Explain the asthetics of Punk

I think that Chashmal could be onto something here. There is a little of the punk in the early Velvet Underground. But Rock and Roll was first the sound of a rebel cause. It was perhaps a little softer at the start. People were going away from the fifties and into the sixties where it was the time and place of peace love and understanding. Folks we were in the middle of a undeclared war. Remember Nam. The Sex Pistols and the punk groups perhaps remind us that the world is not a very pretty place at times. And there are changes that still need to be made

A few years back I went to Israel for work. As the van I was in was driving up to the gate of a company I noticed the gate guard was holding a machine gun. Sorry you are not in Kansas. I have seen this elsewhere along with poverty that you cannot imagine.

It is not a nice place out there. The US is a very insulated place.

Maybe Iggy Pop is the Ur Punk.

I was in college in the late 1970s and had the great good fortune of having a few friends who turned me on to some fabulous music. I really liked The Clash and The Jam (and still listen to Paul Weller, for what it's worth). There were several camps at the time. The "progressive" bands -- Yes and ELP and King Crimson, for example -- had all gone completely over the edge into their endless, self-indulgent frippery. There was the bloodless muzak of Fleetwood Mac and The Eagles. There was pre-fab foolishness like Boston, who were huge when I was in college. Oh, and there were the punks. Imagine in your head for just the briefest of moments one of the bad songs from that time -- God, there surely are plenty to choose from, but how about "Don't Stop" (Thinkin' About Tomorrow) -- and then consider "White Riot" or "In the City" -- from the first Clash and first Jam albums, respectively -- and you'll then know what a fabulous breath of fresh air the "punks" were at that time. We needed them. Rock 'n' roll needed them. Joe Strummer saved our souls.
Or, put another way, I got yer asthetics for ya, right heah!

First off, The Ramones predate The Sex Pistols by a couple of years and actually deserve more credit. And The Stooges should get as much credit as The Velvet Underground.

Secondly, look at the state of "Rock & Roll" from 1976-82. It was a bloated, self-indulgent, parody of itself for the most part. It was so polished and formulaic that there was very little real feeling left(think Boston). The best years of the "peace-love/classic rock" era were long behind. Punk actually saved Rock from itself.

Punk, or at least, the early years of it, was the antithesis of that. It was raw and visceral. And much of it was at least earnest in it's intent, even if it was technically primitive.

There's a great scene in The Who documentary where Pete Townshend recounts running into the the Sex Pistols' Steve Jones and Paul Cook at London's Speakeasy club and in his ridiculously drunken stupor beseeches them to just finish the job killing Rock & Roll - finish him off, kill him. A pretty pathetic scene.

Which is ironic because the Classic Rock Gods like Townshend were the ones killing Rock at that point. They really weren't trying anymore and were too busy indulging themselves in wealth and excess.

But, here's the greater irony. Townshend stumbled out of the club and passed out in SoHo doorway only to be awakened by a police officer who recognized him and told him he could "go sleep at home tonight if he could get up and walk away"...That run-in with Jones & Cook, in some ways, inspired him to write "Who Are You"(or so legend has it). Arguably, their last great album. It was truly the end of The Who's era.

Much like Nirvana wiped the charts of the 90's "hair" bands, Punk put most of the classic rock bands out to pasture. They were headed that way on their own, punk just sped up the process.

Is this a shortest book in the world contest?