First of all, sorry for my shoddy english, I'm French =)
Now
I can't help but notice, not only here, but on many websites / blogs I often visit, what should be called the " theorization of grime ".
In your opinion, does it contribute to the disqualification of grime as a subversive discourse ?
This, in my eye, and the disqualification of a genre's subversive potential via rapid integration / recuperation by the cultural industry, are two different things ( I trust most of you have read Marcuse, Adorno, Debord, etc. ).
Grime, to theoricians appears - or appeared - like something new, refreshing. Some people even believe that grime is on a entirely different " plane of existence " or " paradigm " than say, drum and bass, garage, breakbeat, etc. But when the reality of this never-before-heard acoustic phenomenon is " sent " through the categories of semiotics, aesthetics, linguistics, etc. we end up dulling grime's " blade ", it's as if, through these categories, we knew what grime was all about, and that nothing else had to be said about it. After depicting grime in such a manner, what's left for a theorician to do, except maybe knowingly move on to the next big sound, which will be subjected to the same treatment ?
Now
I can't help but notice, not only here, but on many websites / blogs I often visit, what should be called the " theorization of grime ".
In your opinion, does it contribute to the disqualification of grime as a subversive discourse ?
This, in my eye, and the disqualification of a genre's subversive potential via rapid integration / recuperation by the cultural industry, are two different things ( I trust most of you have read Marcuse, Adorno, Debord, etc. ).
Grime, to theoricians appears - or appeared - like something new, refreshing. Some people even believe that grime is on a entirely different " plane of existence " or " paradigm " than say, drum and bass, garage, breakbeat, etc. But when the reality of this never-before-heard acoustic phenomenon is " sent " through the categories of semiotics, aesthetics, linguistics, etc. we end up dulling grime's " blade ", it's as if, through these categories, we knew what grime was all about, and that nothing else had to be said about it. After depicting grime in such a manner, what's left for a theorician to do, except maybe knowingly move on to the next big sound, which will be subjected to the same treatment ?