that was a naughty bit of crap: “The Clash were the second greatest Rock’n’Roll band ever. Second to The Rolling Stones. The Beatles of course weren’t a rock’n’roll band- they were a pop group. The Clash run a very poor second-place. They made three good albums (?The Clash?, ?London Calling? and ?Combat Rock?) to The Stones’s six (go figure). They make up good ground as a singles band as is attested by something like ?The Story of the Clash?.”
Just spotted this after looking over Matt’s piece on deephousepage.com. Personally I think The Clash piss all over the Stones for all the obvious reasons, notwithstanding the dark transcendence of their best work (Exile, mainly). The first LP is I think over-rated. I much prefer Give ‘Em Enough Rope (and I’ve been getting into trouble for that since I was 12). People talk about it being “too rock” — well, it’s certainly produced a lot better. Joe sings a lot better too. And lets face it, the tunes are better. Has there ever been a more exciting track than Safe European Home? It was of course amazing live. London Calling is of course great, the definitive Clash album, but Combat Rock isn’t. I loved it at the time but listening back, the songs are awful and Joe’s singing is just all over the place.
No, the best Clash album — in fact the best album ever made by anyone ever, IMO — is Sandinista. It’s a whole world that they’ve constructed in those grooves.