Tom weighs into the debate on the genre-never-formerly-formally?-known-as-grime. '"part of the collective swagger of a scene thatís on the up and brimming with confidence is having a name and using it",' he writes, quoting Simon, 'on the other hand knowing something's name = having power over it, including commercial power. A scene-name can be exploited by outsiders as easily as insiders.' Sure, but such exploitation is a by-product of a genre moving out of the shadows, ceasing to be introverted. Tom must be right that 'the nameclashes seem to [be] part and parcel of the competitive, conflict-driven nature of the scene/sound', but such conflict, indefinitely pursued, can only end up in the scene becoming even more fractured, with even fewer sales. Eski at the moment might be largely free of exploitation from outsiders, but the cost of that - and it is a real cost, at every level, including the economic - is that insiders can't 'exploit' themselves or their sound, either. Besides, the dialogic, intensely antagonistic nature of hip hop didn't prevent it being named.
Speaking of names, has anyone figured out the citta violenta and the a time for fear brands? New posts on both today, but what's the criteria for posting on one rather than the other, Oliver?Posted by mark at February 5, 2004 12:35 AM | TrackBack