It's 1980. You're at the record store. You remember buying your first double LP, probably the White Album, and then coming back a few years later and purchasing the world's first real triple LP, George Harrison's All Things Must Pass (everyone knows that the Woodstock live album doesn't really count, ATMP was all new material). But things have changed in the ten years since All Things Must Pass's release. If you're punk frontman Joe Strummer, you've definitely been thinking about changes in the neoliberal economy, promulgated by the recently elected Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, where overall wealth and earnings increased, but inequality widened dramatically.
(Graph from Jonathan Jones at The Spectator)
Or maybe, you're taking notice of global patterns- like the rapid changes in Latin American leadership, or, more accurately, the wave of U.S. backed coups that destabilized the region. No matter which political woes you may be tormented by, you and Joe both know that the best music is made in response to the times, and as someone with a similar outlook would say, the times they are a changin'.
How much farther can The Clash push the boundaries though? They've already released London Calling, receiving widespread acclaim for its diversity of genres and relevant themes. They've mastered both content and delivery, what else could possibly be left? The triple LP, Sandinista! points to the answer: form.
The sprawling nature of Sandinista! was no accident. After fighting with record label CBS over releasing London Calling as a double LP, and the subsequent release of Bruce Springsteen's double record, The River, The Clash was ready to push the boundaries yet again. Not only would this be a triple album, but it would also be a triple album sold for the price of one. As you can imagine, this did not go over well with label execs, and the band had to compromise, forgoing any royalties on the first 200,000 copies sold in the UK, and a 50% cut in royalties elsewhere. As usual, profit was not a priority for the band. There are several probable explanations for this sprawling six-side- 'retaliation' for label pushback on London Calling, the absence of controlling manager Bernie Rhodes, or, according to Joe Strummer, "just for fun really".
Unsurprisingly, Sandinista! was not as well-received as London Calling. Why would anyone want to spend time with a lengthy, contemplative album when more distilled versions were readily available? If anything, the album has gained notoreity for being divisive among fans. In an interview/comedy sketch featuring Fred Armisen as his punk frontman character, Ian Rubbish (spoof on Johnny Rotten), he introduces his parody of the album, Acapulco, and says, "They (The Clash) had a lot of dud songs and stuff, so I thought, to be experimental, we'd have a lot of spoken word, stand up comedy..."
Armisen riffs on the album's ironic abundance-- there are 36 tracks on this album, not all of them can be hits. Nevertheless, The Clash resisted the emerging cultural consumption patterns of the 80s- instead of refining their sound and becoming more caricaturized versions of themselves, they prevented any Flanderization by releasing an album that made listeners question their previous conceptions of the band, and encourage inward reflection. I'm reminded of an excerpt from my professor's book about violence in the U.S. that I recently read for class:
"After convincingly showing that notions of manhood have in fact changed, becoming more individualistic and less communitarian during the twentieth century, she [Susan Faludi] posited, “What gets discussed is how men are exercising or abusing their control and power, not whether a lack of mooring, a lack of context, is causing their anguish.” Faludi identified what she called a new “ornamental culture,” changed fundamentally “from a society that produced a culture to a culture rooted in no real world at all.” The American culture she described was jewel-like, with millions of facets radiating not outward but inward, reflecting one another."
Thanks Professor Strain. I don't wish to harp on the gendered elements of this excerpt-- it provides more use when the metaphor of a jewel-like 'ornamental culture' is brought across the pond. I presume that this 'ornamental culture' that has discouraged critical introspection is connected to the growing neoliberal economy of the time. If any degree-granting institution would like to host me for a graduate degree to investigate that topic (how neoliberalism affects consumption and creation of popular culture) please let me know at your earliest convienience. In the meantime, before I can make my contributions to the literature, consider the following:
- A post-Romantic view situates culture as something that rises from the popular masses (as opposed to individuals) and changes over time, subsequently effecting how we live our lives.
- But should humans 'meddle' in this cultural evolution? Depends who you ask. Neoliberals, like Friedrich Hayek would say that cultural evolution is a telos that is necessary to uphold a capitalist system, and that humans cannot, and should not attempt to organize collective life-- just leave it to the market or something!
- But, Racheal Fest states, "This properly neoliberal theory of culture withholds from those it pretends to empower the possibility of purposeful participation in the expansive creative narrative it projects."
- Much to consider. I think that a neoliberal economic order that encourages individual preferences and consumption has severly undermined the traditional function of a cultural mediator (at least in regards to popular culture and taste-making), and discourages opportunities for critical analysis (a skill important for media literacy, and for preserving democracy).
- I'm not an expert (but I'd like to be), so here are some sources to peruse if you are so interested: a 2024 policy report from the Roosevelt Institute, and a 2014 overarching article about different cultural dimensions of neoliberalism.
Thanks for indulging me reader. Back to the band. Now to answer my central question of 'Why is this album good even if there are several filler ("dud") songs that may not immediately appeal to listeners?' Like any good pretentious music fiend, I'm going to draw from the Sandinista! book in the 33 1/3 series- which invites a guest author to provide their breakdown and commentary on an iconic album- for an answer.
Wilco frontman and alt-country icon Jeff Tweedy has made note of this too. Tweedy was inspired to make his 2025 triple solo album, Twilight Override after listening to Sandinista! on a road trip with his sons. In regards to triple albums, he states, "By giving somebody a lot of music to luxuriate in, you're setting up a little barrier. But it's also for a certain type of listener to be rewarded. And I just thought that it flies in the face of a culture that's gotten faster, more surface level." Please, enlighten us further Jeff:
"I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to explore a different length, and to see if I can hold somebody's attention for two hours, and hold my own attention, and allow songs to be around a bunch of other songs that wouldn't necessarily make the cut if you're going for maximum impact. The idea of being able to facilitate someone spending two hours doing something like listening to a record intentionally- I don't know if very many people are actually going to do that. But I think it's designed to do that. And that's what I wanted to do."
I don't have much else to say, and am not totally sure how to conclude this. The songs on Sandinista! and Twilight Override are good, but what makes the albums great are their abilities to hold attention and promote active engagement.
Some of my select favorites off of Sandinista! (in no particular order):
- The Magnificent Seven
- Hitsville U.K.
- Ivan Meets G.I. Joe
- Somebody Got Murdered
- Police on My Back
- The Call Up
- Washington Bullets
- Charlie Don't Surf
- Career Opportunities
No comments:
Post a Comment