OT Punk Biographys for the Book Lovers 4487

I'm not going to agree or disagree with that lot as punk was very much an individual explosion that was no more an image than a lifestyle. Sure, the image was to shock but the lifestyle that went with that was a lot deeper and you only scrape the surface.

With regards the music scene that was built around the image (which it was), it was more a case of "have a go hero's" who just wanted to play in a band. The likes of Souxsise and the Banshees to whom Vicious started life as a drummer for. The Social movement idea is not completely true. Although the "Bromley Contingent" were more into the "love" element and extreme shocking tactics to get noticed and could have been "clbutted" as a type of movement. All true punkers were completely the opposite and were actually fighting against the very ideals you mention. It was social breakdown they wanted not fellowship. Punks hated each other as well as the world.

Hmmm....if you really think so, I aint going to disagree 100% but I prefer to believe that yes, it was an intelligent "movement" in terms of "rock n roll" but as for the social element...well....I think that's down to interpretation of what the word "PUNK" means. Punk Style, Punk attitude, "that guys a punk". I wouldn't say punk shaped the future of the country today because again, one of the point's of punk was "no future...so live your life they way you want to". The punk "revolution" wasn't really a crusade, it was an attitude and, as mentioned before, a lifestyle. The attitude was less important than the music and the music was the most important aspect to come out of the punk days, even though the image-lifestyle came first. Especially in the UK where the Music was created to fit the image. Not so much on the US punk side of things, that was more a movement, politically speaking. IMO

Again yes and no, it wasn't about control at all. It was about "out of control". It was calling for anarchy and a breakdown of the rules and morals of society. Each person with their own idealistic perspective of how they wanted to live their life. Again, all individualism which represents their own personal feelings towards any issues, political or social. So in a way your neither wrong nor right in that aspect.

If it hadn't have been for punk, we would still be governed by miserable

We still are mate, we still are!!!

I hear "Rock" bands that play now and think "It's like Punk

Your not listening to the right bands then. What about Placebo? Then you got the Fat Wreck Chords bands like "Me first and the Gimmie but damn fine punk if you ask me. OH and a small band called Reservoir Jones that sprung up in the UK in the 90's playing a mix of own brand spiky punk rock. www.cartman13.freeserve.co.uk-reservoirjones-rockband .

Punk will never go away fully, the whole image thing is more relevant today which makes the whole late 70s early 80's punk thing seem pretty a pretty pointless exercise. It was the whole idea to slam the "modern" way of thinking over image and the trendy ideals. Sid would turn in his grave if he saw the image of what punk had become in today's world. It's now trendy to have a haircut like his when at the time everyone was shocked. You got Surf Punk, Skate Punk , EMO etc...So again, In a certain sense you are right about that aspect of modern day punkisam. It's just a shame we don't have the right attitude to back it up nowadays.

With regards the music aspect, the whole "rock n roll" scene had become stagnated when punk came along. Therefore it is the most important era to rock music over that last 40 years and I dare anyone to say otherwise.

It's all image without the attitude nowadays, with nothing to back it up. Just like being in a football Newsgroup!! ;-)

Kev.H