Crass vs. The Clash
- By Shawn C. Baker
- Published 10/5/2009
Shawn C. Baker
Shawn lives in sometimes sunny San Pedro, California with his beautiful wife Sara and their two cats Lily and Thompson. He works full time at a bookstore for bread but spends 90% of the rest of his time writing novels, screenplays and opinionated soapboxes that, although sometimes crass, are really just meant to
make the world a better place. Shawn drinks coffee all day and good beer all night. He loves comics even more than he loves movies, but he loves music most of all.
A lot of the time I am the kind of guy who takes sides with his favorite musicians. I know it's kind of stupid but I just can't help it. I've been head over heels with The Clash for some time now and it's just been within the last year a friend of mine introduced me to Crass, a gritty, walk-it-like-you-talk-it British punk band from the late 70's.
The two didn't get along, or at least Crass was extremely critical of The Clash.
Crass, although still fairly unknown in the grand scheme of things, is the real deal as far as the supposed politics of the punk movement were concerned. Aside from making recordings like 'How Does It Feel To Be The Mother Of 1000 Dead' and cut-and-paste red herring recordings loosely referred to as 'Thatchergate' wherein the voices of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were constructed to discuss sensitive material that was then leaked to the press, Crass supported their aesthetic by organizing impromptu shows for impoverished or peace-oriented causes, massive squats to save buildings or support striking workers and generally attempted to critique and enlighten the youth culture they saw as direct worshippers of consumer culture.
The Clash on the other hand, while known for their politics and images of revolution, were a big label rock band who, some could argue, did not 'put their money where their mouth was'.
Some could argue this. I will not.
I love The Clash. And yes, I know that they weren't as 'in the trenches' as a band like Crass were, but their critics fail to look at the politics of the punk era as a battle fought on multiple fronts: low visibility DIY is a great place to rally and make club-sized statements or protests. But how about those who can try and make a difference from the stadium level? Now, granted perhaps Strummer and the boys could have done more, but that level of world attention, while an easily exploitable marketing tier, is also a place to tread with caution. While Van Halen was singing about pointless crap and Ozzy was snorting ants The Clash were at least trying to carrying the flag through the stadiums, encouraging their fans to 'Pay Attention' and 'Think for themselves' about world issues. It's the same with, god help me, U2. I've tried not to hate those blokes for years, finally succumbing this last year to my dislike of their modern music and status*, but I still gotta give them props on the fact that while a lot of other bands out their are only concerned with their loins and their noses, Bono (ugh!) and the guys still throw Amnesty Int. and various world messages in anyone that will listen's faces whenever they can.**
The Clash is a rock band. They took the underground ethos of the music scene at the time and turned it into a major seller, but they never lost site of the fact that they wanted something more, even if they didn't always rabidly pursue it. Crass on the other hand were the snipers of the movement, sickened by The Clash for their alleged stealing of an ethos for marketing purposes. They lived in commune-like ideology for their day-to day lives and fought the battles of the Thatcher-era on the street level. However, how many people did they affect then or still affect now? The Clash, on the other hand, while perhaps laregely reduced to merely rock god status over twenty years after their breakup and seven since their iconic frontman's death, still play on millions of radios all over the world. How many of those people listening do you think they've influenced to go back and find Crass? Or, how many people do they simply make feel good with their strong, positive music? I don't know about you, but it's pretty hard for me to be in a negative headspace if I'm listening to London Calling or Sandinista.
So change the world one club or one guy at a time, but as long as you're trying, I give you credit.
Unless you're rage against the machine. Poseurs!***
.......................
* If I see Bono and the edge posed ridiculously on one more magazine cover I am going to mail them vomit to their fan club address.
** Although I'd still like to know what's up with The Edge buying up all that land in Malibu and basically razing it's ecosystem so he can have a couple McMansions. Hard to give the benefit of the doubt there, although I've only really heard the side of the Malibu residents and most of them have their own agendas.
*** I fully recognize how ragm fans can point out hypocrisy here, but The Clash, while maybe not as active politically as Crass, did a hell of a lot more than Zak and his buddies. Sorry, their shenanigans put them in the Michael Moore category for me - started out strong but ended up ruining the argument for the rest of us. Thanks pal...
The two didn't get along, or at least Crass was extremely critical of The Clash.
Crass, although still fairly unknown in the grand scheme of things, is the real deal as far as the supposed politics of the punk movement were concerned. Aside from making recordings like 'How Does It Feel To Be The Mother Of 1000 Dead' and cut-and-paste red herring recordings loosely referred to as 'Thatchergate' wherein the voices of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were constructed to discuss sensitive material that was then leaked to the press, Crass supported their aesthetic by organizing impromptu shows for impoverished or peace-oriented causes, massive squats to save buildings or support striking workers and generally attempted to critique and enlighten the youth culture they saw as direct worshippers of consumer culture.
The Clash on the other hand, while known for their politics and images of revolution, were a big label rock band who, some could argue, did not 'put their money where their mouth was'.
Some could argue this. I will not.
I love The Clash. And yes, I know that they weren't as 'in the trenches' as a band like Crass were, but their critics fail to look at the politics of the punk era as a battle fought on multiple fronts: low visibility DIY is a great place to rally and make club-sized statements or protests. But how about those who can try and make a difference from the stadium level? Now, granted perhaps Strummer and the boys could have done more, but that level of world attention, while an easily exploitable marketing tier, is also a place to tread with caution. While Van Halen was singing about pointless crap and Ozzy was snorting ants The Clash were at least trying to carrying the flag through the stadiums, encouraging their fans to 'Pay Attention' and 'Think for themselves' about world issues. It's the same with, god help me, U2. I've tried not to hate those blokes for years, finally succumbing this last year to my dislike of their modern music and status*, but I still gotta give them props on the fact that while a lot of other bands out their are only concerned with their loins and their noses, Bono (ugh!) and the guys still throw Amnesty Int. and various world messages in anyone that will listen's faces whenever they can.**
The Clash is a rock band. They took the underground ethos of the music scene at the time and turned it into a major seller, but they never lost site of the fact that they wanted something more, even if they didn't always rabidly pursue it. Crass on the other hand were the snipers of the movement, sickened by The Clash for their alleged stealing of an ethos for marketing purposes. They lived in commune-like ideology for their day-to day lives and fought the battles of the Thatcher-era on the street level. However, how many people did they affect then or still affect now? The Clash, on the other hand, while perhaps laregely reduced to merely rock god status over twenty years after their breakup and seven since their iconic frontman's death, still play on millions of radios all over the world. How many of those people listening do you think they've influenced to go back and find Crass? Or, how many people do they simply make feel good with their strong, positive music? I don't know about you, but it's pretty hard for me to be in a negative headspace if I'm listening to London Calling or Sandinista.
So change the world one club or one guy at a time, but as long as you're trying, I give you credit.
Unless you're rage against the machine. Poseurs!***
.......................
* If I see Bono and the edge posed ridiculously on one more magazine cover I am going to mail them vomit to their fan club address.
** Although I'd still like to know what's up with The Edge buying up all that land in Malibu and basically razing it's ecosystem so he can have a couple McMansions. Hard to give the benefit of the doubt there, although I've only really heard the side of the Malibu residents and most of them have their own agendas.
*** I fully recognize how ragm fans can point out hypocrisy here, but The Clash, while maybe not as active politically as Crass, did a hell of a lot more than Zak and his buddies. Sorry, their shenanigans put them in the Michael Moore category for me - started out strong but ended up ruining the argument for the rest of us. Thanks pal...
