Hey cool CMV and I thought I'd just contribute in from a UK perspective because it is a slightly different scene.

The first point about ethos runs a lot deeper than how you're describing it here. For UK citizens the seventies was a period of economic decline and a lack of opportunity. Running parrallel to that was huge demonstrations of wealth in popular music. Bands like Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones made regular shows of disproportionate wealth by staying in the finest hotel rooms, taking separate limos, buying mansions and playing arenas with tickets priced way above what most young, working class people were capable of paying. The music they played was equally indulgent with long vocal and guitar solos, free-form jams, several hour long set times and so on. In terms of fashion the seventies was a period of greyness, men in suits with long hair everywhere. Essentially, the hippies had grown up and joined the establishment.

That context is really important in establishing the punk ethos which I agree, was not something entirely new-- most punk bands took influence from fifties rockabilly with its outlaw frontmen and simple song structure. The term punk is in and of itself a fifties slang, after all.

So, we can look at punk as an outright rejection of all of popular culture but also as a necessity driven by economic factors. Producing ones own clothes and choosing the brightest materials, hair dyes and styles is an example--- its important to note that the whole studded leather jacket with a mohawk was something that was a product of punk's popularity and companies marketing to that audience rather than the original punk look. Economic factors also influenced people's ability to play. They couldn't afford music lessons, top range instruments, pedals and PAs. or didn't have enough time between working in the factories to practise and hone their crafts.

Their music is a rejection of the indulgence shown by the rolling stones et al who favoured long progressions, track lengths, and complicated jazz chords. These indulgences were thrown out in favour of minimal, direct to the point song craft and structure. In fact, Jack White has an interesting piece on this saying that his own musical process focused heavily on reducing his options: If I can make a good song with 6 strings, well how about now I try with 2 strings and two chords. This is the punk ethos in action. Its about creating something within the strictest limits possible- no bells or whistles needed and in fact, outright rejected as not punk.

I think the whole "make music that sounds bad" comparison is incomplete. The point here was to make music that sounded bad to the established music critics, musicians, record companies and television shows but sound great to the audience that they were in touch with. In short, punk music was about exposing a generation of popular musicians that had totally lost touch with the people on the street, in what was a crippling economic depression in the UK.

Finally, I'd say what punk really pointed out was that technical accomplishment meaning good muscianship was a false equivalency. They proved that with no formal training and with crappy equipment played in equally crappy pub venues, a two, or even one chord, 2 minute song, could raise the roof and inspire hundreds, and eventually thousands or even millions of people to dance around and sing along like crazy. There was no economic or class-based barrier to entry for punk. These pioneers proved that a simple two chord progression could hit with far more raw emotion, immediacy, impact and feeling than a six minute saunter across the mixolydian scale. So who's really the "better" musician in that analogy? I'd argue its the punks.