While some Clashoholics have been drinking to the strains of Joe Strummer's newest little audio firecracker, the ones with taste have avoided the B.A.D. brew by launching tried-and-true bottle rockets like The Clash, Give 'Em Enough Rope, and London Calling. For these fire-starters, Epic/Legacy's decision to upgrade and remaster the entire Clash catalog (sans the Mick Jones-less Cut The Crap) should've set the July night sky aflame. Instead, the manner in which Epic chose to set one prime bomb adrift backfired with the alacrity of a cap gun.
As many of you know, the first Clash album was released in 1977. Since the label felt that the record would be met with American indifference (i.e., "too British"), The Clash was only available in the U.K. as a domestic offering. As an English import, the album sold roughly 150,000 copies in the United States. Two years later (the band was on record #3 at this point), The Clash washed upon American shores as a refurbished vessel. With slightly altered cover graphics, the U.S. version contained five songs ("Clash City Rockers," "Complete Control," "White Man In Hammersmith Palais," "I Fought The Law," and "Jail Guitar Doors") not found on the U.K. release. The American overhaul also subtracted four cuts ("Deny," "Cheat," "Protex Blue," and "48 Hours") from the original U.K. pressing. Though there existed a 10-track overlap between the two albums, The Clash saw the U.K. and U.S. items as two completely different things. Therefore, when The Clash remasters came out earlier this year, the band decided to reissue its first album in both English and American editions.
"The band's thinking was, 'This is the way we made the album for the U.K., and this is the way we made it for the U.S., and that's it,'" reissue producer Bruce Dickinson, pointing out that it was The Clash's and not Legacy's decision, told ICE MAGAZINE #160.
Such a cut-and-dry response rang hollow to many a Clash enthusiast. One concerned "career opportunist," Eric Levy of Illinois, expressed his displeasure in this E-mail to ICE: "I went to buy the newly re-released Clash albums, and was disappointed at how they chose to release the band's first album...Wouldn't it have been preferable to put all the songs from both versions on a single CD, with the song sequence explained in the liner notes? That way, people could program the disc however they wanted...I'm saddened that they felt they had to resort to this kind of rip-off tactic."
Back to Dickinson: "If you took either one of those first albums and put the other's songs on as bonus tracks, it would sort of conflict with their reasoning for not putting bonus tracks on any of the other releases -- which they could've done. But they felt it would've taken away from the total effect of what each album was."
Preserving the original vinyl statements may be seen by purists as a sign of integrity ("what The Clash have always been about..."). To those unadorned with a "punk-rock security blanket," however, The Clash's decision was more in keeping with AOR geezers Pink Floyd or Yes (that "total effect" comment could've easily been said by Roger Waters or Jon Anderson) than with anything anti-establishment. And why not? They've acted like Chicago in the past by forging Sandinista! (a huge mess of a triple album whose worthy tracks would've made a decent EP) on an unsatisfied public. Maybe it's an English thing, but most Americans have a hardy appetite and would happily chomp on bonus-track morsels. The Brits can be so dainty when it comes to consumption ("I'll have just the tea and not the cookies."), whereas Americans forever have hunger pangs ("Gimme the tea, the cookies, the pastries, the fruit, the cake...and a dozen of them there doughnuts!"). Past catalog reissues from notables like XTC, Motorhead, Joan Jett, Cheap Trick, and Motley Crue have kept a few extra treats in the refrigerator cold, much to a bedtime snacker's delight.
As such, the missing sweets from the U.K. album would've been a flavor enhancer to the U.S. record (and vice versa), creating an overall tastier recipe. Still, if you choose to partake in either as-is portion, nibble on this Clash crumb from VH1 Online: "But there are far worse ways to help turn rebellion into money. You could buy a Limp Bizkit record, for instance."
As many of you know, the first Clash album was released in 1977. Since the label felt that the record would be met with American indifference (i.e., "too British"), The Clash was only available in the U.K. as a domestic offering. As an English import, the album sold roughly 150,000 copies in the United States. Two years later (the band was on record #3 at this point), The Clash washed upon American shores as a refurbished vessel. With slightly altered cover graphics, the U.S. version contained five songs ("Clash City Rockers," "Complete Control," "White Man In Hammersmith Palais," "I Fought The Law," and "Jail Guitar Doors") not found on the U.K. release. The American overhaul also subtracted four cuts ("Deny," "Cheat," "Protex Blue," and "48 Hours") from the original U.K. pressing. Though there existed a 10-track overlap between the two albums, The Clash saw the U.K. and U.S. items as two completely different things. Therefore, when The Clash remasters came out earlier this year, the band decided to reissue its first album in both English and American editions.
"The band's thinking was, 'This is the way we made the album for the U.K., and this is the way we made it for the U.S., and that's it,'" reissue producer Bruce Dickinson, pointing out that it was The Clash's and not Legacy's decision, told ICE MAGAZINE #160.
Such a cut-and-dry response rang hollow to many a Clash enthusiast. One concerned "career opportunist," Eric Levy of Illinois, expressed his displeasure in this E-mail to ICE: "I went to buy the newly re-released Clash albums, and was disappointed at how they chose to release the band's first album...Wouldn't it have been preferable to put all the songs from both versions on a single CD, with the song sequence explained in the liner notes? That way, people could program the disc however they wanted...I'm saddened that they felt they had to resort to this kind of rip-off tactic."
Back to Dickinson: "If you took either one of those first albums and put the other's songs on as bonus tracks, it would sort of conflict with their reasoning for not putting bonus tracks on any of the other releases -- which they could've done. But they felt it would've taken away from the total effect of what each album was."
Preserving the original vinyl statements may be seen by purists as a sign of integrity ("what The Clash have always been about..."). To those unadorned with a "punk-rock security blanket," however, The Clash's decision was more in keeping with AOR geezers Pink Floyd or Yes (that "total effect" comment could've easily been said by Roger Waters or Jon Anderson) than with anything anti-establishment. And why not? They've acted like Chicago in the past by forging Sandinista! (a huge mess of a triple album whose worthy tracks would've made a decent EP) on an unsatisfied public. Maybe it's an English thing, but most Americans have a hardy appetite and would happily chomp on bonus-track morsels. The Brits can be so dainty when it comes to consumption ("I'll have just the tea and not the cookies."), whereas Americans forever have hunger pangs ("Gimme the tea, the cookies, the pastries, the fruit, the cake...and a dozen of them there doughnuts!"). Past catalog reissues from notables like XTC, Motorhead, Joan Jett, Cheap Trick, and Motley Crue have kept a few extra treats in the refrigerator cold, much to a bedtime snacker's delight.
As such, the missing sweets from the U.K. album would've been a flavor enhancer to the U.S. record (and vice versa), creating an overall tastier recipe. Still, if you choose to partake in either as-is portion, nibble on this Clash crumb from VH1 Online: "But there are far worse ways to help turn rebellion into money. You could buy a Limp Bizkit record, for instance."
No comments:
Post a Comment