"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.

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