FAKE PUNK BANDS: S/D

I don't know if there's much difference in authenticity between the examples given by Colonel Poo and the likes of The Stranglers, Vibrators etc who 'went punk' in 76. In all cases the records were made because punk happened and so they're....punk.

I suppose you could distinguish between the following :

1. They went punk (e.g. Vibrators)
2. They were never punk, and in fact probably hated punk, and did a punk piss-take (e.g. Norman and The Hooligans 'I Hate Punk', Ritchie Hale and The Stormers 'Punkski')
3. They'd been around for years and just changed enough to be included broadly as punk (Fabulous Poodles, Radio Stars etc). But they weren't really punk.
4. They did a one-off record in the punk style, but were really trad-rock or prog or something (can't think of a great example apart from Public Zone's 'So Naive', or maybe The Monks 'Nice Legs Shame About The Face'?)

Some of the examples I have given are on :

http://www.amazon.co.uk/White-Dopes-Punk-Various-Artists/dp/tracks/B0007W0KKQ/ref=dp_tracks_all_1/026-9710985-6890041#disc_1

I wasn't really talking about "authenticity" as such, or about bands being "poseurs" or whatever, so bands like the Vibrators or those on Epitaph aren't what this thread is about.

In Dr C's list only types 2 and 4 would be what I'm looking for. I guess the Pork Dukes would be a good example of type 4?

How about:

5. They were essentially a comedy act creating a parody of punk(Alberto Y Lost Trios Paranoias).

Not sure whether The Pork Dukes belong under 2. or 4.

(x-post)

I guess my point is that I don't really recognize the term 'fake' here, except for category 2.

What about some of Ian Dury's more obv. punk numbers: "Plaistow Patricia", "Blockheads"

not punk, but i've just learned about this.

??????????