Not sure about Dizzee Rascal ...

Buzz = People (critics, internet posters, folks in the street) who are very excited about it and feel the need to tell you about it, no?

Also,

splices the best of Timbaland, Missy, Eminem and Tricky, with a slight hint of the Streets in its cheapness

sounds like a damn fine endorsement if ever I heard one...

Who are other auteurs of this sound I am ignorant of because all I know is this and The Streets (sorry)?

re: Chris O'Connor's comments - did you read what you typed? You make Dizzee sound pretty great (which he is) he may not be the most vital artist ever, but I never heard anyone claim that anyways.

wrong, wrong, correct!

go and look at that grime in 2004 thread.

here's some other people i that scene

wiley
jammer
lewi white
terrah danja
davinche
danny weed
target
rapid
slicks
wizzbit
geeneus
biggaman
skepta
knightzoftheroundtable
NASTY crew
NAA
double o squad
ruff squad
total package
roll deep
mucky wolfpack
meridian crew
south's most wanted
specail delivery
east connection
riko dan
gods gift
d.e.e.
tu tuff crew
more fire crew
boundary crew
slaughter kids
social circles
essentials
esko/slew dem thugs
diamond clik
duurty doogz and crazy titch
strider

Although Gail did tell me that when she went to do the session with the Heartless Crew they were "lovely, well-behaved young lads - they couldn't believe that I'd been playing trombone for longer than they'd been alive!"

i have read enough to deem this kind of argument absolutely null and void and work out that i agree with luka almost entirely. he's not saying no one can comment - just that some people know more than others and that involving yourself with a culture mean that you're more likely to be right about the music that comes from it. and yes there are right and wrong ways to examine/criticise music. bottom line, for me: the views expressed above make your critical view of this music worthless.

2/5 in Hip Hop Connection. They also called him something like "Marketing victim of the year".

no, but i'd have a lot more time for their work and a lot more faith in it if they did. it's common sense, really.

x-post: but its a message board dave.

no, but i'd have a lot more time for their work and a lot more faith in it if they did. it's common sense, really.

Whose picking up the bill for these anthropological beanfeasts?

This guy is NOT the great last hope.

and the way that dizzee has been written up in a lot of places as coming out of nowhere, when in fact there is an existing scene (which i guess will be a lot clearer to people in general once the wiley album comes out).

btw - tom's points on time/distance v interesting

also re. "don't try it" - care to explain what you mean by that? Because it sounds like a threat; to which I reply: you will seriously regret it if you "try" anything with me, old chap.

Got it?

Tom OTM, as long as you don't pretend to have more (or less) knowledge of the relevant culture than you do I don't see that it's an issue either way; in-depth knowledge of cultural context can be fascinating but it's hardly a pre-requisite for good writing per se. Probably more important is deciding which type of writing is necessary for the publication it'll go in.

oh now that's a tough one. i guess i do like the idea of a very broad kind of folk music and see grime, dancehall, hip-hop and plenty other stuff sitting in this category comfortably - art documenting people's lives. however, i don' think it's that simple at all. you can have both! that's what crossover hits are all about... folk not the best word to use, thinking of it, particularly when talking about pop music as folk-pop makes me think of stuff like fiddler's dram etc which is not good as i am at a low ebb already!

This has been well refuted already, but I'd like to add that, oddly enough, it seems fans who promote this outlook never complain that those who *agree* with their opinion don't know enough about the subculture to offer an assessment that matters.

We are´'t all music journalists here, posting stuff hee is not 'our work', for some of us its just chatting down the pub as it were, so surely its not right to discuss people's comments as though they were writing for a living? I'm not saying that i or anyone else should be totally absolved of all responsibility for our comments or opinions, just that to take everything that anyone says on an internet message board, as something that should be subject to intense analysis of whether they have done research/interviews/thought long and hard about it to back up something they mention, whether its something offhand or something more thought out. The reason that ILX is good is because it is a mixture of throwaway gags and long crafted arguments, which sort of battle against each other.

Basically, to criticise a post on journalistic terms seems to miss the point a bit. That should be reserved for well, journalism (which may or may not include blogging, depending on your point of view). So if Phoebe Dinsmore gets the 'offending post' published in the paper, or on their website, then fair enough, the lack of knowledge/research/understanding is to some a degree a fault. But for a message on ILM.......

Folk music crit - treats music as authentic expression of a culture, worth taken for granted, less criticism more reportage, where there is criticism it's essentially technical, understanding of culture essential for understanding of music, designed to communicate to audience wishing to learn.

Pop music crit - selfish ears, entirely consumer/listener-centric, criticism based around pleasure/interest/whim/emotional response with authorial intention unneccessary, designed to communicate to audience of assumed equals.

that's right isn't it carlin? let's get it all out in the open.

as far as don't try it goes, you know what i meant, i meant don't try and make me look bad cos that'll never work, you're not good enough, but if you feel you want to fight me i don't really care mate, except i'm 24 and worked for about 5 years as a builders labourer and youre about 50 and work in information technology and have proabbaly never had a scuffle in your life. my address is 66 romford road stratford
my phone number is
07984657390

if you want to be macho,

to which I reply: you will seriously regret it if you "try" anything with me, old chap.

then go on be macho.
otherrwise let's just go back to ignoring/hating each other.

I probably wouldnt talk in faux-mathematical equations though

obviously you weren't including this one!

I mean I've heard some grime, maybe 12 tracks other than Boy In Da Corner, but I think it's important to point out that while I see how you might need to know about the scene to really talk about it on point, this isn't necessary to enjoy Boy In Da Corner. I amn't surprised by the "what's this about" stuff with it really cos it's such a weird and new sound that this is inevitable.

Entertainment Weekly ran a mini "grime guide" alongside it's Dizzee review.

Village Voice opened up with an extended riff on how Dizzee refutes Kodwo Eshun's theories about where Brit dance music was going.

Etc. And half the rest of the reviews are being written by people from this board anyway!

The problem with "social context" is music writing is usually that it translates into "I, the music critic, will work in a few sentences of amateur sociology and cliches about race and class in the course of my regular review style."

yes

I hope not, I've not had a "scuffle" in too long, darlings

absolute load of cock

"you're not good enough"

now who's being macho and confrontational?

but then again, luka old boy, if you want to play that game, i am a published music journalist and a soon-to-be-published author and you are still a builder's labourer.

that is, if you want to play that game.

you're just acting like any jerk who would write to the nme in 1985 saying they didn't understand goth. and grime is the goth of 2004.

it's sad luka because i like your blog, i like the idea that your inner life is bound in so closely with the grime movement. but here you're just acting like an egotistical crybaby who can't abide anyone having a different opinion to you.

so grime is what matters? yeah, let's see it in the top ten and then we can talk about what's happening. at the moment it's on a par with shoreditch electroclash.

"not good enough"? well i could outthink you, outwit you, outflank you and any of the other quotes from cape fear if i wanted to. but what would be the point? my life's cool at the moment. i don't need to compete. my gail is worth a billion of you.

you don't come into my thoughts outside of ilx. and ilx doesn't come into my thoughts outside of quiet periods during office working hours.

"about 50 and work in Information Technology"

hahahahahahah. how little you know me. how littler i know you.

but when it comes down to it i just feel sorry for you. you could be a great writer. but not yet. not while you keep this pose up.

uh oh... don't think I can hang with this level of sophisticated debate. Later!

Basically what I'm saying is someone who's been into a specialist genre in a big big way at any time will always have a fear of treading on someone elses rug, if they are.

I don't moralise the music I listen to or care what it says particularly, at least if it's good techically to me I don't have a set of moral standards it has to pass, so I mean in that sense as a critic I fit the pop mould but I do feel squeamish reviewing some stuff because I think "the dancehall/hiphop equivalent of me as a dance fan is probably thinking 'you stupid twat'"

I think it's healthy to think that way though, sometimes I read stuff which I feel might be misguided about dance music but it's noy cynically ignorant. I'm sure Dave is the same with dancehall. There is a big difference between innocent but well meaning approach getting it wrong and thick fucking tourist on holiday shouting and ranting about how stupid chopsticks are or something.

Um... you're telling me to lighten up?

and if i dont want to read about it, well, i dont

it should really be on another thread - can we split this one into three?
1) original dizzee discussion
2) marcello v luka (and i'm not encouraging any further confrontation coz i like 'em both)
3) folk/pop crit - which is the right way?

also, yes, Tico's folk crit/pop crit thing is utterly terrific

x-post, natch

It's the reviewers job to make themselves like the music for what it itself is, the music for the music's sake, anything else is just selling everyone short. If backflips need to be done then they should be, I'd hate to feel as a reviewer I was tied to something in the outside world, as it were.

Saying people should experience things does not mean calling for writers to throw journalistic distance out the window.

There are lots of types of journalism, I think often journalistic distance is exaggerated and the whole "facts" thing becomes this rabid chase and in the end you get cold reports on everything. It is possible to be a human and balanced journalist, (see the Tom Wolfe book which compiles this stuff 'The New Journalism'). It's possible but very very difficult.

Nonetheless it's definitely what people should aspire to. I think in music criticism the new journalism may be slightly easier to be honest, it's a job where opinion is encouraged far more than in news reporting.

SEE?

I'm not sure this holds as true with, say, rnb or indie.

*(To be honest even anthropologically the pop approach is usually more interesting to me - I am always fascinated by the reactions of non-scene people to new music, like what provincial kids thought when they heard London punk or what Americans thought of the British invasion - sadly off-the-peg narratives get built up so easily around these things so it's hard to get good primary testimony.)

i wasn't in the room when buckingham and nicks started punching each other up when fleetwood mac made "rumours." i wasn't in salzburg when salieri started to have a go at mozart. it's like saying that simon schama knows jack shit about the history of britain because he wasn't there to see harold turning back at stamford bridge in 1066. it's a stupid argument.

oh dear... using these examples is completely disingenuous to the subject. we're talking about stuff that is happening *NOW* and about the opinions of someone whose involved with it being of more documentary use than those of someone who isn't. it's actually more like who would you rather believe i) a text written by a genuine eyewitness of salieri kicking off with mozart, or ii) an apochyphal word-of-mouth story about it started off in a salzburg bierkeller!

To an extent yes, and i'd want to read someone further away afterwards perhaps, to try and slot it in elsewhere, but primarily i'd want the first hand deep in view, and then i'll provide the wider context myself. also, close up perspective is often harder to find, secondary commentators are always legion.

This is all tying back in to that 'relevance' question i think

Ronan - As I say - there's something to be said for either side of the coin - I am a laughably partisan writer myself. Still, I think there are some serious limitations to this - for example, it would seem sporting to me if a person whose whole way of experiencing the world was changed in '88 would say "it's hard for me to be objective about the music, since it was for me part of a very important personal-historical moment" or something. But the argument being held forth sometimes seems the opposite: "because I was/am completely bound up in it, only I am capable of a sound judgement!" which seems like having the prosecutor also play judge, which only works if you're on the side of the prosecution.

I mean, most peeps in tha UK don't really give too much of a toss about the grime scene, but if you play them Dizzee odds on they'll being able to recognise it as part of the "House -gt; Rave -gt; Jungle -gt; Speed Garage -gt; UKG -gt; Grime -gt; Whatever-is-cutting-edge-dance-next-week" lineage because rave culture has had a rather sizeable impact on UK music and culture!!!!!!!! Take it out of that context and of course Da Rascal is going to sound a bit strange!!!! Obvious example of that is a US interview with Oxide & Neutrino, where the interview noted they kept using the word "hardcore", and then went into a long detour about the origins of the word in jazz, and how he finds it curious that these two use it all the time because, well they're not really jazzy, are they?!?!?! (They were actually meaning "hardcore" in a ravey sense!!!!)

The interviewer meant well of course, he just wasn't aware of the context they were talking in!!!!!!! And it's not like rave in the UK was minor point of context, it was as big a shift in UK youth culture as punk!!!! On the level of cultural faux pas, it's a bit like introducing The Beatles as "John, Paul, George & Bongo"!!!!!

re. mozart: i would trust the opinion of someone like max harrison who is a trained musician and musicologist, knows his music inside out and can tell me in the gramophone each month whether any particular cd is worth spending £15 on or not.

you can't always trust eyewitness accounts; they are always going to be too subjective and without the necessary historical perspective. see vasari on michelangelo. also mandeville's travels which was taken as gospel while marco polo, who actually HAD been there, was dismissed as a fruitcake.

"House -gt; Rave -gt; Jungle -gt; Speed Garage -gt; UKG -gt; Grime -gt; Whatever-is-cutting-edge-dance-next-week"

=

House -> Rave -> Jungle -> Speed Garage -> UKG -> Grime -> Whatever-is-cutting-edge-dance-next-week"

The people in the clubs, the streets, school, the people around, they dont have the same perspective as the older guy type reporting on it from afar. Neither is better than the other, but i just prefer hearing from people on the ground.

as eric morecambe, the hippest man who ever lived (as of today), did in 1963.

You could say that, i wouldnt agree though. i dont think there is such thing as a true authority. but i'd rather read from people going to events than from a broadsheet commentator (what can a broadsheet commentator tell me about the decline of rave, how darkness came through, when jungle sprang out of that. they might give me some wider sociocultural john major stuff, but i know that already, i want to know how things changed on the ground)

i dont think it is anything to do with being objective or subjective, its to do with engagement. I like writing that engages with the subject, i dont need a dilettentes point of view, i can do that myself, i want to hear from the trenches.

Is it like an eski-mo?

(ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha).

(i have no regrets)

It's so Marcello to wheel out the "I'd trust a musician" blah blah blah card. How many times can one person punch his own recent convictions around a messageboard.

marcello if you want to try and beat me up metaphorically do it on your blog, or send me something on the email and i'll post it on heronbone, if you want to beat me up literally give me a ring this evening and we'll arrange that, not now cos i got to go barbers. if you send anoymous texts to my phone thats embarressing so don't let it tempt you.

i love fights to be honest, it's really bad but i just do. i think we should have gangs. marcello you can have tom ewing, nick southall, gareth and all those other people who are clever and write well but never say anything i agree with and i'll have anyone who's up for being on my side. that'd be good. fight club for bookworms.

anyone who wants to hurl abuse at me is welcome to do so, if it's not rude in a clever hurtful way i'm not bothering responding though.

one more thing, (just to keep the tone as low as possible)
you think cos you got a house in hampstead and a book deal you're a big man? but how old are you?

i don't submit things for publication. there isn't a magazine in the world that would let me do what i want to do, and quite right too, i wouldn't publish me either.
i still think i'm cleverer than you and i prefer my writing to yours but we;re not playing the same game so the comparisons pointless anyway. you try and write properly, i try and write me, thats the difference. you might think thats childish, aND MAybe it is, but in the best possible way.
and while we're being condescending, that thing you wrote about whats going on was the best record review i've ever read, just stick to the old stuff and you'll be fine.

well if you took it to that conclusion you'd have to say that no one could be considered a true authority on rave unless they'd consumed pharmacies' worth of drugs on said dancefloor

Anyway, the point is- rave was big enough in the UK to affect tons of people who didn't go to raves, and had enough of an effect on UK music for UK listeners to be able to put Dizzee Rascal in a Rave Family Tree context, which is probably why they might understand better where tha Rascal is coming from in general even though don't know the specifics!!!!! (ie Grime, Eski-raves and all that...)

i meant that i wanted to read things written in 88 about 88, not written in 03 about 88. though i plucked that example from thin air, really. record reviews from the time etc (but thin on the ground for acid house i'd imagine), how it spread across the country, where it took off more

but even things written now, can tell me what records each dj was playing at what time etc, how that scene grew etc. but then, thats more a social thing, whereas beatles memories are more focused on a few people rather than social context blah etc

wiley
jammer
lewi white
terrah danja
davinche
danny weed
target
rapid
slicks
wizzbit
geeneus
biggaman
skepta
knightzoftheroundtable
NASTY crew
NAA
double o squad
ruff squad
total package
roll deep
mucky wolfpack
meridian crew
south's most wanted
specail delivery
east connection
riko dan
gods gift
d.e.e.
tu tuff crew
more fire crew
boundary crew
slaughter kids
social circles
essentials
esko/slew dem thugs
diamond clik
duurty doogz and crazy titch
strider

... are ALL good then it must be one of the most gifted musical genres of all time.

It does rankle when I read outsider reviews and the inevitable 'high school marching band' comes up because that's the closest point of comparison that most critics have (and it's pretty damn far away). While I have a hundred urges to write and say "no it's actually like THIS", I realize that I actually would rather read what someone thinks about it that's not inside the scene instead of a mirror of my own thoughts about it. And of course, there are probably some people who would say I'm not down with the scene anyway since I don't live there, only go three times a year, etc.

Of course this is largely intellectual since no one writes anything interesting about the brass band scene anyway, maybe someone will blow up and I'll be railing like Luka.

Apart from me of course......... but you should see my muscles

When did he mention albums?

however, it's more prevalent that you'd think...

He didn't, but it's a "punch first, collect your teeth afterwards" kinda thread.... so that's cool

"If it's only about giving a fair crack of the whip, it doesn't matter if you are Luka right there in the thick of it or Jess sitting at a computer on the other side of the world, then does it? "

no it doesn't,there's no need to chose one over the other...i love reading about grime on heronbone,and i think the way luka is so immersed in the whole culture,trying to keep up with everything going on,enthusing about each development,quoting ever great line he hears,etc,is a fucking great way to write about the music,but i also like reading people like tim finney and jess writing about what they think of it...their ideas are obviously influenced by the fact that they're looking in to this from the outside,from the other side of the world even,but as long as they're not pretending this isn't the case,i don't see a problem,and as far as i'm concerned i love reading the jess/tim/simon reynolds end of things and the luka end as well...

this was originally supposed to be amended to my post above:

BUT (the big but): i have no problem with someone who wants to write about a record who chooses not to engage with the related context IF they say "okay, look, i'm [blank], this culture is not my own, i don't feel any need to immerse myself in it, i don't have time, i have other interests which i deem more important, i'm just a dabbler, whatever, but this is a really good/bad/interesting record and i have some thoughts on it." some of my favorite writers are generalists in the this way. (maybe MOST of them.)

I haven't even heard those artists but his logic is such a basic misunderstanding of any dance genre.

a noble failure?

i like sfj and all, but jeezus, even the title is just like...wow.

(xpost)

maybe you don't want or need that. fair enough. as you know i am not the world's greatest woebot fan but if i thought matthew would be good for doing any particular reviews i would recommend him. as a professional, that's how i work.

I've heard he gives good scuffle

I read through this whole thing, and thought there were lots of interesting points made on both sides of the insider vs. outsider perspective debate. I guess I'm in the camp that says that both perspectives have their uses. I don't think there's anything wrong with a US critic who may not be familiar with the UK dance/grime scene saying, "Wow this stuff sounds quite fresh and different." Because they're looking at it from the perspective of US pop music. I think it's interesting to see how music from one culture can impact on a different culture. The history of popular music is rife with examples of this. In order for a niche music to cross-over to the mainstream, it has to appeal to listeners outside of the subculture that spawned it, who won't have access to the in-depth contextual information that an insider would have. So the question becomes: are you as a critic more interested in the original subculture or in how this is going to impact the mainstream? Because if you're interested in how it impacts the mainstream, the in-depth context may not be as important. It may be more useful from the mainstream perspective to see how the new style fits into the constellation of existing mainstream reference points - even if those reference points may not be the ones that the originators of the style had in mind.

"that's how i roll"? no, too damon runyan for my liking.

-
Alan

Well, certainly that happens as well. I think the difference between a good critic and a lazy one is not necessarily that the good critic knows all the insider reference points, but that the good critic at least knows that they don't know those reference points, so they don't make blanket statements that end up sounding ignorant or being just plain wrong. So if you say, "Artist X has singlehandedly created a whole new style of music" and the fact is that they are working in an existing style that you just don't know anything about, then you're just plain wrong. So it's important to be cognizant of the limits of your knowledge - but at the same time having limited knowledge doesn't preclude you from doing criticism.

1. UK mainstream view: critically acclaimed and controversial rappy chappy- from some hip cutting-edge dance music scene in tha Inner City!!!!!
2. US mainstream view: critically acclaimed and controversial rappy chappy- from LondonEngland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyway, tim finney and jess harvell don't say stupid things do they? thats the point, thats why they're allowed. another thing is if you're going to divorce a record from its context and judge it puirely as sonic artifact you'd better have pretty fucking good ears. finney is pretty much the only person who pulls it off online, kodwo eshun too in the real world. most people can't write anything interesting from that perspective cos the ear's not good enough.

but all the heat's gone out of this discussion, its boring now. i should stop visiting ILM really shouldn't i? just lower the tone every time.

(Ray Davies to thread!!!)

If this is the best album of Dizzee's career (or god forbid the best grime album ever) I'll be really disappointed, but there's definitely something pretty exciting and promising about this stuff, even if the album as a whole has yet to sell me on its greatness.

If you say so, hardman

OTM

Tom, we could spend weeks teasing out the implications of what you've just said.

Currently I'd definitely take the Ying Yang Twins over this anyhow.

I'm guessing mash-ups don't strictly count as a manifestation of ANY kind of the "London pirate sound" as commonly understood, right?

HA HA! I actually compared Philip Jeck's 7 to the screwed version of the David Banner album in my P&J comments!

I just want to play devil's advocate here for a second. I'm all about Stelfox's argument re: context, however I think that the danger in focusing too much importance around context is that we get into the whole intentionality issue. If, in order to be an authority on a particular type of music/artist you have to "understand" / be a part of the scene surrounding that genre/artist, wouldn't the obvious extension of this argument be that the closer you get to the scene/artist, the better you understand the music? Hence, tkaing this to the extreme, the artist becomes the utmost authority on the music...after all, he/she/they are in the environment, they live the context.

This is starting to sound like silly cu-stu blather re: authorship and representation, but I really think that it is important to also note that an opinion/review/evaluation of a particular thing, be it a movie, tv show, tune, scene, etc. is always informed by context. The opinion of those closest to the movie, tv show, tune, scene, etc. can not possibly be authoritative by virtue of the fact that it can only be one of an infinity of views--each informed by different factors--each an attempt at representing something to someone else. We're never going to get a complete representation, so why suggest that it's even possible? Also, some distanced thoughts/comments/criticism are extraordinarily helpful.

Maybe I just have to believe this...after all, I'm a English lit instructor who focuses on lit that is completely outside of my context...but I still stand up there in front of the class spewing on about it.

That said, I'm glad I opened this can of worms. Great discussion. In case anyone's wondering, I based my post on pop criticism, not folk criticism, and did so irregardless of the grime scene. As pop music, it's up and down -- great singles, great fun, but played out and awkard, too. From a folk perspective, this guy is much more interesting, because of where he's from, how exactly he distills his influences and how he fits in to the larger scene over there. I don't pretend I'd have mastery from a scene context on this one.

Banner, to me, is more interesting from a folk perspective because he's working in hip-hop's most depraved subgenre (booty, crunk, whatever you wanna call it) and extracting literature out of it (I'm not including OutKast in that, btw). Rascal's starting from already-literate forms -- Tim, two-step, The Streets-style narrative.

Yeah, it does look like high praise, but my observation of the ingredients just confirms once again how amazingly pervasive the trip-hop, wiggy-wiggy-wee, mind of a genius monster "style" has become. Dizzee's found his voice through the door those folks opened; perhpas he'll open his own door one day; has enormous potential as a producer.

but, the context stuff is interesting, leads on to other things, gives us a good picture of the surroundings etc.

dont think anyone is saying its the only approach, and really, i think engagement/immersion is the key, without being close up to it, things change and you didnt hear them or see them (so, for example, tim and jess are as good as luka on it, cuz they paying attention)

i think in the case of music like this, which has a social role, (like all dance music), relevance and representation are key, dance music is a folk music of sorts, its not about the artist, but whats around, a dialogue of sorts, with pirates, clubs, people on street, the quick changing, no incubation period.

authorial intention is not the key to the representation, but its audience, intermediary representation (pirates/clubs/) are the more important

INTERMEDIARIES GIVE MUSIC SOCIAL CURRENCY

not about the artist (objectivity), not about *you* the listener (radical subjectivity), but about the world outside, CONTEXTUALISM! more important than the artist, is the intermediary (pirate/club), their intention matters more than the artists, without them, the artist isnt heard

but the 'translators' roll isnt really threatened by this anyway really is it, i mean, you can just turn on the pirate yourself, and there it is. thats how i got in to hardcore, turning on a pirate when i was 14 and too young to go out, so i *knew* all about it before i even went out to a club.

The thing is, non-experts can always engage directly, if they want! all experts were non-experts once.

I'm all for "social context." But it can easily slip into parochialism.

social context is always parochialism of a sort, i think it really comes down to if you are interested. there is nothing wrong with popping your dizzee cd or lord of the dekcs comp inbetween your bowie and wutang cds or whatever, and leaving it at that. i think it depends how your interest manifests itself.

Recently i've rediscoverd Django Reinhardt, i dug out the couple of best ofs i have of his. And really, i don't need to know any more than that, but now, second time around, i'm finding myself more interested in where he came from, who were his contemporaries, what kind of venues did he play, how was he received by the public? even though it is all incredibly distanced from me. In a more recent vein i was watching a documentary from 94 again with interviews with randall, brockie and paul ibiza etc and the ragga twins cropped up explaining about belgian techno in the london scene circa (i guess) 90/91, and there was a pause after they said about it being played and then they said "it was...good" but he didnt sound effusive, he didnt sound like he meant it, but obviously he had meant it at one point, just not in 94, and it made me think, what were randall and jack frost and kenny ken playing in 1990? how did it feed in from there? how do you get from 1990 to hardcore? the fascination with belgium in 91 seems impossible in 94 (even with occasional mentasms still happening even then)

and its then that parochialism kind of comes in handy

In the UK, yes...

Tom's folk/pop division is my favorite thing in this thread, unsurprisingly. Might it be accurate to say that one starts as a pop criticizer with a new music but becomes a folk criticizer if one investigates further and learns more about the music et al? And if not, then how does one potentially avoid that?

Course, there's a lot to be said about that culture, too -- look at a band like Chevelle. Really interesting stuff.

and its then that parochialism kind of comes in handy

That kind of thing to me is setting the bar pretty low for "social context." That's just basic musical background. For example, every US review of Dizzee Rascal I've read, whether it's in a national newspaper by a critic who's presumably barely heard any grime, or an alt-weekly by someone who's posting in the ILM grime threads all the time, has given that basic level of background in their review. Some have obviously done it better than others, but everybody's done it.

So if that's what proponents of 'social context' want, I don't think there's a problem.

To me, a much better example of really good 'social context' writing is Lester Bangs' Jamaica piece in that recent collection. Part of the reason it's great is because he makes it clear he's an outsider from the beginning, and he makes that an essential part of his insights, which are pretty damn prescient. Plus he gives you some great reportage of moments that achieve larger, metaphorical significance as part of the swirl of ideas in the piece. That to me is a great example of someone doing 'social context' and maintaining critical distance at the same time.

The kind of parochialism I'm talking about is when people start getting territorial about their social context, thinking they own it.

here's brand new day.

perhaps, but, as basic as that might be, i still dont know what randall was playing in 1990, and even if i did, i think i'd need to see the setlists each week, or be told what was blowing up each week, to see the gradual shifts through time

as for dizzee/grime, i think the point isnt how much context a big piece gives dizzee, but where someone can tell me what the last, i dont know, terror danjah single was like. what tunes were played out last week. that kind of thing. things that happen inbetween album releases

i guess im kind of sensitive to this because i think that both hardcore and jungles best releases, that were hugely popular at raves and on radio, never really got covered in the press (even in the dance press!). i think someone on the ground, even if just to say, hey theres a great new 12 on symphony sounds, would have been good, that kind of perspective is always welcome

At the moment, unless you ARE either right inside the scene or hooked up to Soulseek or whatever, which is to say most of grime's potential audience, Dizzee is pretty much a lone voice (dunno if More Fire Crew count). I'd be interested to see what the Wiley and Shistie albums do to contextualise Dizzee as part of a scene in the eyes of the mainstream media. But then again obviously I'm looking at it like Tom from more of a pop perspective than a folk perspective, if we're to use that terminology.

it's "surrounding counties", which kinda fucks that theory...

i think what's really interesting is the (and i'm willing to concede that this is my misconception based on not being able to receive all the pirates in south london) post-dizzee notion that pirates in london play grime 24/7, that they're all hell bent on supporting this sound, when mostly they play old-skool, 4/4, r&b and bashment and only really deja vu and raw mission play substantial amount of grime (and deja itself is mainly about bashment on the rare days east co don't have a set). rinse has slimzee and plasticman and some others which bridge the dubstep/grime divide, and sometimes they have a couple of roll deep, but mostly they're now about dubstep in the evenings and old-skool during the day.

p2p is probably to blame. usually is.

interesting also to think about grime going overground. only dizzee, wiley and doogz are signed, aren't they? and the first mainstream wiley single, the "igloo" vocal, isn't really going to set charts or minds alight in the same way "i luv u" did.

I also can't see how p2p is having an adverse effect on grime, but I haven't read this whole thread yet, so maybe I'll find that magic answer.

Another social context question - do you really need to know that much about the music or the scene itself in order to relate to it? Surely everyone who's spent any amount of time in inner London can recognise where the music's coming from (assuming they aren't permanently walking round with their head in the sand)? I mean, I did most of my growing up in Catford, Peckham and New Cross and I know exactly where the few MCs I've heard are coming from despite it nevertheless being a completely different world to my middle-class self.

x-post: yeah, theoretically doogz or d double shouldn't be "speaking" to me anymore than ying yang or jay-z. it's still a wholly different world than where i live every day.

(x-post)I even notice the ex-@d@ml stomping ground of Watford come up during a couple of live sessions!

completely OTM

eskimo dance happened quite a few times at area, on the high street. maybe it started there. It is well weird though. I cant imagine many people in watford streaming to eskidance. The only record shop ive found there, d'vinyl/freedom (mmmmm good name) just seems to have some old copies of ´ho' lying aound when i go there. that hasnt been for a while.

i think they had it thee because it was far enough out of town for thee to be less trouble, or maybe the owners of aea didnt know anything about it o something. it is well stupid that i never wen though, as i could have driven thee in 15 minutes. it was always on a tuesday, which is a lame night to have it on.

the best thing on this thead was old fart calling it 'grim'. thats a wicked name!

I still love it that Watford has grime cred.

But then isn't Sidewinder in Milton Keynes?

It's basically the new 70s Belgian pop.

theres some pirates in luton, these kids i worked with from luton told me about the scene there. it is pretty nascent though. like i said, theres some pirate activity in herts, vybe fm 99.5, that you can get in watford (it peters out just before you get to my town tho). i think thats about it for beds bucks n herts. bedford it is.