Talk:London Calling/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Various concerns

"penny" and "pennie" are used. one may be incorrect. Badanedwa 05:41, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

The link to the sound sample doesn't work. Ini 18:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The album was released in the USA during the last week of December, 1979. I bought it upon release. The whole idea behind releasing it right after Christmas was for it to be the last album to come out in the 1970s. It has been standard record company practice to put the next year's date on releases issued during the last two weeks of December.

The quality of the article is somewhat tarnished by the fact that in the introductory paragraph there is a mention of how the cover is a homage to and early Elvis record and then goes on to say, "and equally, the London Calling cover is paid homage to on the Tony Hawk's American Wasteland soundtrack cover." I think this should be removed because it just sounds bad to compare a Tony Hawk soundtrack to two landmark albums. This would be better in the trivia section.

Is it punk?

I'm kind of uncomfortable with having this, and the two Clash albums released thereafter, being catagorized as just punk. By the time this came out, the punk scene in the UK was pretty much over; all the bands still around by that time had, like The Clash, branched out into other styles. And because this encompasses so many different styles, I think it would be better if these styles could be identified rather than having the three later Clash records just being labeled as purely "punk rock", because they had outgrown that narrow label. I'll hesitate to do anything until someone else agrees with me on this.

  • I would disagree. Punk isn't something that can be defined by one sound. It's more about attitude. These albums DO contain musical elements of punk, but it is mixed with other styles to create something unique and different. I still think this deserves to be classified as punk-what else would you call it? It was certainly different from the cock rock, glam rock, and ballad rock (Journey, Boston, Kansas, ect) that was happening at the same time.
i would just classify it as "rock". "Punk isn't something that can be defined by one sound" is inherently ridiculous, as that could imply that bands like sonic youth or the jesus and mary chain are punk, which they are not, they're alternative rock. punk is a relatively narrow musical convention, which this album clearly supercedes. Joeyramoney 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit... i agree with the idea that "punk isn't something that can be defined by one sound". Television, Talking Heads, Suicide, The Dead Boys and The Ramones were all punk bands by definition since the started the movement, and didn's have the same sound. The biggest proof is Big Black (Steve Albini's first band), a band with a very challenging sound (not fitting the "narrow musical convention" that in Joeyramoney's (narrow) point of view, punk is), yet Steve Albini was always very clear to say that Big Black was a punk band —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.49.48.22 (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes it's punk. Punk isn't one specific sound. Check out Mischief Brew, Gogol Bordello, even older Against Me!. That isn't the "narrow musical convention" you're describing... Punk IS an attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.30.50 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sonic Youth aren't alternative rock, their earlier stuff may be but overall they were an experimental rock band I believe.



--> You could argue all day about what was considered Punk in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and 00s and no consensus will emerge. But in my opinion ("and its been tested by research") if you place a listener, impartial to the tribalism of the Punk genre, you're apt to hear them label the songs as punk, rockabilly, reggae, Ska, rock, jazz, etc- styles immediately heard throughout the album. I mean why not make this argument "Is It Ska?" or "Is It Rockabilly?". There is just as much Ska/Reggae/Dub on the album as there is Punk. Sure, The Clash obviously come from the Punk background but I think "London Calling" is the proper turning point in their career when addressing a label shift. And in comparison to its predecessor, "Give Em Enough Rope", "London Calling" is such a conscious statement of genre hopping - something to firmly establish their move away from Punk circa late 70s. Rock isnt the best label but it's not as constrictive as what Punk had become in 1979. The Clash is very much defined by being one of the flagship Punk bands to shed that skin and adopt so many styles into their music so as to defy strict musical categorization. Given that, I think "London Calling" should be the turning point where this acknowledgment is made.


--> I would also add that the "Is It Punk?" discussion be limited to the music itself and not the "Punk" attitude. Folk/Hippy singers of the 60s were just as counter-cultural. Nihilism, hedonism, political activism, left-of-center intellectualism, offensive humor, all compete when describing Punk attitude. Some very fey, indie pop bands on K Records call themselves punk because of their lyrics. If we're having a difficult enough time with the music, the attitude will only complicate matters.

Maybe we could find a ref calling it their "white album" or something, which is the trad rock crit way to say its a multi-genre album. There isn't anything I'd call punk in the Ramones sense, or the Stooges sense, or the Velvet Underground sense. Maybe the Nuggets-influenced sense ("Clampdown", "Hateful") but musically the Clash were only playing punk on their first album. I think a lotta people are forced to call what they like "punk" cause they're afraid to admit they like rock. Thankfully things are changing, and we can all admit the first wouldn't exist without the second. As for bands like Television and Blondie, they were progressive garage bands that were in the right place at the right time (close to the Ramones). As for Big Black, they were somewhere between punk and Chicago-anglophile industrial . . . punk enough to lack a keyboard player, but industrial enough to have a drum machine, dance beats, and lots of noise effects. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This album is connected

Wrong 'Em Boyo

Wrong 'Em Boyo wasn't written by Strummer/Jones, it's an old reggae song by the Rulers, that they covered. Revolution Rock was a cover as well.

- Actually, that's not totally correct. The original tune Stagger Lee, or Stack O Lee has been passed down as a blues song for ages. Its not really entirely possible to attribute the song to any one individual.

While it is distantly descended from Stagger Lee, it shares more musical DNA ( right down to the name ) with "Wrong Emboyo" by The Rulers. [1] Song may have been written by "C. Alphanso", the Rulers version was issued as a single in Jamaica on Sir JJ and in the UK on Rio. - 60.36.46.80 06:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


NEGATIVE. Stagger Lee was an actual person from Kanasas City who did kill his friend Billy over a stetson hat (you people need to read history!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.45.197 (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

--> While I dont have it in front of me, Mojo/Uncut released a CD to accompany an autumn 2004 issue that featured the Clash. The CD was compiled, I believe by Paul and Mick, and contained many songs that the Clash covered or were inspired by during their career. The Rulers "Wrong Em Boyo" was on this disc and upon hearing it, The Clash certainly lifted their version from The Rulers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.10.9 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Train in Vain

The article notes that Train in Vain's lyrics aren't given on the insert, correctly explaining that it was a last minute addition. But the article currently makes no mention of the more notable fact that the first batch of album sleeves had already been printed up before the song was added, and as a result it was not mentioned in the track listing - and that it remained off the track listing during subsequent pressings making it one of the most popular "hidden" album tracks ever. I believe it was left off the sleeve until about 2000, but I don't know exactly when it was finally added. Can one of you more knowledgable Clash trivia buffs out there add this info? 171.159.64.10 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I don't know the date but I stuck a mention in for now. Guinnog 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure of the date either but the 1999/2000 catalogue reissue has the song on the sleeve.

Another interesting note is when the NME prompted the band for the song, they had forgotten about their Booker T cover of "Time Is Tight" which had been recorded and mixed in March 1978 but remained an outtake. Mick acknowledged in retrospect that, had they remembered this, they would have supplied this cover instead of coming up with a new song, "Train In Vain". I wouldn't post this on the page as I have no immediate reference but when I find it, Ill supply the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.10.9 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Jazz

I think do not its important to inform the readers who Plays the Saxophone in Jimmy Jazz... do you?

Genres

While I acknowledge that reggae is a noticeable aspect of the album, how are the tracks "spanish bombs" and "clampdown" reggae? Clampdown sounds more akin to punk. While "London Calling's" bass line is reggae influenced, it also sounds more punk than anything else.211.30.52.219 09:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

  • "eight on Rolling Stone's" - you don't need the 's, just the '
  • According to [2] it wasn't certified.
What about here? Should this be used as the link instead? [3] --Thamusemeantfan (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Stevens had alcohol and drug problems and his production methods were unconventional." - ref?
  • The Reception and influence section should go last
  • "and wrote that "if released tomorrow would still seem relevant and vibrant"." - you might want to say when this was written, so it makes sense
  • "London Calling sold approximately two..." - in this paragraph, you need punctuation under the refs, so just move them to the end of the sentence where relevant
  • ""The Last Testament - The Making of London Calling"" - should be in italics as a film title
  • Some of the stuff in the Songs section has already been wlinked, so not necessary

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. That link is right...not sure why mine didn't work. :S dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing chart rankings in multiple years

Reverted previous edit removing chart rankings for the same country in more than one year. For guidance, please see Wikipedia:Record charts Fantailfan (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The Vanilla Tapes That article has very little content and could be included in this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah do it. Other than illegal downloading I know of no way of obtaining the Vanilla Tapes except by buying the anniversary edition of London Calling.--G-Dett (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Merge. It was released in conjunction with the S.E. of London Calling. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. --John (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've performed the redirect. I can still bring anything useful into the main article, and will do so if references can be found for the train story, which is excellent if it is verifiable. Is it? --John (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Merge" IMHO does not mean "delete"! Anyway, the original text is below. I think it deserves a mention and (probably) a secition. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Vanilla Tapes

The Vanilla Tapes were demo tracks recorded in 1979 by the English punk band The Clash -- in essence, an early version of their album London Calling (although the track Remote Control was a song from the band's first album). Roadie Johnny Green was to deliver the tapes to the band's new producer, Guy Stevens; Green fell asleep on the train ride to the studio. Waking up at the station where he was to disembark, he panicked, and in his rush left the tapes behind. After that, the tapes were considered lost until March 2004, when Clash guitarist Mick Jones was moving boxes and came upon a copy of the tape.

The newly discovered Vanilla Tapes were released as a bonus disc when London Calling was remastered and re-issued as the Legacy Edition in September 2004. According to the booklet, there were 37 tracks on the tapes; only 21 were included on the CD.

This article has been selected for Version 0.7

This article has been selected for Wikipedia Version 0.7. Version 0.7 aims to be a collection of around 30,000 articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year.

Please try to fix any urgent problems in this article.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of this article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. The version can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. The Editorial Team is planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. For more information, please see the WPClash's Talk Page. Thanks! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Another Professional Review

I'd like to add another album rating to the Professional Reviews box. It might seem superflous (this album already has 9 ratings so far!) but what's special about this one is that the guy didn't give it a perfect score. I think it would be a fine addition to the article and it would stand in contrast to all the other ratings. Queenieacoustic (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviews have to be approved by the Album Project. Your website appears to be a non-notable amateur site. Only professional reviews are permitted and only after discussion and consensus from the album project. BC Rocky (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Vocalists

I think adding a vocalist section to the track listing would be a nice touch, but I don't possess sufficient Wiki code knowledge to do it myself. --The monkeyhate (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, albums by the Beatles do have lead vocals columns, so I don't see a reason against it. So I'd be willing to add them, but I don't know who sings each song, and can't really be bothered to go through and check. If you can find out though, and no one else has any objections, I would be perfectly willing to do it.
--BadWolfTV (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I decided to guess, and I've added the column now. If I'm wrong about anything please do fix my mistake though.
--BadWolfTV (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where You Gonna Go Soweto

Although this is listed as being written by the Clash in the liner notes of the legacy edition, it is in fact clearly a cover of Sonny Okosun's Fire in Soweto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inCMdSWYKOo Whether or not Sonny Okuson actually penned the tune I do not know but it certainly should not be attributed to The Clash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.31.132 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No assertion can be made without a reference, and a YouTube video is not a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you rather the song was wrongly attributed to The Clash rather than the the man who wrote it. Joe even played the song on his radio show later in his life. What would suffice, an All Music credit? It is clear that the information that was previously on the page was in fact wrong. If anyone can tell me how I can obtain a reliable source please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.31.132 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It is clear only to you. You want to introduce your opinion that it is Okosun's song, which is not acceptable. Allmusic would be a reliable source, but only if it says it is his song, with a different title, and not a song written by the Clash inspired by his song. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay so i checked his all music page and although it does state that Fire in Soweto was a song released by him it does not give the year or author. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/sonny-okosun-p2922/songs From what I can tell there are two versions sung by Sonny in existence. His own wikipedia article uses this website as reference, http://biochem.chem.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~endo/EAOkosun.html whether or not this would suffice I do not know. As I stated before Joe Strummer played this song on his radio show in 2000 (19/01/2000) If you like you can download it here http://www.clashcity.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13 to check Please give this time before you dismiss it. In the Vanilla Tapes version the band play the same riff and Joe sings the same lyrics (in his Joe 'not so accurate even with my own songs fashion') It would be amazing if somehow an obscure (for me anyway) Nigerian musician managed to come across the 'lost' tapes of the Vanilla Sessions and cover The Clash as opposed to the far more likely scenario of Joe picking up a song he liked that was floating on the airwaves during the late 70's as one of my links suggests, something that the Clash did many times over. It strikes me that you may not have both the Clash's version and Sonny's at hand but they are both on You Tube and I can leave it to you make a decision but hopefully you will see that leaving The Clash's name as writers of the song is not only disrespectful but incorrect. Any help in locating a reference would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.31.132 (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not dismissing this, believe me. In fact, I would say that your theory is most likely correct: Joe heard the song, liked it, and played it in his own style, altering the lyrics as he saw fit. I am intrigued, but not yet convinced. We need better sources, but I am not sure what they might be. Hopefully, other editors will join in on this discussion, and they may know more than you or I. If the song is misattributed in the article, that needs to be fixed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Joe doesn't really alter lyrics that much, he just doesn't really sing most of them, seemingly preferring to repeatedly sing the ones that he can remember. Is there any way that the page can be edited to reflect that the point is disputed to draw attention to it. I've never done this on wikipedia before but I just felt it was a bit unfair. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by If-music-could-talk (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hateful

I swear I've heard the opening of Hateful as some ditty or something. I was wondering if anyone new anything and, if so, if it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Roundhouse Rising Workshop

I've added this as an item in the article. I realize it's borderline trivial, but I think it's notable enough that out of all possible albums to be the subject of such an effort this one was chosen. I also believe it is topical, showing the record's continuing relevance to the younger generation. It's sponsored by the UK Arts Council as a major commitment to same. Finally - it is current. That will no longer be true in a couple of months and it may be ripe for removal at that time. Wwwhatsup (talk)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:London Calling/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a decent article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important album (9th most, according to Rolling Stone), so I think more research, especially of older sources, should be done to make the article comprehensive and FA-worthy. indopug (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

–Excerpt from Peer review

Last edited at 11:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed punkmusic.org non-staff writer review.

I removed the punknews.org rating/review since it was by a non-staff writer, and not notable by definition. Here it is, if you're interested, using a cite instead of link:

| rev10 = Punknews.org |rev10Score = [1]

  1. ^ ChemicalWarfare (July 11th, 2001). Punknews.org Review "The Clash London Calling (1979) > Review". punknews.org. Retrieved 9 March 2008. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

-- J. Wong (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section

While the Legacy section seems rather thorough and complete, it also seems rather haphazard. That is, the various references don't flow very naturally, and in some cases are completely unrelated. For example, the prose quoting Tom Carson's Rolling Stone review and then reporting the albums placement at #8 on the 500 greatest albums list seems to imply that Tom Carson was responsible for that. And what does Sal Coefli's review on PopMatters have to do with CMJ's listing it on its top 20 albums of 1980 list?

I'm proposing the following organization: Reviews broken down into two sections in order: 1) Contemporaneous reviews such as Rolling Stone 's and Christgau's; 2) more recent reviews including legacy and reissue reviews, which includes all web-based magazines and Allmusic. "Best" or "Greatest" list inclusions also ordered by time of list creation. (That is, Pitchfork's 1970's list shouldn't preceded Rolling Stone 's best of the '80's.)

I believe this will give a direction to the section, and a sense of the album's legacy through time.

-- J. Wong (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course, I completely missed the Reception section since the Album ratings are in the Legacy section. What a mess! -- J. Wong (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Where you gonna go (Soweto)

Fixed credit. Written by Sonny Okuson not The Clash. Originally called Fire in Soweto. Do I need to cite? http://www.discogs.com/Sonny-Okosun-Papas-Land-Fire-In-Soweto/release/978551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.154.102 (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Revolution Rock

In the Music section it mentions Revolution Rock as a song that Strummer and Jones were criticized about for being unable to compose a credible love song but that song was a cover and not a love song. Did the note mean to say Lover's Rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.199.253 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's talking about the album as a whole, though you could re-write that part and put it somewhere at the top of the section or something, because how it is now is misleading. I would do it myself, but I'm not good at that stuff and would not know where to put it. --BLAguyMONKEY! (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Elvispresleydebutalbum.jpeg

I've removed this file because its use here violates NFCC#3. This file is copyrighted and its currently used at three Elvis articles. Crisco 1492 and/or Nikkimaria, can you please confirm that this file should not be used here. Harmelodix (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre Discrepancy

One of the genres listed in the infobox was 'reggae fusion,' but I removed it. Wikipedia describes reggae fusion as a genre popular in the early nineties, artists like Buju Banton. As a Clash fan and a Buju Banton fan, I'm pretty sure that doesn't belong. What the person was probably trying to say was that the Clash 'fused' their music with reggae on this album. I think 'post-punk' suits the album better than anything else, so I added it to the list. London Calling was made after the initial punk explosion, it experiments with other genres without regard for traditional punk ideals, and punk's straight eight-note attack is compromised in favor of a heavy disco-like beat characteristic of post-punk on songs like the title track. For more read post-punk. I also think 'rock and roll' is redundant and ska punk too limiting, but I'll leave that alone for now. If everyone approves I will change Sandinista! to post-punk as well, it is definitely not new wave and hardly anything on it really even 'rocks!' Difeon (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult call, and much of this genre business is highly subjective so one has to wallow around looking for consensus. My personal experience is that, at the time, we in no way considered The Clash to be post-punk - that was reserved for bands that came after the initial burst, i.e. from 1978-1980. Indeed The Clash had evolved but they were was still considered punk. At the same time the original punk had revolved from 'rock' to 'rockers' - a popular cross-genre term for reggae that swung with a hard beat, and vice versa, but not a recognized genre in its own right. Labeling them as post-punk definitely makes me squeamish Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reduced the genre warring down to 'Punk rock, reggae'. That keeps it very simple, and doesn't include genres that didn't exist in 1980. Rolling Stone and Allmusic agree with me. Radiopathy •talk• 05:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that's all fine with me, good points guys. So you don't think Sandinista! is post-punk either? All that disco... Difeon (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Difeon completely that the genre should also be post-punk. The album was released in December 1979 when Public Image Limited's First Issue as well as Metal Box, the two groundbreaking post-punk albums, had already been released. Furthermore, post-punk albums combining reggae and funk with punk like Entertainment! by Gang of Four or Cut by the Slits were also released before London Calling. Sandinista! is also a post-punk album which even more exploits the genre diversity of post-punk. The new documentary on BBC 4, Punk in Britannia recognized London Calling as the end of the first wave of punk and the beginning of post-punk. --Milosppf (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The Clash is mentioned nowhere in the post-punk article itself. Perhaps that should change? Or perhaps it's a reflection of the incorrectness of labeling this album "post-punk." I'm not sure if this is significant enough of a departure from The Clash's earlier material, which is considered an essential part of the original '77 British punk explosion that made The Clash be considered one of the hugest punk acts of all-time. They were incorporating reggae on their debut, should that be considered post-punk as well then? I'm not sure the time of release matters as much as you're saying. Post-punk is a tricky label in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.133.25 (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many post-punk albums were released at the time of "London Calling", if you heard the album, you know that it is a punk record. Compare it to Joy Division's "Unknown Pleasures", a typical post-punk album, they don't even sound similar. So, i think it should be labeled as "Punk Rock". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.87.250.5 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No. This article will give weight to the opinions of writers who are cited in the article--Dave Thompson and Mark Kidel--instead. Dan56 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM). Please use this talk page to discuss ways to improve the article with material from reliable sources, not personal research and opinions. Dan56 (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
"Post-punk" is cited in three sections of this article:
  • "According to music critic Mark Kidel, London Calling is the first post-punk double album and exhibits a broader range of musical styles than The Clash's previous albums." (1980, The New Statesman)
  • "According to Dave Thompson, London Calling established The Clash as more than 'a simple punk band' and, despite its amalgam of disparate and occasionally disjointed influences, was a 'potent' record of neurotic post-punk." (2000, Alternative Rock
  • "London Calling marked the genre's 'coming of age', as the band led the way into 'fertile post-punk territory.'" (1987, Los Angeles Times)
Neither the Rolling stone or allmusic reviews verify this as an album of punk and reggae music--"Stephen Thomas Erlewine said that the album appropriates the 'punk aesthetic into rock & roll mythology and roots music', and incorporates a wider range of styles such as punk, reggae, rockabilly, ska, New Orleans R&B, pop, lounge jazz, and hard rock." Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I changed it back to punk rock genre. There's just now way that this is "post-punk". It certainly moves beyond traditional punk in its sampling of many different styles but that was accepted as part of the beauty of The Clash. It was never explicitly identified at the time with "post-punk". That label was reserved for bands like Joy Division and Gang of Four. If anything, it can be punk rock plus other genres such as reggae, blues, rockabilly, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.207.244 (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I've reverted you. Every possible retort to your line of argument has been made, if you'd just read what was said in this post before. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've reverted Dan56. Colin Larkin describes the album as punk. Harmelodix (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Regurgitating previous point

If you believe the name of a list the album happened to be included on qualifies as an appropriate source (WP:SUBJECTIVE), then you are not taking this seriously and merely disrupting this article to illustrate a point. In case you haven't read the article, I'll cite the position the majority of sources in this article take. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • "As early as their second album, The Clash had started to depart from the punk rock sound.[9]"
  • "According to music critic Mark Kidel, London Calling is the first post-punk double album and exhibits a broader range of musical styles than The Clash's previous albums." (1980, The New Statesman)
  • "According to Dave Thompson, London Calling established The Clash as more than 'a simple punk band' and, despite its amalgam of disparate and occasionally disjointed influences, was a 'potent' record of neurotic post-punk." (2000, Alternative Rock
  • "while The Clash's debut was a punk masterpiece, London Calling marked the genre's 'coming of age', as the band led the way into 'fertile post-punk territory.'" (1987, Los Angeles Times)
  • "According to Greg Kot, the band's embrace of specific musical traditions deviated from punk's "blow-up-the-past attitude".
  • "reviewer Amanda Petrusich said that it was The Clash's "creative apex" as a "rock band" rather than as a punk band."
If there is some prose to be added in the pages cited in what I've removed, you should incorporate it into the article rather than solely "editing the infobox and not "digging into the meaty text of the article." (WP:GWAR). Otherwise, the title of a list (the 100 greatest punk albums of all time or w.e.) doesn't qualify as a critical interpretation or professional critique (WP:SUBJECTIVE). You might as well have cited "pop" in the infobox to the album having charted on the "Top Pop Catalog Albums[85]". Dan56 (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Harmelodix, you originally attributed Larkin's source to a list of "Top 50 Punk Albums" ([4]) In his book, his discussion of the music is "the scope of this double set is breathtaking ... the Clash accomplish it with swaggering panache". There are other accolades related to "best punk albums" lists cited in this article, none of which (as I previously mentioned) warrant slapping "punk rock" in the infobox. There are also actual critiques and interpretations cited in the article (and mentioned above) that discuss the music as "post-punk" rather than "punk" (WP:UNDUE). What is the issue? Dan56 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a punk album in the traditional sense. Not a single track is punk rock, and I don't believe that any sources saying otherwise will change that. Post-punk is probably most appropriate for use in the infobox. Caper454 (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

“The Clash Take the Fifth” tour of the U.S.

The tour is mentioned in the Artwork section. Should there be a footnote to explain to readers who are unfamiliar with the phrase 'take the fifth' what it normally means? --anon. 71.183.134.232 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I wikilinked it. Radiopathy •talk• 17:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Train in Vain

On my vinyl edition, the song is not included at all - not even as a hidden track. The record runs out after "Revolution Rock". Aejsing (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaning that if it appears on some vinyl editions of the album, it is not attached to all of them. There is absolutely no "Train in Vain" on my LP (catalogue number: CBS CLASH 3). Moreover the claim that it is a hidden track on the LP is not sourced. Aejsing (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The London Calling cassette I have has it, though. It's not listed on the cassette case, but it does play as a hidden track at the end, after "Revolution Rock". Temeku (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on London Calling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone know what happened to the planned documentary on the making of London Calling?

I found some 2010 era articles about the movie being planned, and the info is in the article, but nothing as a follow up.Timtempleton (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No - but if it was going to happen by now it would have. I tried deleting the section a while back but it got reverted. Somebody else has done it since. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Post punk?

I'm not sure why the gene is labeled as post punk. Shouldn't it be punk rock? Or at least we could put post punk as the second genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's based on the information in the article (specifically in the article's Music and lyrics and Release and reception sections), according to sources deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards. @ICommandeth: Dan56 (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't reggae rock be listed as a genre as well? --BenStein69 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Calidum ¤ 19:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

– BBC callsign, BBC magazine, Noel Coward musical, Rolling Stone No.15 of 500 greatest songs of all time, album... no topic which satisfies both requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Personally, I think of the song rather than the album. --MrStoofer (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Alternative suggestion -- I think London Calling (song) > London Calling and London Calling > London Calling (album)Martinlc (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Martinlc: I have to be honest if the song had been sitting on the absolute topic spot I might not have challenged it. But it isn't, and from that starting point to do a swap of one thing off the list to another isn't as safe a change as simply moving out the album and having the dab page bots catch any mis-links. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This album gets 75% of the pageviews for all topics called "London Calling", and the only topic that comes anywhere near close in stats is the song, which is directly connected to the album. (If you join the album and the song's pageviews together, it's 93.9% for all things The Clash, so we can say most readers looking for anything "London Calling" are not going to upset landing on the album's page, as it's covered there and could be considered a WP:CONCEPTDAB of sorts.) The Clash are very famous and the album is one of the most acclaimed of all time, so it clearly has some significance in its field per WP:PTOPIC's second criteria. This is the clear primary topic; no change would be helpful to readers. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Much as I love the Clash album and song, neither they nor anything else are WP:PRIMARY. The original meaning was the callsign of 2LO and later of the BBC World Service (from 1932 onwards); meanings I knew long before the Clash were even thought of. Compare also Germany Calling, Lord Haw-Haw's parody of the BBC original, a clear "See also" though not mentioned on the DAB page as it stands. Narky Blert (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
(IMAO, if you don't know the BBC pre-war and wartime background, you will never understand the song. Narky Blert (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC))
  • Oppose. The BBC callsign might be the 'original', but it doesn't really make for a good encyclopedia article and isn't listed on the disambig page, so is irrelevant. Otherwise, this + song appear to be the PRIMARYTOPIC per Nohomersryan. SnowFire (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since the album is viewed more than the song, no need to move. George Ho (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
At present the main London Calling page is a disambiguation page- the suggested move makes the current (album) page the primary page.Martinlc (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Eh? The main London Calling page is about the album, and it's been like that for almost 14 years now (aside from a brief undiscussed tussle in 2010). Nohomersryan (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on London Calling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Calling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Calling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Planned film

Film plans were announced seven years ago but they were never implemented. Would anybody have any objections if I deleted this section? It's not notable. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

nobody seems to have any objections to me deleting this section so I will. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Calling/Archive_1&oldid=1136365921"