archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z sdtk comp
Cover Art Various Artists
Burning London: A Tribute to the Clash
[Epic]
Rating: 1.4

I think it's safe to say the Clash are one of the most revered bands that punk rock ever gave birth to. I'm not a huge fan, personally-- I know most of their songs from years spent listening to college radio stations, but I don't own any of their albums. Therefore, as much as I hate the entire concept of this tribute album's existence, I'm sure I can't come anywhere near the hatred Clash fans must feel over this record.

Not only does Burning London belittle everything the Clash ever accomplished in their music, it also turns every track into a commercial alternative caracature of its original counterpart. Did you get a load of the track listing here? Name a single Clash fan that wouldn't be totally insulted by this lineup. It's a damn joke, people. The day even one of the Clash's roadies buys an album by Cracker, Third Eye Blind, No Doubt or Silverchair, it's gonna be a cold day in hell. But no, wait. Let's give it a fair trial:

No Doubt's They Might Be Giants- inspired ska rendition of "Hateful" adds an element of quirk to the song that was only thought achieveable by Muppets. The Urge's slightly grungier, but otherwise verbatim cover of "This is Radio Clash" is a painful mockery of the late punk band-- the track showcases Urge vocalist Steve Ewing's worst Mick Jones impression. Ice Cube and Mack 10's distinctly hip-hop take on "Should I Stay or Should I Go" (actually, it's just a new rap song that's very loosely structured around the 1982 radio hit) shouldn't even qualify. But hey, a little filler never hurt anybody. Except the consumer.

Rancid's version of "Cheat" is one of the disc's better covers, though it's still not really good-- it sounds amazingly like the Clash version. Don't even get me started on Third Eye Blind's take on "Train in Vain"-- let's just say it sounds like they ran it through a Partridge Family filter. The Indigo Girls, despite being every 13- year- old's favorite band in 1992, pull off a decent, if slightly adult alternative rendition of "Clampdown," which is more than we should expect from a couple of washed- up old folkies.

The Mighty Mighty Bosstones weigh in with one of the disc's best offerings, pulling off a typically horny "Rudie Can't Fail." The fact that 311 even exists, let alone that they covered "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" for this album, is a goddamned shameful sin. The Afghan Whigs strike back, though, with "Lost in the Supermarket," a nice, glossier and catchier spin on the original. Cracker, as usual, suck the life out of everything by peppering it with a tongue- in- cheek country vibe-- their cover of "White Riot" is literally stomach- turning. This gives way to Silverchair's version of "London's Burning" which sounds, predictably, like a bad high school band gettin' down at the annual variety show. And bringing the album to a merciful close, is Moby (featuring Heather Nova), doing a meloncholy, Joni Mitchell- esque "Straight to Hell" that makes the sound sound whiny, cliched and generally awful.

But let's discuss, for a second, the Sony Corporation's heartless destruction of a classic punk band's legacy. If you didn't know, Sony owns both Epic Records (the label Burning London was just crapped out by) and Columbia Records (who own the rights to pretty much the entire Clash catalog). What easier way to make a few bucks than to shaft your former artists? Eh, that's the business I guess. What a pile of shit, though.

-Ryan Schreiber

TODAY'S REVIEWS

DAILY NEWS

RATING KEY
10.0: Indispensable, classic
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible
OTHER RECENT REVIEWS

All material is copyright
2001, Pitchforkmedia.com.