoys me.

But Mo, you talk about (a) Lydon and then (b) Strummer and even in the Strummer part you talk about Lydon as much as Strummer! I mean, he's slightly less dull.

But as for how that relates to authenticity: Lydon seemed to be constructing big projects to get a reaction from you that fed into what he wanted himself to be -- Strummer seemed to be trying to become what he wanted to be so you could react to it. I can see arguments for either of those being more "authentic."

You've EXACTLY described the first Clash LP. The main difference between it and Bollocks is that one sounds tinny and has a phlegm-y singer while the other sounds loud and and has a nasal singer. And as for the lyrics, have you ever actually sat down and analyzed the lyrics to the Clash debut? How are they any more effective and poetic and interesting than those to God Save the Queen? (answer: they aren't)

Most likely what bugs about Strummer is his will-to-simplicity. Presenting things as simpler as they really are *always* = presenting things as faker than they really are. Yes, obviously pop songs are always a simplification BUT Sex Pistols songs are more open ended (so you can add the explanatory memorandum yerself) whereas The Clash's songs are more self-contained ie. the TRUTH can be found between the borders of the song.

You can argue that Sex Pistols = obfuscating = cop out = pop, in the sense that they're less likely to give meaningful advice to revolutionaries, instead just stirring the pot angrily. But then you have to ask "did The Clash ever give meaningful advice to revolutionaries?" (has any band ever given meaningful advice to revolutionaries? - not rhetorical)

I am confused. Was Chuck D a "'cool' careers counselor who got into a fistfight with the principle"? Isn't this just a rhyme or do you think that Coltrane was really insane (or that Chuck D thinks he was or that he is implying anything other than insane in a musical sense)? Are you arguing that PE's message was "facile" and "idiotic" (even more so that the Clash's)?

(btw - in case it wasn't clear I'm not attacking anybody's credibility on the basis of class here - just questioning the validity of that very approach)

It's funny. I think about music all the time, but I never listen to music in order to think. For that reason, I am curiously uninterested in the respective sophistication of the Lydon/Strummer world views (it probably helps that I have managed to avoid imbibing most of the mythologies around the groups due to my general complete lack of interest in anything punk-related). I probably like Lydon more as a vocalist, and it's true that Strummer isn't up to much as a pure singer, but I just prefer the Clash's music. It's probably not as interesting conceptually as PiL, they probably did just copy a bunch of other music, but they did it well. Take away Lydon and the Pistols are pub rock; Metal Box is an overrated dead end (tho maybe it will grow on me and I will regret saying that) and OK, I haven't heard much else of PiL. Whereas the Clash are on one of my favorite bootlegs, and tell me that's not a great bassline.

FUCK STRUMMER

FUCK LYDON

auTHeNTiCiTY = PHIL OAKEY

Argue if U like, u know it's true.

By this logic "I am authentic" means you really are authentic, by definition, which is actually completely true: hooray that's that settled then!

Read that - very, uhm, informative. At least insofar as to how it's revealing that you're willing - no, downright ENTHUSIASTIC - to spew a lot of theoretical hoo-hah about an "undeniably classic" album that you yourself DIDN'T LISTEN TO FOR 15 YEARS. The proof is in the pudding - if its good music, music that you found honestly, nakedly, undeniably, engaging, then it stands to reason that you would have actually LISTENED TO IT. Instead, you praise the album because it's enough of a cipher that it allows you to prattle on endlessly about whatever self-fulfilling cultural prophecy you find most attractive at the moment (which, at this point in time, seems to be a pleasantly convenient cynicism).

"part two of my answer is that, if you actually thought through yr attitude to culture jamming, instead of just announcing as instant blithe solidarity for the cool rebels, you'd see why someone might say what i said abt bollocks "

Well, thank you for your patronizing dismissal of my thought processes. I suppose I should find that reassuring. I tried to make it clear that I put some thought into my "instant blithe solidarity" by actually forming complete sentences and a cogent line of reasoning, but I guess that wasn't good enough.

"part three of my answer is that i can't seperate myself from the way they behaved at the time, when i was 17-18, and will never hear with fair, objective, depoliticised ears"

Ah, now we get to the root of the matter - that this topic cannot be addressed objectively, that it can't be separated from the unique, personal circumstances surrounding our respective exposures to this music. Having "been there", clearly you're going to have a more deeply entrenched set of associations with the record than I do (who didn't properly hear the Pistols until almost a decade later when I was in jr. high).

"(haha the clash said "we will never play on top of the pops!": *everything* they did was abt adolescent deluded self-mythologising => "the last gang in town" etc)"

Now see, I've never heard that Top of the Pops story, and why should I care? It's the MUSIC that matters, the records, the document left behind. And yes, the Clash DID do a lot of "adolescent deluded self- mythologising". Gosh, JUST LIKE THE PISTOLS DID! I can't think of a more "adolescent, deluded, self-mythologizing" action than actually thinking your band is the "end of rock n roll", the death of music, etc. I mean, how self-centered and deluded is THAT?!? And even giving Lydon credit for being self-conscious about the inherent melodrama and utter silliness of such a stance - can you really say that the Clash were any less self-conscious about their own "mythologizing"? I mean, clearly Strummer/Jones/et al knew what kind of connections they were drawing, how they were presenting themselves, etc. So again, where's the greater "authenticity" in either position?

Yeah, Mark, don't you know that records are grails, to be listened to daily, polished and cherished like the oracles they are?

"Yeah, Mark, don't you know that records are grails, to be listened to daily, polished and cherished like the oracles they are?"

You miss my point entirely - it's Mark whose holding the Bollocks record up like the grail (so much so that he prefers it to be "polished and cherished", rather than listened to). Or are you telling me that records *AREN'T* there to be listened to? You don't think that 15 years is a long time to go without listening to an album considered to be the earth-shattering end-all be-all that Mark makes it out to be...? Do you honestly think its better to treat an album as a museum relic to be analyzed rather than enjoyed?

And

And even if it does matter, does it matter that it matters? Zootlewurdle, zootlewurdle...

And thank God for that!

But there are lots of albums out there, and just because you think something's a classic doesn't mean you should have to listen to it all the time. I can't remember when the last time I listened to certain "classic" records was, but that doesn't mean anything w/r/t my appreciation of them or their impact on me or anything.

Surely, surely there is someone here who can see a major difference between not listening to something for 15 years and listening to something all the time? There is a middle ground, you know. But I guess that wouldn't fit in with the "classic vs. dud", black vs. white, this rules/that sucks, reductionist binary dichotomies that seem to dominate around here.

In any case, both Clarke and Josh have missed my original point in bringing this up - which was that not listening to something for 15 years but still being willing to pontificate at great length about it is more indicative of "Bollocks" being a convenient theoretical touchstone than anything else. Unfortunately, Mark seems to have confused being able to read a lot of bullshit into something as being evidence of a given work's inherent value - failing to realize that you could read a lot of bullshit into ANYTHING (even the Clash!), thus making it a rather useless barometer of quality.

Why is it so hard to admit that Strummer and Lydon's public personas are two sides of the same coin? Both contrived, both "working class", both "punk" and anti-authoritarian (or whatever) - one is not more (or less) legitimate than the other. It's a matter of whose personal disposition you identify with more. In this case, Mark identifies more with Lydon's conveniently amorphous and shifty nihilism - an attitude which allows Lydon to endlessly justify his own behavior (now matter how sophomoric or greedy) while not committing to anything.

This was something I wanted to respond to way back up there in the thread... contrary to what may be expected of me, I am not overly fond of ham-fisted political rhetoric in music. But there ARE no doubt bands who have served meaningful, "revolutionary", purposes. The VU-Havel connection's already been drawn, but there's also the rather sterling examples of Victor Jara in Argentina, Fela Kuti, Tropicalia, and god knows how many pro-black power/pro-civil rights funk bands (or does no one remember James Brown being called in to stop riots?) I don't think you can make a really good argument for very many punk bands - certainly not the Clash - but music can have a very strong motivating, political aspect, and I think that's really positive.

And no, I don't think you can set aside a piece of music for 15 years and claim to have any meaningful relationship with it. People are forgetful, memories are unreliable, nostalgia clouds judgment, etc.

"Think through" = link up what you're saying on THAT thread w. what you're saying here. I think "challenge assumptions" is just a bunch of words to you, not something you actually like having done to you (viz yr response on this thread). Politics is also about fighting the cliches in your own head: for example, all the rubbish guesswork you're firing my way regarding WHY I might think the way I do about something.

You crazy Clarke!

Please tell me, what assumptions don't I like having challenged? My impression is that you're implying that Lydon challenges more assumptions than Strummer - but such a value judgment depends on whose doing the assuming and what assumptions they're (I'm?) making. It seems to me that you're argument is largely that Lydon is "better" because he's more deliberately ambiguous - but this is just a matter of perspective. The logical extension of that thinking is that the "most challenging" work of art would be the blank page, the empty frame, the silent recording - because it allows for the widest range of interpretations and projections. So I guess John Cage is the greatest punk rocker ever, by that standard.

As for my "rubbish guesswork", you haven't given me a whole lot to work with here - elaborate a little, "enlighten" me even, and maybe I won't have to guess as much.

B-b-b-but he is!

If you are making a cake, a pound of sugar is a pound of sugar. But if you are running a grocery store it is also who delivers it and when it expires and if you are an ant it is how heavy the granules are and etc.

A noisy album is not a noisy album EXCEPT if you are my parents.

I think Lydon was motivated by the desire to piss people off, money, and perhaps a little bit by "art for art's sake". I think all of these are worthwhile and "authentic" aims. I think none of them are the guarantor of GReaT aRT, but any of them will at least give the artist the chance of producing something good and worthwhile.

On the other hand, I think the desire to be seen as a righteous cool fux0r, and to parade one's influences, ones correct influences, of course as if one were a signifier of these influences pretty much guarantees that what you create will be a/ shit and b/ worse than any ov the influences you throw around. This appears to me to be Joe Strummer's guiding artistic beacon, and I think that's why Lydon is not only more "Authentic", but also a consistently better artist, or at least a not as bad one, when he's been crap.

I think that an artist who is motivated by the desire to be seen as cool is literally unable to take any of the kind of chances that can lead to great art, because they will always be afraid of looking like an idiot. All they have to drive them on is photos of their heroes, looking cool. It's fucking sad, really. Strummer and The Clash would NEVER have been capable of making "Cut", "Flowers of Romance", "Secondhand Daylight", "For How Long Do We Tolerate Mass Murder", "Second Annual Report" etc etc etc b/c they were too busy making sure that they cut the proper brando/de niro-a-like dash in their press pics. Cutting the proper brand0/d3-n!r0-4-l!k3 dash in yer press pics is NOT authentic. The albums mentioned above ARE authentic. The Clash's back catalogue is a forgery, a sham, and a pretty naff one at that, I think.

I made a post above mentioning Phil Oakey ov the Human League, which I suppose was a bit frivolous, but I think it does illustrate my point. Oakey used to go onstage with his hair cutshort one one side, and long & brushed over his face on the other. He used to wear stilletto heels too. Phil Oakey is and was fucking great, he's one ov my all time heroes. Who does his look remind you of? Nobody. What does the music on "Travelogue", Reproduction" and "Dare" remind you of? Nobody, it was fucking out of some other place entirely. I remember the first time I heard "Being Boiled" on the John Peel show. I remember the TOTAL CONFUSION I felt (moreso when I heard "Warm Leatherette, by the by) Compare this with The Clash. They looked like an amalgam ov al the previous rock rebel poses going back thru the years. They sounded like it too. I honestly cannot imagine what anyone sees in them, I just do not understand it, yet, contrary to the question, it is generally the case that Strummer is seen as the authentic one, whilst Lydon is seen (with some justification, if I'm honest) as a silly old fart. No-one can take away Lydon's cultural and musical achievements though, whereas Strummer's achievements seem to me to be most considerable in the fields of marketing and canny self promotion.

Musically the Sex Pistols are good well-paced rock music, that's why their album *still* sounds good unlike the Clash's contrived* efforts.

*fits in with Norman's comments above about Strummer's wish to be cool

My impression is that even if The Clash's political stances might look pretty empty in retrospect, they were as caught up in their own slogans as anyone else. Watching a documentary a couple of years ago which incorporated recent interviews with ex band members, it was clear that they haven't exactly grown rich or comfortable on their legendary status. Only Joe Strummer looked like a man at peace with himself and ironically, he looked the most youthful, even though he's quite a bit older than the others.

I think that people should remember that at the time (1977/78) there was an upsurge of racist politics in the UK. The Clash clearly represented an opposition to that in the way that the Pistols didn't.

Danger danger Will Robinson (funny I just remembered that Strummer is in Mystery Train). Anyway, never trust someone who looks like he is at peace with himself.

Not sure about the North London/West London remark. The Sex Pistols were split half and half between both areas. I know that The Clash associated themselves with West London but I imagine Strummer would have live all over in his squatting days.

You'll get no argument from me that The Clash's music has aged badly whereas the Pistols' stuff still sounds powerful. It's just that I remember things seemed different at the time. The Pistols were off playing their media games. Lydon was always an intriguing figure but Mclaren seemed to be calling the shots. His politics seemed to come from a type of gestural anarchism rather than the gestural leftism that many of you are complaining about with The Clash.

you see, joe´s just a normal person with a good heart. that´s it.

Not as strange to me as the majority view that the Clash have aged poorly. What were they like back in the day?

The Clash were and are a much greater rock and roll band in every way. They are not as remembered as much perhaps because Strummer, Jones, etc. aren't flogging themselves on TV like Lyndon pretending he is still 20 years old and establishing many similiarities between himself and Nightranger, Journey, Styx (in attitude anyway)

Never mind.

(-: / )-:

Some clever things were said on this thread: but there was too much aggression. It would be good if we could all learn from that. I don't suppose we all will.

musically I prefer early Clash to the Pistols, simply for the reason that they were a better copy of the one band that started punk and turned all of the UK on to the genre THE RAMONES

Okay, on second thought, I take it back: The Ramones WERE punk, and I will now use this argument to claim that PHIL SPECTOR was the first punk.

eg

1 / Rubbish DJs saying 'I didn't know Joe too well, but I spent some quality time with him last Friday... we're paying tribute to him as a geezer'

1a / Lamarr says 'great tunes and a political message, what more d'you want?' -- eh?? The Clash did not have many Great Tunes (or a Good Singer to sing them), and Mark Lamarr does not have a Political Message

2 / 'Terry Chimes said "I want a Lamborghini" - ey, that's not a very appropriate Clash statement, is it?' chortle / (what do Lamarr and co drive? idiots)

3 / Mark Steel says context of 1970s is u&k: 'Janie Jones' was 'our voice, at last: we've got this and you've got David Owen' (-- eh? 'JJ' is not 'political', is it?)

4 / 'cos he was writing these amazing words... and people disco-dancing to it, but then they'd read the lyrics on the sheet and get the message...'

-- all agreed: subsequently turns out none of them can quote any of the lyrics.

ETC

'Believes authenticity means staying true to working class roots'

'Believes authenticity means measuring up to own mission goals'

'Doesn't think that authenticity matters a fuck in showbiz'

etc

I revisited this thread to add a comment similar to this. This is long thread; did anyone else point this out? Regardless of whether the Pistols were a good band, made good records or were 100% on-board with their management's ideas, they really were concieved and marketed as a novelty band.

On a related note, do we know what Maclaren's (sp? this shows how long it's been since I gave him any thought) taste in music was? I mean, we know his taste in clothes, graphic design, public relations, and *maybe* politics (doubtful), but did he even care what the records sounded like beyond them being attention-grabbing?

I'm sure it's been pointed out, but the Pistols really were a boy band, no?

actually this line is totally totally brilliant