The punk rock politics of Joe Strummer

Radicalism, resistance and rebellion

Gregor Gall

• Editorial: Manchester University Press
• Año: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781526148971
• Categoría: Mezzi di comunicazione e arti performative
• Categoría: Biografie in ambito musicale

Joe Strummer was one of the twentieth century's iconic rock'n'roll rebels. As frontperson, spokesperson and chief lyricist for The Clash, he played a major role in politicising a generation through some of the most powerful protest songs of the era, songs like 'White Riot', 'English Civil War' and 'London Calling'. At the heart of this protest was the struggle for social justice and equality. The punk rock politics of Joe Strummer examines Strummer's beliefs on a range of issues – including socialism, alienation, exploitation, multiculturalism and humanism - analysing their credibility, influence and impact, and asking where they came from and how they developed over time. Drawing on Strummer's lyrics, various interviews and bootleg recordings, as well as interviews with those he inspired, The punk rock politics of Joe Strummer takes the reader on a journey through the political influences and motivations that defined one of the UK's greatest punk icons.

1
Studying Strummer: issues and approach

This chapter discusses the various challenges that studying Strummer presents. The most obvious is to avoid conflating The Clash with Strummer and, to a lesser extent, Strummer with The Clash. The latter, which is less problematic, views the impact of The Clash as a band with other members other than Strummer attributed to Strummer. The former, which is the more problematic, views Strummer's impact, especially through his lyrics, attributed to The Clash.¹ But given the dominant division of labour between Strummer and Jones, these conflations are less problematic than they may first seem because Strummer was the principal lyricist, spokesperson, singer and performance frontperson. Yet the popular academic and critical literature on The Clash abounds with statements attesting the politics of the band were this or that, when it is evident Strummer wrote the lyrics or made the pronouncements upon which these statements are based. Even recognising it is common to use the band's name as the noun, we can take just two examples. James (2009: 132, 136) stated: ‘During the Thatcher era, and the period leading up to it, [T]he Clash was one of the most vocal and visible counter-hegemonic voices in [Britain]’ while Cedeno (2017: 101, 107) variously wrote with Give ’Em Enough Rope (1978): ‘we can see how the band's political point of view becomes more evident’; in ‘Washington Bullets’ (1980): ‘the band expresses the impact of challenging societal occurrences’; and with Combat Rock (1982): ‘The Clash deliver a description of many social problems.’ This literature also is replete with statements that the political impact of The Clash was this or that when, again, it is evident its derivation was Strummer and not The Clash per se, or any other of its members.

While other members of The Clash did not publicly dissent from the meaning or content of Strummer's lyrics and pronouncements, it does not necessarily follow they completely concurred either. For example, Jones was often absent from interviews, and Simonon, when present, said little, deferring to Strummer. Only on one occasion, that of Jones's last performance at the Us festival in May 1983, did he appear to start playing the opening chords to ‘Know Your Rights’ (1982) in order to stop Strummer from continuing his diatribe (see p.122). This is the sense in which the politics of The Clash were Strummer's politics, as he was their originator and disseminator, and the political impact of The Clash was very much Strummer's political impact. But even if they did agree, nonetheless, it was Strummer who formulated and articulated them (see pp.181–188). But it is also the case that Strummer was not The Clash by dint of the music being written and arranged mainly by Jones, and the appeal of The Clash's live performances was based on a collective effort. In particular, much of the appeal of the lyrics existed alongside or on the basis of the musicality. Often, the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, with ‘White Riot’ or ‘Clampdown’ being exemplars. This chapter will now consider the other challenges.

Contradictions, inconsistencies and hyperbole

One is that over the course of his life, Strummer made statements which appear contradictory, highlighting a complexity. Though he stated he was a ‘truth teller’ and was thought of as a ‘teacher’ by others, he was also a ‘student’, in as much as he learnt along the way from being a young to middle-aged adult. Being a ‘student’ further allowed him to be a ‘teacher’. Seemingly contradictory statements would suggest he changed his view on issues. Ambiguity often exists here because statements were often unelaborated upon and seldom explained in relation to previous statements. Consequently, good reasons for changing views have may not have been inquired about. The most obvious example was his changing view on Sandinista! (1980). On many occasions (NME 25 February 1984, MTV ‘120 Minutes’ March 1991, MTV Rockumentary 1991) he was sharply critical of it, while others he took the opposite view: ‘I can only say I'm proud of it … warts and all … It's a magnificent thing … I wouldn't change it, even if I could. And that's after some soul searching’ (Letts 2000, see also Sounds 20 June 1981). Similarly, he called the last Clash album ‘a shitty way to end a great group’ (Guardian 10 May 2007) but he praised ‘This is England’, ‘North and South’ and ‘(In the) Pouring Rain’ (Rock&Folk 1995)² and Julien Temple, director of The Future is Unwritten (2007), recalled: ‘There was this one line with Joe – that [the revamped Clash] was all a complete mistake and should be written out of history like so much of his past – but there were other times when he would say he was quite proud of that last album in a weird way’ (Guardian 10 May 2007). Indeed, Strummer told Guitar World (December 1999): ‘I'm proud of all our records. Even the crap ones.’ Another instance of seeming contradiction comes with the example of two statements: ‘We're not particularly talented … we just try harder … we give it all we got – it's as simple as that’ (Toronto CITY TV's New Music Program 26 September 1979) and ‘We knew were better than everybody else and wanted to prove it … we wanted to be recognised as good as we knew we were’ (NYC TV interview December 1981). Discounting he was speaking for The Clash and other members may have not agreed with his statements, it would appear Strummer had blatantly contradicted himself within the space of little more than two years. But other interpretations are possible. First, he legitimately and rationally changed his view of The Clash, so no contradiction existed. Second, in a show of modesty, he did not mean what said in 1979 or, in a show of bravado, he exaggerated in 1981. Third, he was responding to particular interview situations and so the context of what he said was as important as the content of what he said.

Figure 1.1 Strummer with Topper Headon in the documentary Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten (2007)

Strummer seldom wrote anything other than lyrics. There was a very brief introduction to Green and Barker (2003: 9), a diary for the NME (3 March 1979) of The Clash's first American tour, a manifesto for the NME (5 May 1979) and a short piece on his time in The Clash in Joe Strummer 001. The longest piece of text he wrote, around 5,000 words, was a humorous account of The Clash in the character of band valet, Albert Transom, for the booklet accompanying singles compilation, The Story of The Clash Volume 1 (1988). Indeed, he told the NME (26 July 1986): ‘what I do best is write doggerel’ and stated in 1988: ‘I only ever write lyrics. Maybe [I'll write] five years after I write my last lyric’ (Shelley 1988). In 1999, he remarked: ‘I'm going to write our story one day’ (Guardian 24 September 1999) and when asked: ‘Have you ever thought about writing a book?’, he responded: ‘I do think about it but maybe you're just blessed with one talent in life that you can really fulfil. I've got a knack for writing lyrics and the very nature of that means it's like writing a telegram. … very concise … a book is like a century long, to me. It seems very difficult for me’ (While You Were Sleeping December 2001). In 2002, he observed: ‘My main strength is lyric writing … I sometimes think that I'm almost like a jingle writer. I can only think in three-minute bursts at the most … I heavily doubt that I could write a book. I think you're born with a knack for a certain thing maybe – and mine is writing three-minute songs’ (Hot Press 5 February 2002). While this a drawback in studying his politics and political thought, it is fortunate Strummer was frequently interviewed. Indeed, he told the Brooklyn Paper (1 April 2002) he spent ‘a third of the year talking about [the music] on the phone’.

So the secondary sources used for establishing Strummer's politics (including sometimes explaining his lyrics) and his view of their impact on others are interviews with journalists (music, non-music) for radio, television, newspapers, magazines and more latterly social media (by followers). This resulted from a combination of being asked to do many interviews and wanting to be interviewed. In The Clash, he wanted to do them for reasons of ego and politics, believing only he had the wherewithal to prosecute what was, fundamentally, his political agenda. He engineered his emergence as the main Clash spokesperson and was the main figure for LRW and The Mescaleros. When he was not in bands he remained an important cultural figure, so was still sought after for interviews. Even ...