Originally Posted by ADELE

It isn't arguing it is debate my guitar friend.
Urban makes some good points I can't defeat but I have made some too.
Threads are about challenging and debate otherwise they end up with two posts with someone going on about their band and the forum is littered with that type of stuff.
The ****ing rotter incident didn't make punk it made it mainstream in the UK.
What made punk was MacClaren inventing a great new way to exploit the record compaines with young kids who were not trained at music schools but were brash and outspoken. he taught this to Richard Hell but he wouldn't buy it unless it contained dope so Malcolm came home and did it his way and that is how punk rock properly began.
The rotter incident was merely one part of this plan like the EMI scam, the Palace sign up, the American tour doomed to fail.
Steve Strange did the same thing with New Romantics and Simon Cowell is doing it with mediocre pop crap now.
That is who and what made punk a package for the world. Yes there were a few punk outfits but they were not making new statements but simply competing with bands of their day. The pistols has no influences at all. They just changed the whole direction and everyone followed. They had no influences and no group they belonged to or came from. They were just explosive and crazy and their whole concept was not influenced by any band before.
The Ramones and Iggy pop etc were all influenced and trying to emulate or compete with what was going on. The psitols just started with nothing and were a shambles and that started punk as we know it.
Respond to that Urban and Right track.
Where are you hiding?