what do you think of Jon Savage?

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)