Daghouse.com

The list starts here....off you go boys..

Ramones

gregpolard wrote:Ramones

Cant argue with that.

I love the Clash, don’t get me wrong. But the Ramones are just the top of those older punk bands for me.

Dead Kennedys had more in common with the Clash than The Ramones - although to the DK'scredit they never made a final album with only good song on it. More worthy? I dunno, I think The Clash's early material stands up to the test of time much better.

Descendents

lewdd wrote:Descendents

That was gonna be my answer, too

lewdd wrote:Descendents

Traitor..you're on a veggie diet from now on.

clash77 wrote:

lewdd wrote:Descendents

Traitor..you're on a veggie diet from now on.

is barley considered a veggie?

i did have some green beans for dinner

is Black Flag an acceptable answer?

lewdd wrote:

clash77 wrote:

lewdd wrote:Descendents

Traitor..you're on a veggie diet from now on.

is barley considered a veggie?

i did have some green beans for dinner

Blahhh..Garlic and butter with green beans??

While the Clash weren't exactly horrible, I find them pretty boring.

Opinions.

clash77 wrote:

lewdd wrote:

clash77 wrote:

lewdd wrote:Descendents

Traitor..you're on a veggie diet from now on.

is barley considered a veggie?

i did have some green beans for dinner

Blahhh..Garlic and butter with green beans??

mushrooms, onions, and bacon bits in green beans

Black Flag?

Worthy? Beats me, but I probably like The Germs and early stuff by Black Flag, Circle Jerks, and Adolescents better than most Clash. That stuff hit me in my formative years and I didn't get deep into The Clash until much later.

Why does some stuff have to always be better than some other stuff?

clash77 wrote:

gregpolard wrote:Ramones

Cant argue with that.

My first thought, too. No Ramones (and Pistols though obviously they are not qualified for this category), no 1st Clash Lp.

FormerLurker wrote:While the Clash weren't exactly horrible, I find them pretty boring.

Opinions.

Sure: get a hearing test.

Welly wrote:Why does some stuff have to always be better than some other stuff?

It isn't. It's all subjective anyway.

JGJR wrote:

clash77 wrote:

gregpolard wrote:Ramones

Cant argue with that.

No Ramones (and Pistols though obviously they are not qualified for this category), no 1st Clash Lp.

No Elvis, no Beatles, no Rolling Stones.

Thing is, The Clash had a major label behind them from the off, which no doubt helped more than anything in launching them onto the world stage, and also, as a result of sales, the studio time for their creativity. What early American punk band had that? Pretty much none.

Welly wrote:Thing is, The Clash had a major label behind them from the off, which no doubt helped more than anything in launching them onto the world stage, and also, as a result of sales, the studio time for their creativity. What early American punk band had that? Pretty much none.

All the early NY bands were on majors, though in each case it took a year or two (or more). I mean Ramones, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, Heartbreakers, Dictators, Television, Dead Boys, et al. But otherwise, you're right. I don't think that's even the main difference, though. In the UK, punk was on the charts, Top of the Pops, etc. and it was accepted (maybe not by "polite" soceity but by the yoof, I mean). Here it was much more of an underground thing. I would argue that some other UK bands probably had similar resources (and remember how awful of a contract The Clash signed and how Strummer didn't record anything for years to try to get out of it until he was finally successful), but The Clash were just an exceptional band.

version sound wrote:

JGJR wrote:

clash77 wrote:

gregpolard wrote:Ramones

Cant argue with that.

No Ramones (and Pistols though obviously they are not qualified for this category), no 1st Clash Lp.

No Elvis, no Beatles, no Rolling Stones.

I see what you did there and I approve. Danger stranger, you better paint your face.

JGJR wrote:All the early NY bands were on majors, though in each case it took a year or two (or more). I mean Ramones, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, Heartbreakers, Dictators, Television, Dead Boys, et al. But otherwise, you're right.

Fully aware of the Sire bands. Was referring to them, and probably only the Dickies. Aside from Ramones and Dead Boys, most of the NY bands weren't really of the same beast though.

JGJR wrote:I would argue that some other UK bands probably had similar resources (and remember how awful of a contract The Clash signed and how Strummer didn't record anything for years to try to get out of it until he was finally successful), but The Clash were just an exceptional band.

Of course other UK bands had similar resources, but that's not what the thread's about. The UK bands, including the Clash, were arguably all signed by majors and given creative freedom, simply because each label had to have a punk band to hawk in the wake of the Pistols. In the US, this route was really not as available to bands, hence my post.

I would not say that the Clash was an 'exceptional band', when taken in context of the other UK bands of the time. The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful and creative than the Clash. Again, the thread is stacking American bands against the Clash.

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:All the early NY bands were on majors, though in each case it took a year or two (or more). I mean Ramones, Patti Smith, Talking Heads, Heartbreakers, Dictators, Television, Dead Boys, et al. But otherwise, you're right.

Fully aware of the Sire bands. Was referring to them, and probably only the Dickies. Aside from Ramones and Dead Boys, most of the NY bands weren't really of the same beast though.

JGJR wrote:I would argue that some other UK bands probably had similar resources (and remember how awful of a contract The Clash signed and how Strummer didn't record anything for years to try to get out of it until he was finally successful), but The Clash were just an exceptional band.

Of course other UK bands had similar resources, but that's not what the thread's about. The UK bands, including the Clash, were arguably all signed by majors and given creative freedom, simply because each label had to have a punk band to hawk in the wake of the Pistols. In the US, this route was really not as available to bands, hence my post.

I would not say that the Clash was an 'exceptional band', when taken in context of the other UK bands of the time. The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful and creative than the Clash. Again, the thread is stacking American bands against the Clash.

I was gonna mention The Dickies, too. And I love The Jam, but disagree that they were as creative or at least as varied. Is there a more diverse album than Sandinista!? I agree with your main point and was kind of trying to say the same thing.

JGJR wrote:I was gonna mention The Dickies, too. And I love The Jam, but disagree that they were as creative or at least as varied. Is there a more diverse album than Sandinista!? I agree with your main point and was kind of trying to say the same thing.

Did I say varied? Nope.

I wrote "The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful AND creative".

And it was just an off the top of my head example, not some sort of Jam versus Clash thesis.

The Clash had a big impact in the States over and above pretty much all other UK bands of that era, no?

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:I was gonna mention The Dickies, too. And I love The Jam, but disagree that they were as creative or at least as varied. Is there a more diverse album than Sandinista!? I agree with your main point and was kind of trying to say the same thing.

Did I say varied? Nope.

I wrote "The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful AND creative".

And it was just an off the top of my head example, not some sort of Jam versus Clash thesis.

The Clash had a big impact in the States over and above pretty much all other UK bands of that era, no?

Of the '77 UK bands, yeah for sure unless you're counting Elvis Costello, who connected highly to UK punk only tangentially via label, similar scene, some collaborations, etc. and not necessarily sound.

JGJR wrote:

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:I was gonna mention The Dickies, too. And I love The Jam, but disagree that they were as creative or at least as varied. Is there a more diverse album than Sandinista!? I agree with your main point and was kind of trying to say the same thing.

Did I say varied? Nope.

I wrote "The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful AND creative".

And it was just an off the top of my head example, not some sort of Jam versus Clash thesis.

The Clash had a big impact in the States over and above pretty much all other UK bands of that era, no?

Of the '77 UK bands, yeah for sure unless you're counting Elvis Costello, who connected highly to UK punk only tangentially via label, similar scene, some collaborations, etc. and not necessarily sound.

Elvis Costello having a great impact of UK punk on the USA. What drugs are you on now young man? I think the Sex Pistols has as much if not more influence on the USA than The Clash. I think the Buzzcocks had a pretty decent impact too.

The Clash were quite commercial for a "punk" band...
and if you were so inclined
you could say they were a "pop" band
as they were part of the pop hit scene and were played alongside Pat Benatar and Duran Duran

So lets go the edgy guitar pop rock route...leave the punk tag where the Clash left it (1978)
and try to find that U.S. band.

Oops its "Green Day" isn't it?

Do you think they will be displayed in the RRHOF punk section alongside the Clash?

PUNK!

lewdd wrote:

JGJR wrote:

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:I was gonna mention The Dickies, too. And I love The Jam, but disagree that they were as creative or at least as varied. Is there a more diverse album than Sandinista!? I agree with your main point and was kind of trying to say the same thing.

Did I say varied? Nope.

I wrote "The Jam were easily equal to or even more successful AND creative".

And it was just an off the top of my head example, not some sort of Jam versus Clash thesis.

The Clash had a big impact in the States over and above pretty much all other UK bands of that era, no?

Of the '77 UK bands, yeah for sure unless you're counting Elvis Costello, who connected highly to UK punk only tangentially via label, similar scene, some collaborations, etc. and not necessarily sound.

Elvis Costello having a great impact of UK punk on the USA. What drugs are you on now young man? I think the Sex Pistols has as much if not more influence on the USA than The Clash. I think the Buzzcocks had a pretty decent impact too.

I just meant that Elvis' first record came out in '77, he's from the UK and was lumped in with the punk scene, and was quite popular in the U.S. (especially compared to most of his peers i.e. the other punk/new wave artists that came out of there during that time period) in the late '70s and early '80s (and on occasion afterwards like when "Veronica" was a fluke hit in 1989), though mainly as a cult/album artist (he had 1 or 2 Top 10 albums in the U.S. but no hit singles until "Everyday I Write the Book" in 1983). Plus, my impression is that a lot of folks who weren't necessarily punk fans liked him.

The Pistols (who admittedly were running out of gas then; firing Matlock and replacing him with Sid Vicious was the worst move) flopped here and broke up after the last night of their U.S. tour. In the long term, though, yeah they influenced tons of people in the U.S. but they were far more influential on UK punk/alternative music (in fact THE most influential UK band on all of the subsequent stuff, I would argue).

It all depends on what welly means when he says "big impact in the States." I guess we can all agree that the Clash did have a major impact.

tango fistula wrote:The Clash were quite commercial for a "punk" band...
and if you were so inclined
you could say they were a "pop" band
as they were part of the pop hit scene and were played alongside Pat Benatar and Duran Duran

So lets go the edgy guitar pop rock route...leave the punk tag where the Clash left it (1978)
and try to find that U.S. band.

Oops its "Green Day" isn't it?

Yep everything after the s/t wasn't really punk (if you're defining it as a sound) IMO, but I like that they changed with every record. Give Em Enough Rope was closer to hard rock/glam/power-pop (and it's amazing), London Calling closer to '60s British stuff mixed with rockabilly, ska, etc. Sandinista! all over the place (and with the addition of lots of black musical styles ranging from hip-hop to tons of reggae/dub to gospel to even calypso on one track) and Combat Rock a much more concise synthesis of the experimentation of the 2 previous albums.

Also, comparing Green Day to The Clash is pointless and silly. I think that scene in High Fidelity convinced a lot of people that Green Day were similar to The Clash and SLF (who really were so similar to The Clash that Inflammable Material is a track for track modeled copy of The Clash's debut, basically). Their (GD's) influences were all American (Replacements, Husker Du, other Berkeley bands) other than The Who. And just look at Billie Joe's vocals. They're way closer to Leonard Phillips or Mike Ness than Joe Strummer.

The new Rancid CD is pretty good.

JGJR wrote:. And just look at Billie Joe's vocals. They're way closer to Leonard Phillips or Mike Ness than Joe Strummer.

His vox always grated on my nerves from a little to a lot, which is why I could never get into Green Day. I don't like the Dickies either, from what I've heard.

I'm sayin the Clash were a POP band and were marketed as such...as are Green Day.

Stylistically they arent very similar but the handful of top 40 hits that both of them enjoyed
after their respective sounds were watered down has parallels...as do the vapid pop combos they are
both promoted with.

Both pose as punkers...both are as pop as Def Leppard

JGJR wrote:I just meant that Elvis' first record came out in '77, he's from the UK and was lumped in with the punk scene,

Not really.

JGJR wrote:It all depends on what welly means when he says "big impact in the States."

I meant "big impact in the States."

GG Allin

tango fistula wrote:I'm sayin the Clash were a POP band and were marketed as such...as are Green Day.

He's got a point, although the 'marketing' was slightly different thirty+ years ago.

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:I just meant that Elvis' first record came out in '77, he's from the UK and was lumped in with the punk scene,

Not really.

JGJR wrote:It all depends on what welly means when he says "big impact in the States."

I meant "big impact in the States."

If you're gonna continue to be obstinate and vague, I will challenge you here. "Big impact in the States" is so vague. Impact on whom?

Also, neither of us were there in '77, but you know as well as I do that folks who bought Clash, Pistols, Gen X, Chelsea, et al. records likely bought the early Costello titles and liked them, too. I don't think I'm saying anything too radical there.

JGJR wrote:Also, neither of us were there in '77, but you know as well as I do that folks who bought Clash, Pistols, Gen X, Chelsea, et al. records likely bought the early Costello titles and liked them, too. I don't think I'm saying anything too radical there.

No anyone that I knew at the time.

lewdd wrote:

JGJR wrote:Also, neither of us were there in '77, but you know as well as I do that folks who bought Clash, Pistols, Gen X, Chelsea, et al. records likely bought the early Costello titles and liked them, too. I don't think I'm saying anything too radical there.

No anyone that I knew at the time.

You grew up in the Lehigh Valley, right? You ever read FOE (Freedom of Expression)? I remember an essay Frank wrote about getting excited about finding Elvis' first single "Less than Zero" on Stiff at some point in the early or mid '80s. I think he's about your age, too. Maybe he's an exception, though, but I do know folks who got into punk in the late '70s and bought/love EC records like I do.

Frank, also likes metal. I can't wait to meet him when I move back there.

lewdd wrote:Frank, also likes metal. I can't wait to meet him when I move back there.

And r'n'b. He seems to have diverse taste. I've never met him, FWIW.

JGJR wrote:

lewdd wrote:Frank, also likes metal. I can't wait to meet him when I move back there.

And r'n'b. He seems to have diverse taste. I've never met him, FWIW.

I used to be in email contact with him several years ago when I bought all of the Lehigh Valley Archives CD-R's from him. There are like 50 of them or so. Several from your buddies Weston.

http://frankfoe.blogspot.com/p/lehigh-v ... hives.html

JGJR wrote:

Welly wrote:I meant "big impact in the States."

If you're gonna continue to be obstinate and vague, I will challenge you here. "Big impact in the States" is so vague. Impact on whom?

Er, Bond's Fucking Casino? Shea Fucking Stadium? Vague and obstinate enough for ya?

JGJR wrote:Also, neither of us were there in '77, but you know as well as I do that folks who bought Clash, Pistols, Gen X, Chelsea, et al. records likely bought the early Costello titles and liked them, too. I don't think I'm saying anything too radical there.

Don't know 'bout you, but I was there in '77. I lived in a dustbin outside Stiff Records. They never did listen to my demo tape. Bastards.

I don't think I met anyone who really liked EC until 1999.

anybody mention the CRAMPS?

tango fistula wrote:The Clash were quite commercial for a "punk" band...
and if you were so inclined
you could say they were a "pop" band
as they were part of the pop hit scene and were played alongside Pat Benatar and Duran Duran

So lets go the edgy guitar pop rock route...leave the punk tag where the Clash left it (1978)
and try to find that U.S. band.

Oops its "Green Day" isn't it?

hahahahaha..The Clash =Duran Duran??..Are you familiar with Punk music??..Educate yourself, then come back here and try again..You cant be taken seriously( respectfully)

[quote="clash77"][quote="tango fistula"]The Clash were quite commercial for a "punk" band...
and if you were so inclined
you could say they were a "pop" band
as they were part of the pop hit scene and were played alongside Pat Benatar and Duran Duran

So lets go the edgy guitar pop rock route...leave the punk tag where the Clash left it (1978)
and try to find that U.S. band.

Oops its "Green

Welly wrote:

JGJR wrote:

Welly wrote:I meant "big impact in the States."

If you're gonna continue to be obstinate and vague, I will challenge you here. "Big impact in the States" is so vague. Impact on whom?

Er, Bond's Fucking Casino? Shea Fucking Stadium? Vague and obstinate enough for ya?

I never said that The Clash didn't make a big impact in the States. Why are you putting words into my mouth?