Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Grime Time Again.
Interesting comments from
luca lucarini on the grime issue. I think the pivotal part is this...

"i feel in terms of recorded material things are on the up, but qualities that made the music exciting to me initially (radio, watching videos of eskimo dance) aren't there anymore. you're hard pressed to find any radio sets as good as deja vu roll deep b2b nasty c. 2002. and the raves are dead (live in london BTW)."

...but I would say that because it kind of fits in with my theory. It seems like grime is becoming more interesting to music nerds (like me) and less interesting to people who have a real cultural connection to grime (like Luca). So, is it okay to like grime better now if the only thing you care about is the quality of the music? And can the quality of the music really be assessed outside the parameters of its proper cultural context? Should we listen to this stuff as MUSIC generally or as GRIME per se?

2 comments:

Brady said...

Since I've only ever seen London on TV, I listen to Grime as music generally, which is where you might come in: how about a "Grime: then and now" sampler CDR, buddy?

Samuel said...

Well, that'll take a while. I still have a lot of stuff to listen to/mull over. So much to learn and it may already be too late.

Something that struck me though, listening back to stuff from the approved classic period was that (a) the best of it is like a slightly less fancy version of the contemporary stuff,(b) some of it is so mind-bogglingly basic/incompetent that it makes Beat Happening sound like Rush, (c)there's great stuff but there's also a higher ratio of crap.

Conclusion: grime is getting more accomplished and reliable. Sounds like damning with faint praise, dunnit?