Clash more pretentious than Yes

Consider this, Yes TFTO ocean is often cited by some as the beginning of the end for prog, because it's detractors consider too over the to, lacking substance, that this is why prog had to end.
Well if that is true, why didn't Sadinista by the Clash signify the the end for punk? it was a three disc over the top mess, and unlike TFTO which has strong admirers  Sadinista is almost universally panned.
So to me this shows how one sided the industry is, a band that is more than musically competent and competent enoughdoes something bold and they are scorned, while another band that pretty underwhelming in musicality does something sprawling  beyond their own ability and are still considered heroes today.
Just remeber this if any  punk/hipster  say prog rock was too pretentious just answer back Sadinista! that should shut them up, after all Yes weren't too arrogant to say that they were the only band that mattered  like the Clash did.

also of note Clash leader Joe Strummer was a rich boy the son of a diplomat and went to boarding school, while Jon Anderson was not so privileged had less oppurtunites (his daughter went to boarding school to get the education he didn't get) and had to work on farms and drive taxis before creating Yes, so folks I believe the Clash was pretentious, and some working class band needs to shake the industry up to stop this upper class pretentious nonsense, I nominate Yes.


Edited by Cheesecakemouse - April 06 2009 at 17:38

Cheesecakemouse wrote: also of note Clash leader Joe Strummer was a rich boy the son of a diplomat and went to boarding school, while Jon Anderson was not so privileged had less oppurtunites (his daughter went to boarding school to get the education he didn't get) and had to work on farms and drive taxis before creating Yes, so folks I believe the Clash was pretentious, and some working class band needs to shake the industry up to stop this upper class pretentious nonsense, I nominate Yes.

So? If anything that´s admirable, Strummer had no need to be a left wing individual and still did, not ´cause he desperatly needed change or more opportunities, but because he saw his own side as being wrong and went against his upbringing and what he was taught to preach about (what he thought to be) something better for the common good, not just his own.

How this is an argument against the Clash is beyond me.

Cheesecakemouse wrote: el böthy wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: also of note Clash leader Joe Strummer was a rich boy the son of a diplomat and went to boarding school, while Jon Anderson was not so privileged had less oppurtunites (his daughter went to boarding school to get the education he didn't get) and had to work on farms and drive taxis before creating Yes, so folks I believe the Clash was pretentious, and some working class band needs to shake the industry up to stop this upper class pretentious nonsense, I nominate Yes. So? If anything that´s admirable, Strummer had no need to be a left wing individual and still did, not ´cause he desperatly needed change or more opportunities, but because he saw his own side as being wrong and went against his upbringing and what he was taught to preach about (what he thought to be) something better for the common good, not just his own. How this is an argument against the Clash is beyond me. Mate, I'm pointing out the irony of the music press and what they say not so much the class   Anyway some of Clash detractors believe all that political stuff was just chic to look hip rather than true sincerity, but thats just an opinion, I don't mind their music I own give them rope. This is more the irony of the critical community and their arguments against prog etc.

I saw The Clash live in about 1980 and I've honestly derived more pleasing from hearing someone having a bad attack of wind than listening to them. It was a spectacular waste of an hour of my life. I had to listen to dreadful music, badly played; got spat on, pushed over, jumped on and finally ended up punching a fan who spat in my face and thought it funny. At that point, I sort of left (I was about to be thrown out).

And it was all so completely pretentious. Many of the audience were middle/upper class students (I was doing post doctoral work at Imperial College, London at the time, and knew many of them by sight) and the band were clearly not "yer average workin' class 'eroes". Most of them would have had kittens if a real revolution had come along. They'd have been first up against the wall.

30 years on, I do voluntary work promoting maths learning in a local secondary school; the headteacher has a picture of Joe Strummer on the wall of his office and takes the p**s out of me for liking prog. And he's an ex public schoolboy. Says it all.

debrewguy wrote: O.K., here we go again - we use an analogy based on incorrect & incomplete info to prove how put upon poor prog is compared to a disliked music of another genre. TFTO did not kill prog. It was a very BIG target that critics could hardly be expected to pass up. So let's set the record straight(er) - Yes came back with Relayer, Floyd continued with WYWH, Animals, The Wall; Gentle Giant , Genesis, Eloy, Tull, Fripp, and many others kept making & selling  albums after TFTO. Now, for the other side - Sandinista was derided by many at the time of its' release. For the amount of music, for the variety of genres that included many non-punk musiques, along with the accusation of hubris. Yet, like many prog "artistes" they stood by their work and accepted the bad with the good. They had put out the album that they wanted to put out. They had not bowed to record label pressure to edit it down to a single LP. They had not bowed to the pressure from some of their fans to play "punk"music. They had refused the position of "leaders" or "guiding lights" of punkdom. I.E. , they followed their own plan ! And so , with time, they have managed to see this album be held in high regard by many music fans, including myself. I prefer their first. I am not a punk rock fanatic, but I like some of the music, just as with most other genres. And one thing I too often see on this site is the "oh poor pitiful me, the prog fan". Prog got, gets and will never get the respect it deserves. The rest of the world has it all worng. Shouldn't they know better ? Enough ! Prog is still around, has enjoyed a commercially successful golden age, has endured dry spells, and is very much alive now. If you're expecting to see a prog band top the top 40, well guess what - not too many acts do so. And those that do aren't all from any specific genre. So if there's a 2 miilion selling rap album up there, there are also a million non-selling rap albums out there. SO get over it. Your "prog" is not being persecuted, nor was it ever singled out. Not anymore than any other popular music genre. So let's finish with a quote from Dolly Parton - get off the cross, someone else needs the wood.

Interesting point but what about London Calling? A dual-disc masterpiece. I actually give The Clash a lot of credit because they evolved tremendously over their short career and really became adept at what they could and could not do (London Calling is a prime example of genre hopping mastery in my eyes). I cannot stand other groups that are labeled as punk because they never took the risks The Clash did.

@debrewguy

You are my idol man! 10/10. I honestly thought the first five minutes of TFTO was some of the best prog ever.

Good points raised here from everyone. I personally thought posting a topic titled "Clash more pretentious than Yes" is a pretty pretentious thing to do.

I always though that The Clash were more of an honest rock band than many of their punk peers - I thought that much of the Sex Pistols, Damned, & etc. was pretentious crap with the industry trying to kid the kids that this was hip, cool, and they had "blown away" all of the old dinosaurs.

Of course, looking back over the past 23 years or so, we can all look with huge amusement at the nostalgia industry that has grown up around punk and the extremely sad reunion tours of the kids who would never grow old and pander to the establishment.

Rotten, Vicious, Sid Snot (the Everett parody of punk) et al were a bunch of very sad, art college youths, and not very good musically at that.

At least prog bands were honest in their endeavours.

Sandinista was toilet. But those of us who saw the Clash at their peak - '77/'79 - will understand and cherish those moments forever. without a doubt the greatest live band I ever saw (and there's a huge list). Incendary beyond belief when they got it right. But you need the right mind set to understand I'm afraid.

"pretentious" is a critics only real weapon.  For some reason the word terrifies people.  If a critic just says an album is bad, no one really cares because they can hear whether its good or bad since its opinion.  But as soon as an album is labeled "pretentious" people run screaming even if they haven't heard the thing.  I guess they take it personal that an artist is supposedly (according to the critic) promoting itself as better than them.  Its rather ridiculous.