Sometimes the best intentions get defeated by the need for some sleep, and so it was that I failed to get a post on here last night. After playing football in107f heat when I got home I felt the need for lots of extra cold water and pressure off my ankles that had been repeatedly hacked at my an over zealous sweeper/goalkeeper last night. Stretched out and that was that, evening over.

When I woke just now I realised I hadn’t done my usual planning for the blog to determine the days update and here I am without one. If you refer to the last post and the comments beneath you’ll find the nucleus of a great post from Pete in London who writes about Joe Strummer and the 101′ers at some length, but also delves into the lasting legacy of The Clash and even just what punk was about. Go to the comments section of this post to read his notes in full. Since starting the blog I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Pete really well and while he has a few years on me he also is somewhat of a go to person for a lot of the music that predates The Clash, I especially like his thoughts about what punk means and whether its valid. As he wrote punk music had its place when people want to box it in and say it started in Detroit with the MC5 or with The Ramones in New York, or via the Sex Pistols in London but as soon as you try and create a date and place of birth you’re almost obliged to give it an autopsy and determine just when it ended. I think he’s saying its much more than a ‘sound’ and he’s so right.

As I’ve written before I’m still not convinced The Clash were a ‘punk’ band, I maintain that they were one of the last great Rock and Roll bands we ever had who happened to appear and gain attention as part of the scene that spawned British punk. Yes they were crucial purveyors of the punk sound along with The Sex Pistols, Buzzcocks and The Damned but so much more than that. Suddenly a host of bands throughout Britain seemingly emerged from the woodwork to herald the new age and champion a DIY ethos that was exactly what the industry didn’t want. That I think is what punk really means even today, don’t mystify music and musicians. Pick up a guitar and play, find others who would sooner do that than sit in front of a playstation and practice. Write about the things you know not the things you’re told will sell records. Most importantly of all to me who was too young to be part of the earliest days of punk is the notion that it was a scene where you did your own thing – and was very inclusive of you doing that. Compared with the mods and the teddy boys and those who favoured some of the arena rock of the 70′s punk didn’t say you had to look a certain way or buy your shoes at one explicit place. Clothing and haircuts, makeup and agenda were all determined by the individual not by the high street or the giant shopping mall mentality of companies like The Gap. (across the world one uniform for our youth…The Gap). The idea of this independence extended itself to the followers of the music as much as the bands themselves, but like all new waves it broke far too quickly.

Why I don’t think The Clash were really a ‘punk’ band is simple really and you have to look no further than 1978 to see that their transformation to a rock band was well underway. In Mick Jones they had a songwriter with a deep appreciation and understanding of what had gone before and that was fueled by a burning desire to know exactly how records were made. He obsessed in the studio wanting to take himself and the band in new directions and push their abilities to the limit. Making a carbon copy of The Clash first album was never a risk for the band. Just as punk was crashing on the rocks by 1978 by imitators who found the bandwagon irresistible so did bands who emerged from the scene find their own feet and their own sound,  which I think was the most punk thing of all. So if The Clash had remained limited to a punk sound (along with The Jam, XTC, The Police, Buzzcocks) they probably would have ceased to be before the tracks that were to make up London Calling had even been written. It was the evolution of The Clash and the other bands I mention that was the most punk thing of all, take whats been done, refine it and change it and make your own rules. As Pete wrote that was what punk was really all about and why the ethos of punk should never really go away.

The reason people are still listening to The Clash in 2010 isn’t because they managed to write 75 variations of ‘London’s Burning’ but because they wrote more and more songs that pulled upon the knowledge of music they had coupled with an open mindedness that is rare to see but something to treasure. Could anyone who saw The Clash in 1976 have imagined that same band writing songs like Rudy Can’t Fail, The Magnificent Seven or Straight to Hell? Only if you were open to the potential of music as they were and punk wasn’t just about ‘a sound’ but reflected a way of thinking and an approach in general. The least punk thing imaginable would be the ability to label something as punk, much like the mohican haircuts Pete referred to that’s the equivalent of dressing like a Beatle circa 1964 and saying you are part of the British invasion. One last thought (and almost all of this was brought on by Pete’s comments) is that punk is not dead and I don’t think it ever will be. There are 17 year olds in every town who see Anti-Flag or The White Stripes as every bit as punk as we saw The Clash. If it inspires them to form a band and try their own thing then punk never needs to go away, by that same measure you could say punk never began in 1976 or (choose your year) because its always been there. You could argue that Link Wray and Eddie Cochran were punks – and I’d probably agree with you. We need not do more than nod to what has come before, the highest tribute is to take it somewhere new.

Saying The Clash were the greatest punk band is fine, but its far better to say they were simply a great band.