Is the first Clash album, the green one, better than London Calling?

For me it is, has more staying power, I sometimes get tired of the latter.

In fact I'd put the green one as 2nd best record of its kind after Bollocks.

 

Better? No idea, but I prefer it (both UK & US versions)

 

They are both equally great. Not a bad track on either of them.

The Clash album that I play the most now though is Sandinista. That's an album that was both ahead of it's time and has grown with it...

 

It is if you like punk rock. London Calling is fairly stodgy in comparison.

 

Depends, one has the urgency of coming from the front lines, whilst the other has the ambitions to be cinematic, both great!

 

Two completely different animals. Like comparing chocolate cake and ice cream. They're both great, just depends on your mood which one you wanna listen to.

 

No but over familiarity has lessened some of LC’s impact. I think LC’s the better album.

 

One is more about Britain, one is more about America

 

I prefer the first LP.

 

For me, The Clash made 2 great albums ("Give 'Em Enough Rope" & "Combat Rock") & 3 outright masterpieces - a triple ("Sandanista"), a double ("London Calling") & single ("The Clash")- each unique & awe inspiring! More to love in the larger packages, but so much variation (over 6 albums worth of material) that there's something for any mood and/or any given day...

And, to these ears, that debut absolutely blows The Pistols album out of the water! I prefer The Ramones debut as well (& "Rocket To Russia" bests that!)- Pistols made a terrific album, with some brilliant songs, but, for me, it's vastly overrated- especially in contrast to some like "The Clash"!!!

 

Better? No. Excellent in its own right? Absolutely!

 

London Calling was for a long time one of my favorite albums by anybody, but I agree that the over-familiarity factor has kicked in a bit - especially on the more well-known cuts. OTOH, the last time I returned to the debut it still sounded pretty fresh - with one caveat - has to be the original U.K. version for me. The Clash were really one of those bands where singles were singles and LPs were LPs - and I think the singles work far better on their own separate comp (made one myself that combined them with the Black Market Clash b-sides and the like, and it's great).

 

Interesting question as they are two albums with completely different sounds and styles.

The Clash is an icon of the Punk era. But it is not just "Screw this, destroy that" Punk. It is well written and well played. Once can easily see that Strummer and the band truly wanted change and their rage is genuine.

London Calling is akin (sorry Joe ...) to the Beatles' White Album. A sprawling artistic statement covering many styles. Sorrow and humour dominate rather than rage.

The only common denominator is politics. The first album is more specific in its targets. London Calling approaches it from a deeper, more intellectual level. It is as if Mick & Joe were getting inspiration from reading Habermas and Marcuse rather than the newspapers.

The Verdict: Toss up. Two masterpieces by the same band.

 

No, it’s great but it only touches one cord. London Calling is a much wider kaleidoscope

 

No.

It is better than Cut The Crap though.

 

No.

 

Much better.

 

Christgau thinks it is. The 1977 original is his favorite album of the '70s.

I love it but prefer London Calling.

 

My favorite Clash album is the UK version of the 1st album.........but think everything through Sandinista! is great.

 

The album with Tory Crimes.
Janie Jones alone puts it on top.

 

Agreed.

 

I alwaysthink of Sandinista as their “White Album” and “London Calling” more like the Stones “Exile”.

 

I would go in reverse. They're both great in any case.

 

No.

 

us self titled, london calling, then uk self titled, in that order.