The same thing has been said about Pere Ubu - being a bridge from one thing to another. It seems that's my fate. Ah well. My views of punk have been set out elsewhere. I will summarize.
Punk was an imperialistic grab at someone else's culture fueled by chicken-hawkers, the marketing departments of multinational corporations and a guy who wanted to sell clothes in a sad little shop in London. It was an attack on American folk culture by foreigners no different from the 19th Century European imperialists swarming through India or the Congo. It provided a dumbed down template aimed at the lowest common denominator that sold a Big Lie that art was something that anyone could do. Well it wasn't. It isn't. It never will be. (I always had this problem at Rough Trade. No one believed that given one record to take to your Desert Island, I wouldn't hesitate a moment to choose John Cougar Mellenkamp's out-takes to any Smiths record. John Cougar was playing the music of his culture with an authentic voice, that Smiths guy, hard as he tried, could never disguise the stone cold fact that he was a foreigner and once removed from the True Moment. To his credit, that Smiths guy didn't try to exploit American culture. To the contrary, he was utterly English in his vision and execution. Only problem is, of course, I'm not English.)
We were not a punk band. We were a logical step along the progression and evolution of rock music. Our roots seem very obvious. People say the music was so angry you must have been rebellious. Yeah, I don't know. It seems to me, as I remember it, that what we were angry about was ordinariness. The mainstream rock bands who played in all the clubs were so ordinary and unambitious, were satisfied with so little when there so much that could be done. That's what I remember. That doesn't seem too punk to me.