The Clash are my favourite band (yes, see my username), so I’m going to be bias.

But recently, I read somewhere that they are The Beatles equivalent of punk rock. I’d never thought of it like that before, but it makes sense. They have less albums, yes, but they were only around for a short amount of time. I mean, they released 5 albums in 6 years. And the first 4 were in 4 years, bearing in mind one was a double album, and one was a triple album. That’s prolific. I think The Beatles would be proud of that.

Also, Strummer and Jones are probably one of the best song writing partnerships since Lennon and McCartney. Strummer was socially aware, and a true punk. While Jones was more lenient to other styles of music, and could write a good love song. They balanced each other perfectly.

As for the punk scene, The Clash were the driving force. At the beginning, they were one of many with a similar sound and message. But soon they stood out, being the first punk band to really push punk forward, using different genres, songwriting becoming a lot more complex. A lot of people say they stopped being punk, but I think they opened the door for what punk is, how it can be conveyed. That’s pretty revolutionary in music.

I think the Sandinista is pretty indicative of this. It’s amazing. I know it has some filler, but the amount of different styles, sheer amount of songs- it’s hard to believe. For a punk band to release a triple album with 36 tracks? As I said, revolutionary, and really laid the gauntlet down. Did The Beatles ever release a triple album? If they had, I don’t think it’d be anywhere near as good.

Please don’t think this question is trying to say they’re better than The Beatles, because that’s not what I’m trying to say. Just very interested on what you think of this. And I managed this whole question without even mentioning London Calling!