An odd debate – were Clash albums (well 2 of them) too long?
Good evening how are things with you then? I trust well…I just got back from playing football and for once it was below 75f but was still like running around on concrete. The ‘grass’ in Arizona is typically about as lush as the rocks on the mountains around here and the bumps and grooves in the hard dry surface leave you yelling out ‘bad bounce’ every 5 or 10 minutes to deter any sentiments that you are completely hopeless at the beautiful game. I may have moaned about the weather in England but there was almost always a nice spot of grass for a kickabout. Anyway that’s not why you visited the blog is it? Let’s get to some Clash related stuff.
The Clash had a pretty unique career in that in just over 5 years (of recording) they managed a two single albums, then a double, then a triple and finished (essentially) with a another single – Combat Rock in 1982. If you’re younger than a certain age (30?) then the concept of double and triple albums is probably essentially lost on you. Since the advent of CDs most ‘double’ vinyl albums will happily fit on single CD, such is the case with London Calling where 19 tracks and over 60 minutes of music fit on just one disc. Even Sandinista! made it on to two cds. I still remember getting that on CD and finding it odd that disc one ended at the end of side three, which totally changed the impact of the disc oddly. In the digital age do we even notice when a double album comes out? I’m not sure of the last really notable release that was 20-24 tracks long? That of course was your golden (unwritten) rule 25 years ago – a single album better have at least 8 tracks and ideally 10 or more, when you got beyond 14 tracks you were heading into the realms of a double album unless it was early Ramones and everything clocked in at about 2:10. Thinking back I believe London Calling was the first double album I ever bought and there haven’t been that many others from the vinyl era. Two other extremely popular double albums were releaed near the time of London Calling – Pink Floyd’s The Wall (which interestingly came out just 2 weeks before The Clash released their double album) and Bruce Springsteen’s The River which arrived about 10 months later in the Autumn of 1980. Perhaps where was something in the water in 1979, but I doubt 3 double albums as historical as that trio were ever released in a 12 month spell. There is a lot of rumour and theory attached to why The Clash suddenly released 10 sides of music from late ’79 to late ’80 – much of it concerning the collective goal of hastening the end to their contract with CBS records. However forensic work from authors and analysts have shown that this simply was wishful thinking, the CBS contract tied the Clash down to optional additional albums so that wasn’t the main catalyst.
I think the reality is that by the Spring of 1979 the band were really gelling as a unit with a lot to prove (backs against the wall will do that to you), taking more collective influences from one another and writing/experimenting almost constantly. Don’t forget too that a number of tracks never made it onto London Calling and songs as good as Bankrobber and Armagideon Time were completed just after and whilst finishing London Calling respectively. While 1980 offered more of the same, the early goal of releasing a single each month never made it to fruition but the year still ended with a triple album spanning 36 tracks this time with Sandinista! I constantly hear those who complain that the triple album was too ambitious and there was too much noodling, dub, throwaway tracks and filler – but I can’t imagine the album any other way. I’ll even put my neck out and say that 30 years later its the album that I find most interesting and fresh (but only on some days I’ll quickly add to cover my arse). Critics and fans alike have debated for years that S! could have made a fantastic double album or an earth shattering single, but again how can you efficiently decide and edit what songs shouldn’t have made it. One More Time needs One More Dub to compliment it and you can battle long and hard for inclusion and exclusion based on personal preference. As I said I’ve heard this discussion many times – but on the Pop Matters site today I came across a debate I’ve never heard before – “Was London Calling too long as a double album?” Pop Matters regularly run the debate sessions and they are often good fun.
My answer is the same as for Sandinista! NO - but even more so, how on earth can you elect to pull 3,4 or 5 songs from London Calling and have anything less than a culled version of a classic? To mean the excellence of London Calling is the 19 tracks that comprise it – take away any piece and it has lost far more than 5% of what makes it so special. The Pop Matters debate is linked here and while its somewhat tongue in cheek its worth a quick read. One suggests it would be like trimming an entire scene or two from The Godfather, you’d be left with a very different film. While I was much less satisfied about events when they were happening (1982 and 1983) time has taught me that almost everything that happened to The Clash happening for a reason. Three things I wish had not happened I reluctantly accept – Topper should have got the help he needed and the band took six-twelve months off and released a live album while Topper recovered – Combat Rock should have been the original mix and likely a double album – Mick Jones should not have been fired. Over simplification of course but nothing can be changed now and nor should the length of the albums that they did release.
I’ll be back soon…thanks as always for dropping in and supporting the blog. Tim






_20110619215502.png)