Ok, well thank you to everybody for helping me out, had to have a slight change of essay title because I'm lazy and didn't sort myself out in time. I'm instead doing the punk bit, but "comparing and contrasting" Punks and Mods. Saying why they're different, or how they're the same.
I've got all my punk bits, but any ideas why mods are mods and not punks? If that makes sense?
If anyone gets bored today/tonight any thoughts on why they're different or the same would be greatly appreciated
This does have to be handed in tomorrow (oops!), so if it's past 10am on Friday 4th June you may want to not bother, unless you just want to tell everyone you're thoughts on this are anyway.
"Punk gives the message that no one has to be a genius to do it him/herself. Punk invented a whole new spectrum of do-it-yourself projects for a generation. Instead of waiting for the next big thing in music to be excited about, anyone with this new sense of autonomy can make it happen themselves by forming a band. Instead of depending on commercial media, from the big papers and television to New Musical Express and Rolling Stone, to tell them what to think, anyone can create a fanzine, paper, journal or comic book. With enough effort and cooperation they can even publish and distribute it. Kids were eventually able to start their own record labels too. Such personal empowerment leads to other possibilities in self-employment and activism.
Greil Marcus' idea of punk's greatness is that the Sex Pistols could tell Bill Grundy to "fuck off" on television. The real greatness of punk is that it can develop an entire subculture that would tell Bill Grundy and safe, boring television culture as a whole to fuck off directly, establishing a parallel social reality to that of boring consumerism."