The way I view this argument now is the same way I view any other genre. E.G. You can't write classical music, even if you write in the same style. Classical music (like Baroque, like punk) was a type of music in a certain time period, you can write neo-classical, contemporary, etc. So one can play punk-revival, or neo-punk, or third wave/fourth wave/fifth wave punk etc. But the genre, just like, say, modernism or vorticism, or victorian, is tied to it's time period. It's sound + attitude + time period = genre in my eyes.
As far as "But Punk is an attitude/lifestyle" it always struck me as odd that punk gets to claim all that rebellion for itself, claiming that old acts from the 50's/40's were "punk before there was punk"...truth is that certain attitudes have always existed and it's ego-centric of the genre to claim the attributes for itself when they existed prior (e.g. same thing with Screamin Hay Hawkins being "psychobilly before there was psychobilly", or other such claims with other genres). Punk is just another footnote in a long lineage/tradition of that attitude.
I am on point with Sam that many of those early seventies punk bands and "proto-punk" bands wanted to achieve success (just listen to the Ramones bitch in interviews about how they formed a cultural niche but never had the cash to go with it), and that whole anti-mainstream thing started with 80's hardcore DIY aesthetic...which is great to have an outlet when there isn't one in the mainstream, but I don't think NOT having people hear your music is the point. It's kinda like a kid who sits alone at lunch and isn't well liked saying "well, good, I didn't want them to like me anyway".
So, yea, there's a dollar's worth....just give me 98 cents back...
