The punk rock community is one of the most vital, lively, and cohesive scenes in music. It is also the one most influenced by jealousy, back-biting, and shadenfreude. Whereas in other genres like hip-hop, pop, and country western often respect and reward "cross-over" success and acceptance by the mainstream, punk music fans are the first to incite a backlash against any band that achieves national attention and notoriety. But most of all, they seem to despise an artist having access to money.

This attitude runs counter to that of one of the most successful musical categories of the late twentieth century. Whereas the prevailing attitude of hip-hop culture relies on street cred and access to wealth, punk culture lionizes the former while relentlessly attacking the latter.

This can seem a little strange given punk rock's origins. Hardly following their own ideals of living by one's own rules and not taking shit from anyone, punk fans seem to gather together as a single unit when calling into question the credibility of their own artists. Punk fans don't want their heroes to respond to criticism; do they expect that their own attacks on successful punk bands to have any real effect? Perhaps not; all that seems to matter is that they distance themselves from the transgressors as quickly and strongly as possible. The opinions and feelings of the "sell-out" don't seem to figure into the equation.

In fact, the virtue of having a thick skin may be what allows this sort of thing to happen. One can easily assuage one's own feelings of guilt associated with vilifying someone who was once a beloved member of the scene by telling oneself something along the lines of, "Well, he knew when he signed that contract that I would say all this stuff about him. He's not really "punk" anymore, but if he takes offense to my attacks, well then he's admitting that he's never really been punk at all. He must have been a sell-out all along, if I managed to hurt his feelings so bad."

Of course, the people who attack sell-outs most virulently are the first to claim that if they had been in a similar situation, they never would have signed with a major, recorded an album with an accomplished producer, or made a glossy music video. Although it might sound like a risky statement to make, (as it raises the possibility that the person who says such things might find themselves fending off allegations of hypocrisy) in reality, it's a very safe position. For the most part, the majority of local, unsigned bands remain that way until they inevitably break up. It's rather like saying, "if I were to win the Lottery, I'd continue to work, save the money, and use it only for emergencies," -- the fact of the matter is, you're never likely to be put to the test on that issue. Which brings us, albeit in a roundabout way, to the main point of this sort of distaste for success: It is, in the main, jealousy and peer pressure that cause punks to despise acts who suddenly come into mainstream acceptance.

Of course there are convoluted systems of "credibility" that are nearly as complicated as Victorian era rules of etiquette, but those seem to be merely a justification for envy. If one were to destroy all of those rules, and replace them with individual jealousy and the belief that it should have be me who got signed, not them, the situation of the scene would be exactly the same.

Framed in that manner, basing one's hatred of a sell-out on the diaphanous notion of a lack of credibility, instead of a simple, my-band-is-better-we-should-have-been-signed-not-them type jealousy, seems a bit disingenuous. In fact, it's a throwback to one very ancient perception of virtue: Humility.

Disguised behind the cloak of street cred runs a thread of belief that it's good, and more importantly -- less dangerous, to be humble. If you were to look back at some of the oldest Greek tragedies and fables, a great many of them seem to be cautionary tales warning against unchecked hubris.

It's an attitude that filters down from unsigned bands, to the people who write about punk music (who usually appear in self published, or otherwise low circulation 'zines). Often these writers are themselves in bands. As people in the scene mingle and talk, these attitudes are communicated by word of mouth. While of course there are people who will stand up and say things like, "good for them," when hearing about the latest sell-out, most simply accept the party line, keeping as it does with the established socialist/anarchist bent of punk.

Although lately, depending on where you look, one can find more and more people who are simply not concerned with sell-outs. They might stop buying there albums, but they don't waste effort or thought on how they feel "betrayed". These folks do good for the scene by recognizing that while a popular, although non mainstream group may have left the fold, there are still plenty of other ones out there waiting to fill the gap. And rather then spend money or (more importantly for the purposes of this essay anyway,) ink on a band who recently moved on to a major, they prefer to spend it on folks from the local scene. They don't begrudge anyone a chance for success, but they refuse to waste their breath getting worked up over it. They don't take it personally, and in spite of the fact that they know that the odds of the same thing happening to themselves are slim, they don't get defensive about it.

In a scene that sometimes seems to take the concept of prolonged adolescence a little too far, there are a few people who can move on with their lives, like grown ups. And there ain't nothing more punk than that.

-B. C. Silvia