Talk:Sandinista!

Ivan Meets G.I. Joe

Can someone list all the video games and pinball machines sampled? I recognize the Space Invaders samples. 24.68.46.39 (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recording?

On the main Clash article, Joe Strummer is quoted with the following from Westway to the World:

"Even though it would have been better as a double album, or a single album, or an EP! Who knows? The fact is that we recorded all that music, in one spat, at one moment. In one, three-week blast. For better or worse, Sandinista! is the document."

This is in direct conflict with the reports of this article. Does anyone know enough about this to correct the article(s)? Stellis 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe is referring to the three week session in NYC. Most of the ideas for the songs on Sandinista were born during that time, during March and April of 1980. However, the band did spend a considerable amount of time recording in London to complete the album, and some songs were actually written and recorded then.

They also recorded at least one track in Jamaica, and managed to squeeze in the sessions for Ellen Foley's album in London during July of 1980, before completing Sandinista in October.

Jeff Sanchez

Vocals

The article states that each of the members had a lead vocal on the album. I can't recall a Paul singing any though. Does he sing one? -R. fiend 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's not him, who does the lead on "The Crooked Beat"? -Onceler 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Simonon sings lead on "The Crooked Beat". Compare to his lead vocal on "Guns on Brixton".

Dabhat

I just removed This article is about the band the Clash, for the Nicaraguan left-wing political party see Sandinista National Liberation Front. -- I think that it is extraordinarily unlikely that anyone is going to include an excalmation point in the search box when looking for anything but the album. The article should, of course, contain a link to the origin of the album's name. Jkelly 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

two errors in this paragraph

From the article: "Three singles were released from the Sandinista! sessions in the UK: "Bankrobber" (which did not appear on the album), "The Call Up", "Hitsville UK", and "The Magnificent Seven". The last deserves mention as possibly the first-ever British rap single and the first rap single by a white band."

First of all, the obvious: it says three singles and lists four songs. I don't know which part is wrong, so I can't fix it. Secondly, regarding the claim that "The Magnificent Seven" was possibly the first-ever rap single [by a white band]: wasn't "Guns of Brixton," from London Calling, released as a single? It has sort of a reggae beat, but it's definitely a rap song in my book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.187.236 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

Guns of Brixton might be considered a dub with Paul Toasting (a Jamaican precurser to rap), which may be hairsplitting, but anyhow, until I saw this I never even considered it a rap. One problem I do see with this paragraph is that Blondie did Rapture which was on the album Autoamerican which was released 29 October 1980, and was released as a single in January 1981, where Sandinista! was released 12 December 1980, with some problems pinning down when it was released as a single. Depending on the date The Magnificent Seven was released as a single, Rapture might be "the first rap single by a white band". Phil 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul simonon isn't toasting in the guns of brixton. toasting involves improvising lyrics as you go along and that certainly ins't happening in that song! guns of brixon isn't even dub anyway- dub is the jamacian equivelent of a remix!

How about "Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick" by Ian Dury and the Blockheads? I'd say Joe's rapping in "The Magnificent Seven" falls evenly between this, "Rapper's Delight" and "Rapture." Winterssanchez 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sale price

couple of things, first this current paragraph makes no sense

"The triple-LP set was, like London Calling, a subject of trickery towards the record company from the band. Two contradictory accounts of the release of the album exist. Some say that the Clash pulled the same trick a second time by saying they wanted to include a 12" single with their double album, and then getting 3 full-length discs pressed before executives became wise. Another belief is that The Clash surrendered all of their album royalties in order to make the 3-LP set a reality. Regardless of which of these is true, either situation paints the band in a good light, putting their fans before and above any other involved entity."

While I know what the person is trying to say they aren't saying it, that the album was sold for single or double album price while being a triple album. They also don't refer to what 'the same trick' is, they of course mean london calling being a double album sold as a single, as explained in the london calling article. I'd fix this but I'm not sure of all my facts, especially regarding the surrendering of artist royalties. I'm pretty sure I read that while this was true in england, in america and elsewhere the album sold for full triple-album price. The whole reduced price thing was just a token gesture more than anything else.

Joe Strummer interviewed by Judy McGuire for Punk Magazine said: “...now you're talking to a man who forewent the royalties on Sandinista!... ...I have a weird life because I live on songwriting royalties, which are a strange income. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it doesn't. You never know where you are. Having said that, I still wouldn't change anything about the Clash experience at all. It's all part and parcel to me; the glory, the meeting the people, the rocking the houses all over the US - that is part and parcel of taking no royalties on Sandinista!, getting a knock on London Calling.” (Pjoef 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

In "A RE-FORMED CLASH IS BACK ON THE ATTACK", by Robert Hilburn, Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1984, the journalist wrote: “The Clash’s most famous battle with CBS Records involved the group’s "Sandinista!" album in 1981. The plan was to get the company to release the three-record set for the price of a single album - an outrageous move by industry standards. CBS balked. The compromise was to release it at a "reduced" double-album price.”
Joe Strummer replied: “The idea (with that album) was, ‘Let’s get out there and show all these other groups that they’re just ripping all the young people off.’ The plan was to give people a whole heap of music and give it to them dirt cheap. We figured we’d show CBS - the mightiest record company in the world - how powerful we were. But we found we weren’t all that powerful. CBS showed us that they could put something out on their label and then sit on it just to prove a point. They didn’t just not promote it. What’s the opposite of promote? They demoted it.” (Pjoef 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

In "Clashing In?
The world's greatest band's great gamble
Paul Simonon Interview", Rolling Stone April 16, 1981, by David Fricke, the interviewer wrote: “Considering its dire financial straits, the Clash took a big risk in releasing Sandinista! as a triple album and retailing it for less than the price of a regular double album. (Bruce Springsteen's double set, The River, for example, costs a dollar more than Sandinista!, which lists here for $14.98) In order to do this the group had to rake a significant cut in royalty payments;” (Pjoef 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Experimental?

One of the most recent edits was the removal of a bit of a sentence describing Sandinista! as The Clash's most experimental album. While I am all for an unbiased, objective (vs. subjective) writing style, this album was their most experimental. Experimental isn't necessarily a biased word (David Bowie did some really experimental material I really didn't like; while Beck has done experimental work that I do like. It's the liking or disliking of a work that is biased). It is the subjective nature of describing a work as experimental that gets sticky. Is there a less subjective/non-subjective way of describing a work in a similar fashion? Phil 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Phil, I agree with you! Sandinista! is full of rebel waltzes and music genres, ecletic, massive, experimental, with a myriad of sounds, and (IMO) the best album ever written and published in the whole music history! Frequently, it is compared by many critics to the Beatles' White Album. (Pjoef 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Tim Curry?

I would like to reach out to whoever added this bit of info about Tim Curry doing the voice of the preacher on "The Sound of the Sinners." I'd like to know more about this story, and also to ask if anyone has info about Den Hegarty doing the weird narration on side six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winterssanchez (talk Winterssanchez 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)• contribs) 18:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

six songs on six sides?

i haven't seen my vinyl collection in 15 years, but i'm pretty sure Sandinista! was five-sided. three discs with half the last disc blank. --chaizzilla 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled it out of a crate and it has six songs per each of the six sides. I'm in the U.S., but it could have been released differently in different places. I think though that the only album to be significantly different in the U.S. vs. the U.K. was the first album.

I just bought Sandinista on album/record, it comes on 3 albums, each at 33 1/3 rpm. The Clash sound better on record/vinyl BTW! The track listing is:

Side 1: The Magnificent Seven / Hitsville U.K. / Junco Partner / Ivan Meets G.I. Joe / The Leader / Something About England

Side 2: Rebel Waltz / Look Here / The Crooked Beat / Somebody Got Murdered / One More Time / One More Dub

Side 3: Lightning Strikes (Not One But Twice) / Up In Heaven (Not Only Here) / Corner Soul / Let's Go Crazy / If Music Could Talk / The Sound of the Sinners

Side 4: Police on my Back / Midnight Log / The Equaliser / The Call Up / Washington Bullets / Broadway

Side 5: Lose This Skin / Charlie Don't Surf / Mensforth Hill / Junkie Slip / Kingston Advice / The Street Parade

Side 6: Version City / Living in Fame / Silicone on Sapphire / Version Pardner / Career Opportunities / Shepherds Delight24.68.46.39 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clash - Magnificent Seven excerpt.ogg

Image:Clash - Magnificent Seven excerpt.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

I note there has been a dispute over the correct style and quantity of footnotes in this article. This would best be discussed here rather than by edit-warring or angry edit summaries. Let battle commence! --John (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to think I sort of got my point across, but just in case, I'll reiterate. First off, while I'm all for citing certain assertions with footnotes, it can certainly be overdone. Looking at how the article appeared earlier, we had the second sentence ("Sandinista! was released in 1980 as a triple album containing 36 tracks, with 6 songs on each side") with no less than 8 footnotes after it. This fact, which anyone can verify by glancing at the album, doesn't really need any sort of cite; having 8 is beyond excessive, and adds nothing but clutter to the article. Additionally, the form these footnotes are taking is, to be blunt, irritating and obtrusive. For your general citations a simple <ref> Marcus Gray, The Last Gang in Town: The Story and Myth of The Clash, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1995, p. 3.14159 </ref> works just fine (or even a Gray, p. 2.71281, if the book's info appears in a bibliography section). No need to include passages from the book in the footnote, no need to cite multiple sources (though a particularly controversial statement that is likely to be questioned may benefit from an additional source). Furthermore, footnotes should not be used to sneak POV into an article, citing opinions as sourced facts. And when editing the article becomes a Herculean task because the editor can't find where one template ends and the next begins, and the text of the article gets lost in clutter as footnotes take up the majority of the article, we start to have problems. -R. fiend (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We can resolve all of our problems but you must revert that edit. There were multiple citations; it makes sense to put the citation point at the top of the page. And (IMO) a good choice is the lead section. I can replace all of those templates and remove all quotes and all other things from the article. We can add a References section to put the bibliographies and then use the shortened notes for them. I've send you a personal message. —PJoe F. (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response on my talk page. -R. fiend (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Can we have done with the constant changing of the genres in the infobox? Rap rock is correct, and punk rock is unnecessary, since post-punk covers it. We need not list a style for every single song on the album. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Trying to pigeonhole the sprawling, fantastic mess that is Sandinista! into a genre or two is a fool's game. It's folk-rap-reggae-dub-punk-experimental-funk-gospel-disco-jazz white-boy blues. Let people play with the genres if they want; it doesn't matter and it's all true and all false. It's rock and roll. Cloonmore (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia, so we are not going to let people "play with the genres if they want." Because, though it may not matter to you, it does matter to a great many other people. Thank you anyway. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Waitaminute: you're the dude claiming it's not punk, right? But it is punk. It's the very essence of DIY punk. (If you were around for postpunk, you'd know that no one called it that back then.) Call it "rap rock", whatever the heck that is, if that makes you feel more encyclopedic. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter: you'll never capture it. Thank you anyway.Cloonmore (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're so deep! "You'll never capture it"? What in the hell are you on about? This is an encyclopedia, which means we attempt to define things as best we can and with as much accuracy as we can. Who said anything about capturing it? What are you talking about? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Relax, RJ. What am I talking about? Again, the album's songs aren't "post-punk". And not more than 2 of 36 tracks take a stab at rap or, as you prefer, "rap rock". Reggae is more prevalent, but dub even more so. And about a dozen other styles are attempted, e.g., gospel ("Sinners"), disco ("Ivan"), calypso ("Crazy"), experimental ("Mensforth"), R'n'B ("Junco"), folk rock ("Charlie"), pop ("Hitsville"), jazz/blues ("Rebel Waltz", "Broadway"), etc., etc. None of those songs fit the genres you're advocating. Punk or rock are the only genres broad enough to sweep it all in. Dub may be worth a nod since its the most prevalent of the many genres attempted. But a punk ethos prevails throughout. If it can be called anything, dude, it's "punk." But as I said, I don't think this album can be pigeonholed with a few words (how about "fantastic mess"?), and I think it's a little foolish to get worked up over it. Cheers. Cloonmore (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not put "various" or something in the infobox (this is why I don't like infoboxes) and then leave the more detailed explanation of the wide array of genres to the article? Even "rock" doesn't cover the album completely. It's a beautiful mess of styles; trying to sum it up specifically in a few words is pointless. R. fiend (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Joe Strummer would lol about this trouble of the music genres in wikipedia if he where alive. It is ironical. I will write "Various other styles" in the article so it covers all the other song's styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.167.201 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the genre is now listed as 'Punk Rock' and 'Ska Punk'; to my mind, neither of these genres are evident on 'Sandinista!'. Personally, I think we should just put 'Various' in the info box - 'Sandinista!' is a remarkable album, in that there are a huge variety of genres and styles, which literally change from song to song. However, it seems that some people are determined to try to shove the whole thing into a pigeon-hole... If you're going to put anything in there, it has to be 'Dub'; the only particular style which seems to permeate the whole thing, even the straighter, more rocky songs. To call the whole thing 'Rap Rock' is a joke: there are two songs on the album which could possibly measure up to that label, and even then, it's highly debatable.

In response to RepublicanJacobite's comments, I will say this. Yes, this is an encyclopaedia, and we must try to define things as best we can... But in attempting to classify this remarkably diverse album in a few words, you are excluding all the other applicable genres. I think that in this case, naming one or two genres would be highly misleading; it would be better to say nothing at all about the genre by using the term 'Various', and let the rest of the article inform the reader about the whole spectrum.79.68.76.151 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop sending me messages that I'm vandalizing Wikipedia. Punk rock and Ska punk are the correct genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects to it on this discussion board, I'm going to change the genres back to punk rock and ska punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not correct. If you change them, I will change them back. And I will give you another warning. The discussion can be read above, and no one believes those genres are correct. The consensus is to leave it as rock. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I added punk rock with a citation and it gets deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference / External Link suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this new piece looking back at the Clash's Sandinista!. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the article and—if he or she sees fit—post it as an external link or use it as a reference. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! [1]
Mike harkin (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres (again)

It seems, to judge by the recent flurry of edits, that we need a new discussion about genres. My feeling is that the infobox should be left simple, only saying rock, and that the explanation given in the lede as to the wide diversity of genres is more than enough to explain the point. We cannot list all of the genres in the infobox, and the recent addition of genres that are blatantly incorrect (ska punk, hardcore, death metal, screamo) is not at all helpful. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

My only potential objection is that even "rock" may be too limiting. "Various", while it would tell us nothing really, would at least cover it adequately. But I have no real objections to rock, and I would be against trying to list every potential genre in the infobox. -R. fiend (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "rock" is entirely too limiting---technically, a great deal of that album cannot even be considered rock, "The Rebel Waltz" is a good example---but "various" would be too vague. One option might be not listing a genre at all. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that I think about it, "rock" is very vague as well, and does cover it generally. Skimming over the songs in my head, I think all of them (even Rebel Waltz) have an element of rock in them. Sound of Sinners is sort of gospel, but certainly mixed with rock, Magnificent Seven is rap mixed with rock, etc. It seems "rock" is good enough because that at least is the category one would find it in at a record store, so that at least separates it from the other big genres (classical, jazz, folk, rap, etc.). So I'm all for just leaving it as "rock". -R. fiend (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually ska punk is not a blatantly incorrect genre tag...although "rock" covers this album adequately. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we will not leave it just as rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are a vandal, and have proved yourself incapable of being a decent, constructive contributor. Therefore, your opinion counts for nothing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only way I am going to stop changing the genres is if you disable editing on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.252.190 (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

As this user has proven his willingness to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point, all of his edits should be reverted and he should be blocked on sight. Revert, block, ignore. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Reggae and Dub? Most of the songs on the sixth side is Dub. Alec scheat (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Call-Up" as first rap record by a British band?

The claim that the "The Call-Up" was the first British rap song seems questionable: the Rolling Stones, just to name one British rock band, beat the Clash to the rap-rock fusion bag with "Miss You," "(Doo Doo Doo) Heartbreaker" and several other tunes. Of course it is hard to tell, with British bands, what's rap-influenced and what's Jamaican dub-influenced. It is also hard to tell what's an early white rap tune and what's a pre-rap rock song which influenced later rappers. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything is questionable and nothing is certain. The first hip-hop recording is widely regarded to be "Rapper's Delight". It was released by The Sugarhill Gang on October 1979 (almost in 1980). "Miss You" is from 1978, so you are saying that the Stones invented hip-hop. About the Stones beating the only band that matters, please listen to "1977". Anyway, I cannot find that claim anywhere, and "The Call Up" (IMHO) is not a hip-hop/rap song, but Dance Punk/Disco Punk/Punk Funk. Perhaps you are referring to "The Magnificent Seven" (which was strongly inspired by old school hip-hop acts from New York City, back in 1979, when they were on tour in the US; read this article when you have time, there is something about this prehistoric vein of hip-hop), "Lightning Strikes (Not Once But Twice)" or "This Is Radio Clash" (which is not featured on Sandinista!). In any case, some forms of speech over music, both in the British Isles and in other countries and places, date back thousands of years ago or more. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Genre (sorry)

y'know what's funny, that this album is classified as punk, new wave and dance punk and yet every single on it is classified as post-punk (as the main genre anyway) we should at least add post-punk, but im not gonna do it without discussion because i've got into trouble with my edits before188.222.41.105 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

if no one discusses this soon im adding post-punk 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Did Joe Strumnmer have lead Vocals on "Look Here"

It sounds a lot like Mick Jones. I could be wrong, but it's something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.102 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A Modest Comment

Sandinista! is undoubtedly the finest album in the history of music and anyone who says otherwise is a petit-bourgeois, scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, imperialist running-dog. SmokeyTheCat 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reception

'The rock music world hailed Sandinista! as a masterpiece'? The British papers were generally pretty critical (eg. the NME: 'ridiculously self-idulgent'; Melody Maker: 'a floundering mutant', both from page 291 of Chris Salewicz's 'Redemption Song') 41.241.64.121 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)