I know there are mentally ill Obs who dont like The Beatles, Stones, or Dylan, but who among us doesnt like the Clash and why?

I was a little late to the party in my appreciation but I now get them in a big way.

I wouldn't say I don't like them, but I've never gotten them "in a big way".

I like them but have never heard all of "The Clash"

...all I really know is London Calling, Should I Stay etc. Those I could take or leave. Really leave more than take.

I am also 95% sure there's a huge backlog of material by them that is much, much better (and by "better" I mean I haven't heard it every other day since age 6), and I just haven't sought it out.

I love The Clash.

I have said it before, and will say it again. When I started to REALLY get into music other than rap, one of the first discs I got was 'Some Girls,' and then a few years later I worked with this Clash obsessed dude, so we put on one of the albums, and I remember thinking that The Clash was supposed to be one of the bands that wanted to do away with the "dinosaurs of rock" but sounded pretty much just like that era of the Stones.

I think if I had lived through it, they would mean more, but in reality, I don't have the desire to go digging through their discs to find the "magic."

I feel pretty much the same way about The Replacements. A few notable songs, but overall cannot for the life of me wrap my brain around the hype.

That's a big part of it for me. They seem so tied a very specific time and place.

How they ever got to be "the only band that mattered" during that particular era just baffles me.

I likes me some Clash. Good stuff

Me too. I only heard London Calling for the first time about 2 years ago, so I don't have any feelings/baggage about it. I do see what the fuss was about after years of reading about it.

I dig some clash. The pics I've seen of their shows have been pretty impressive - rawking all over the stage and such. That probably adds to the "had to have been there to appresh" line of thinking. If I go to a show where the band totally lights up the stage I don't forget it easily.

You would be correct. I'll also add I'm surprised by how many people here don't seem to have heard the debut Clash album which is 1000X better than London Calling in my humble opinion.

Well, for one thing that was a marketing slogan rather than a reality.

When it was released I thought the first Clash album was okay, but unoriginal, hard rock. Give 'Em Enough Rope was unoriginal hard rock. And London Calling was eclectic and accessible enough to not get violently tossed off the turntable at university parties, but hardly the untouchable classic of its current rep. And Sandanista! bit the wax tadpole.

Edit: oh yeah, around the time of London Calling they were an awesome live band.

I don't mind them, the music's okay, but I don't get the fawning adoration.

I would agree with this statement as well.

Pretty much nails it. Of all the '77/'78 punk efforts, the Clash' debut is one of the least endearing for me. I prefer "Give 'em Enough Rope", however unoriginal it may be. London Calling is remarkable for it's stamina, a double album of three minute gems, with no weak track to be found. Sandinista is the Clash' version of musical masturbation. Maybe three or four worthwhile songs, not much more. Combat Rock, likewise, has maybe two worthwhile tracks, apart from the "hits".

I like a lot of songs by The Clash, but "Jimmy Jazz" makes it impossible for me to love them.

All I know is London Calling is the third highest album with more than one vote on the Obner Charts.

Beat me to it. I loooooove The Clash, but yeah - that was pure hype at its finest.

I'd imagine Clash Love is by & large a generational thing, & I think that's being proven somewhat in this thread. I'm a guy who got "London Calling" as an 8th Grade Graduation present...previous to that, about the most exotic my record collection got was a couple Police records.

But when I got "London Calling" in 1979 at age 13 it was like someone had kicked down a door, & a blinding light came pouring in. That record told me there was a whole world out there I didn't know about - but it was time to start exploring it.

As far as the Replacements go, they're an all-time Top 10 band for me...but I'm the first to admit they were best at being a BAND than they were at being recording artists. Lots of great music, but you have to be focused to find it.

Probably my third favorite band of all time. The first three albums (I'm treating the US and UK versions of the self-titled as one album) are like pure ear candy to me, and Sandanista is an overlooked gem.

Is it now uncool to like the Clash (at least among the IHESs) because they're renowned?

I don't know if I could disagree more with your assessment of them. The debut is probably their one album without a single weak track imho. You seem to be forgetting Jimmy Jazz and Lover's rock on London Calling which are both pretty weak. I like London Calling but consider about half of it to be catchy but not really noteworthy songs. Sandinista is great although I have to be in the mood for it. Combact rock would be alot better if not for those "hits" which really feel out of place with the mood of the rest of the album.

What are "IHES"s?

Why has no one mentioned 'Cut The Crap'? Undoubtably the worst album of all time by a 'name' band.

I'm kind of in the middle in this debate, 'The Clash' and 'London Calling' are great albums but overall I wouldn't say The Clash were especially important band in terms of influencing other musicians or putting out a solid back catalogue. Their back catalogue is patchy and their sound was hardly revolutionary.

One of the better bands of the era but certainly not 'the only one that mattered'.

I don't hate them, but I don't think I want any of their albums. If someone played them around me, I wouldn't mind.