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)

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 triple 12" (33 1/3), it comes on 3 albums. Track listing:

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 Delight

It also comes with a cool 3 page pullout that has the lyrics and miscellaneous cartoons. They call it "The Armageddon Times no3" (FSLN 1 37037)

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)