Talk:London Calling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article London Calling has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
March 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

Genre Discrepancy[edit]

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[edit]

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" ([1]) 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)

Removed punkmusic.org non-staff writer review.[edit]

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 = 5/5 stars[1]

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

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

Legacy section[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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

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[edit]

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)

Post punk?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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?[edit]

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)

Requested move 8 December 2016[edit]

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[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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