what do you think of Jon Savage?

The new morality, baby.

I saw Teenage yesterday, based on Savage's book (haven't read it). I'd taken something for my hay fever beforehand, so I drifted a bit--I'd like to see it again. By the director's calculation, about 85% archival, the rest recreations (made to look archival, and very convincingly). Between the narration and the music, it's got a dreamlike quality that works well. I wanted the film to carry forward into Elvis and rock and roll, but I know that's outside the scope of Savage's book.

Out in November, looking forward to reading this:

The pop world accelerated and broke through the sound barrier in 1966. In America, in London, in Amsterdam, in Paris, revolutionary ideas slow-cooking since the late '50s reached boiling point. In the worlds of pop, pop art, fashion and radical politics -- often fueled by perception-enhancing substances and literature -- the 'Sixties', as we have come to know them, hit their Modernist peak. A unique chemistry of ideas, substances, freedom of expression and dialogue across pop cultural continents created a landscape of immense and eventually shattering creativity. After 1966 nothing in the pop world would ever be the same. The 7 inch single outsold the long-player for the final time. It was the year in which the ever lasting and transient pop moment would burst forth in its most articulate, instinctive and radical way.

Jon Savage's 1966 is a monument to the year that shaped the pop future of the balance of the century. Exploring canonical artists like The Beatles, The Byrds, Velvet Underground, The Who and The Kinks, 1966 also goes much deeper into the social and cultural heart of the decade through unique archival primary sources.

I'll start paying attention to Jon Savage when he acknowledges that The Stranglers and The Jam were as great as any bands that were around at the time, the former outlasting most of those punk bands considerably and The Jam going on to become incredibly big in the UK in the early '80s.

You may have a long wait, here he is in England's Dreaming:

Punk was politically riven as it interacted with the world outside. If the Jam and the Stranglers were going to coast in the slipstream of the Sex Pistols, then it was not surprising if they were judged on the same radical criteria and found wanting. Despite the element of novelty in both groups, there were also strong traces of stylistic and/or ideological conservatism which made them a satisfactory bridge between the mainstream and Punk’s all-out assault.

Yeah, I'm aware of his "stance" on both bands, and have always thought it was complete bullshit. If one listens to Never Mind The Bollocks and Black and White back-to-back, it's apparent which one sounds the most musically "conservative", and it ain't The Stranglers. IMO, the Pistols' music was far more monochrome by comparison, and both bands had a lot of attitude. Yes, The Jam were influenced by '60s acts, I don't think they ever denied that. However, surely not even Jon Savage can deny that that band meant a hell of a lot to a lot of people in the late '70s/early '80s, and if he does, then he's full of shit... and if he's implying that "punk was meant to be new", and that the Sex Pistols weren't influenced by anything and came about in a vacuum, then he's also full of shit. IMO, of course.

have you actually read his books?

https://thequietus.com/articles/30314-jon-savage-englands-dreaming-teenage-1966-owen-hatherley-interview

His perspective is so thought-provoking and really resonates with me.

That was a very interesting interview. Makes me want to read Teenage, but not 1966. England's Dreaming I've had for years.

1966 is pretty solid, I'd say give that a whirl. And yes to England's Dreaming, had the paperback run of that forever -- picked it up in 1992 when I visited the UK for the first time.

more than "pretty solid", 1966 is his best book IMO -- the interview doesn't really do it justice bcz it gets derailed into a (yes justified but also irrelevant) hate-fest against the very bad tory social historian dominic sandbrook

(this also means the much trickier question that hatherley asks -- abt the left-revisionist treatment of the 70s (historians beckett and edgerton) -- doesn't get explored)