"Rock Star _______ (fill in band here)"

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by Skully

Nah. That's silly, too. Refer to the "Nuggets" compilations for evidence to quash your theory or, as someone else mentioned, some of the more primal '50s rock recordings.

Well, there you go. Either way, it's not the Ramones.

[Skully]

Who said it was The Ramones who invented punk rock?

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

Let me clear something up for you. The Clash made almost no money off their music while they were together. Joe was still squatting when they broke up. I'll tell you why. London calling was a double album, Sandanista was a triple album. They both cost the same as a regular album. To pay for it they took a hit in royalties. The suits at the record label hated them and Epic wouldn't support their tours... And they were hardly popular. They're more popular today than when they were still a group!

As for, where punk came from... The Ramones didn't invent it either. The rythms go as far back as Bo Diddley. It took the New York dolls to create the attitude, but by the time the Clash came out with London Calling, they were no longer strictly a punk band anyway. They were only the best of the punk groups at that point.

Let me clear something up for you. You're right that the band made relatively little money from record sales while they were together. If they didn't make money from touring (which shouldn't require significant tour support from their label, based on their popularity), it was a result of Joe Strummer's (and the band's) rejection of the capitalist system. If they weren't making money off of their music, somebody was. Trust me, I was a concert promoter and booking agent in the peak of the punk era (which wouldn't have endeared me to The Clash). Groups of lesser stature than The Clash made plenty of money touring in those days.

I'd guess that the Clash catalogue has generated significant revenue (and profit) over the past several years, and the cost of CD reproduction of existing catalogue is minimal. Unless they negotiated a poor deal or gave it all away, there should have been millions of dollars for the band (or their preferred charities or political causes) over the past 28 years.

[lobotomyactivist]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Let me clear something up for you. You're right that the band made relatively little money from record sales while they were together. If they didn't make money from touring (which shouldn't require significant tour support from their label, based on their popularity), it was a result of Joe Strummer's (and the band's) rejection of the capitalist system. If they weren't making money off of their music, somebody was.

That was why the label disliked them-they were producing 3 times as many records for the price of one, and the label wasn't making as much as they wanted to.

As far as "buying into their hype", any band that can release "White Riot" and then turn around and put out an album containing hip hop, reggae, and gospel 3 years later deserves at least some respect. And at the quality of the melodies and lyrics, they were unbeatable. I believe in this and it's been tested by research: he who claims the Clash are overhyped hasn't heard enough or simply doesn't like rock and roll music.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Trust me, I was a concert promoter and booking agent in the peak of the punk era (which wouldn't have endeared me to The Clash). Groups of lesser stature than The Clash made plenty of money touring in those days.

I didn't think anybody made money touring in those days.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I'd guess that the Clash catalogue has generated significant revenue (and profit) over the past several years, and the cost of CD reproduction of existing catalogue is minimal. Unless they negotiated a poor deal or gave it all away, there should have been millions of dollars for the band (or their preferred charities or political causes) over the past 28 years.

My point is that most of that, the vast majority of it I'd wager, was made years after the band split up. I'm not disputing the fact that they made money but I don't think they made very much at all while they were together, and that's because they did get a poor deal. That's why I must adamantly disagree with the charactarization of the Clash as "commercializing" punk rock because they did nothing of the sort.

It must be noted my knowledge of the Clash does not come firsthand, but from Last Gang in Town by Marcus Gray. Being fairly young, I wouldn't have had any opportunities to see real punk shows, mostly because I wasn't born.

But it must be said that there were no unauthorized Clash biographies to read back then either.