watch it disappear...

that things might not have been that different anyway. The impact of punk has almost certainly been vastly overstated. Soul, funk and hip-hop made, and continue to make far greater waves. Also, photogenic, manufactured, teen-friendly pop stars are always with us, aren't they? Pre-punk there was ChinniChap, Bay City Rollers, Partridge Family etc, post-punk there's been S.A.W., Take That (not so much them as their successors with less songwriting ability), Fuller, Cowell, Walsh etc.

Apart from the weekly inkies, punk was a minor thing, really. People have always liked noisy and to-the-point riff-rock (I liked the Sex Pistols because of their noisy row, not Sid). Metal fans like the Ramones, Iggy, etc. for the same reasons punk fans do. People have always liked dancing, so disco or similar is inevitable. Post-punk was more interesting, with a much broader musical palette; but incorporating non-blues based music into composition is hardly new, whether it be jazz or progressive rock.

The later progressive albums (Wall, post-Hackett Genesis, Yes's 'Drama', etc.) and the mid-70s jazz-rock thing passed their best because the drugs were changing; once people were less able to sit still listening to something eclectic that ebbed and flowed as did one's mind under the influence of dope or LSD, the attention-span shortened and so did the material.

Never forget punk only destroyed for the good hippie stuff; boring blues orthodoxy safe stuff like Fleetwood Mac, Eric Clapton, The Eagles, etc. carried on from strength to strength. The mythologising of punk as a replacement for progressive rock and a response to Thatcher is wrong on boith counts; there's always noisy music being thrashed out to a rowdy audience, and punk was a response to Labour's years of stagnation.

on fashion than music ?

Now there's a band that got given a kick up the arse by punk, and responded well to it, in my opinion.

Anyhow, I think Punk's main influence was the creation of more venues to play in and hence it opened doors for a proliferation of music.

I think the loss of Julie-quality acid probably changed things as much as anythign else.

that did experience a demonstrable effect from punk was pop. Characters such as Adam Ant, Boy George, (early) Spands and Duran, Haircut 100 to name but a few- all had a DIY-aesthetic which was sometimes mocked but which now appears a golden age of creativity compared to today's X-Factor lite-entertainment.

I think it was the sadly missed Ian MacDonald who said that one of the principal casualties of the punk movement and its attack on what I hesitate to call 'musicianship', on account of technique over taste, was fingerpicking of the folk guitar variety.

He said that specifically, the three chord overdriven attack and the frantic scrubbing of guitars obliterated the previous emphasis on technique, particularly the fingerpicking of folk guitarists.

I'm inclined to agree with him. I think Johnny Marr brought some of it back, but his impeccable technique was xeroxed by a shedload of third rate indie jingly janglers, who were more punk than Smith.

The Stone Roses first album had folky guitars all over it and that was misconstrued as baggy beats and wah wah guitars. Donovan was mildly popular again for while. A much under-rated pop star who does himself no favours with his 'I invented everything' schtick.

Since then, I think folk music has had a resurgence. I don't think all of it's excellent, but it goes to show that everything goes away and comes back again.

If punk hadn't happened, something else would have. It all comes back in the end.

Does anyone remember how ridiculed flares were in the 1980s? Until 1989. Now it's licorice legs, it'll soon change.

Something called 'punk' happened?

The only winner was the music industry who were selling dog poo in 1975 but by 1978 were selling doo poo and cow pats.

I reckon the legacy of punk was the democratisation of the culture biz - still going strong via the interweb. It was easy, it was cheap, go and do it, and all that. No punk = no Stiff, no New Hormones, no Hacienda, no Damien Hirst, no Orbital, add your own favourites...

..and Genesis and Jethro Tull all continued (and continue) to pack stadiums..or at least bigger venues then The Buzzcocks did, or do.

(just slightly) of the recieved wisdom that punk destroyed the dinosaur bands, it pops up repeatedly, especially on TV docos ("..by now punk had arrived and the days bands like Queen were numbered..")
If anything, Punk was a situationist art movement, and its very existence depended on knocking down (or trying to knock down) established figures.
I think you're right that cosy middle-level bands like Cafe Jaques and Racing Cars were pretty well obliterated as the venues they played became unavailable, but would they have gone on the bigger things?..I doubt it.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AdamBuxton#p/u/10/qt5fAU7tNxY