“Framed as a Criminal, Rather than as Artist”: A Narrative Study into Meaning-Making by UK Drill Artists

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fantastic article which not only contributes to a hitherto neglected or overlooked area of research focus – namely, giving voice to drill artists themselves about the criminalisation of their artistic expression. The authors are very right to point this out and offer a corrective through the interviews they have conducted.

The article is also written with much passion which I think makes it an even more powerful piece of scholarship that is engaged with the topic in a very positive, constructive and productive way. I especially liked the way that the authors organised the paper around the 5 key narratives that emerged from the interviews. I find this very useful and very helpful as it voices the thoughts of drill rappers themselves by doing justice to the multiple concerns they raise about their art.

I would therefore recommend that it is published as is and only make a few observations below which the authors can safely ignore, if they disagree, or take into consideration – should they wish to. The article stands on its own just fine as it is but it could be strengthened if the authors might wish to engage with the following issues I raise, for what they’re worth.

My main observation has to do with the chosen theoretical approaches and perspectives that are drawn on here. While they work just fine as ways to conceptualise what is being argued here, I am wondering whether other theoretical resources might be more appropriate and specific to the genre and Black cultural expression more broadly. There is ample literature from Black studies for example that theorises many of the issues raised by this paper. Katherine McKittick’s work, for example, e.g. Dear Science and Other Stories offers a contemporary framework that would be more appropriate I think than the theoretical framework that is adopted here, which I can’t help but think as insensitive to the nuances and specifics that this article shines a light on; especially when it comes to race, racism and racialised criminalisation of Black music genres – to say nothing of racist mythologies on ‘blackness’ and ‘criminality’.

I was also intrigued to read about the fact that this paper was co-created with artists themselves but I think that more detail on that process could be given as this could be a significant (methodological and ethical) contribution in its own right.

My final point is very minor indeed and has to do with ensuring consistency in the References as some publication details are missing.

I am overall extremely fortunate to have been invited to review this article and I am grateful to the authors for writing it.

Author Response

Comment 1: My main observation has to do with the chosen theoretical approaches and perspectives that are drawn on here. While they work just fine as ways to conceptualise what is being argued here, I am wondering whether other theoretical resources might be more appropriate and specific to the genre and Black cultural expression more broadly. There is ample literature from Black studies for example that theorises many of the issues raised by this paper. Katherine McKittick’s work, for example, e.g. Dear Science and Other Stories offers a contemporary framework that would be more appropriate I think than the theoretical framework that is adopted here, which I can’t help but think as insensitive to the nuances and specifics that this article shines a light on; especially when it comes to race, racism and racialised criminalisation of Black music genres – to say nothing of racist mythologies on ‘blackness’ and ‘criminality’. 

Response 1: This is a very valid criticism that we take to heart. We want to thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. In an earlier version of the draft we included critical race theory on Blackness and criminalisation and we agree with the reviewer that this decolonial and anti-racist lens is now missing. We have thus added such a reflection on p5, lines 192-198: 

Most importantly, UK drill is a genre that is both racialised and criminalised. In Britain, politicians and media alike have actively associated violent crime with Black youth, even singling out drill music as supposed cause for knife crime (Bhattacharyya et al, 2021). This the well-known over-policing of Black people. Processes of racialisation, Gargi Bhattacharyya et al. (2021) teach us, are both cause and result of this criminalisation. In this article, we thus conceptualise opposition to criminalisation in relation to opposition to racialisation and racism. 

and 230-254: 

Hebdige (1979) introduced the theory of cultural co-optation, showing that countercultures that were initially authentic alternatives to the mainstream are often co-opted and commercialised by the mainstream. With the help of Hebdige, we can see how UK drill artists respond to this co-optation and change in how their sub- and counterculture is perceived. The connection between counterstorytelling and Black epistemologies is invoked to emphasise that position drill artists as producers of situated knowledge. 

In the first segment, we have chosen to build here on British critical decolonial literature instead of the (otherwise excellent) work proposed by the reviewer, as we think the differences between the American and British context could unfortunately form an obstacle for readers. In lines 230-254 we elaborate on this further with the help of more conceptual theory: 

Many prominent UK drill artists are from working-class backgrounds in London and are often Black or of Afro-Caribbean descent (GRM Daily, 2020; Debo-Aina, 2021).  

Research shows that Black music genres, mainly hip-hop's subgenre gangsta rap or trap music, are specifically targeted as opposed to non-Black music genres because of racialised prejudice (Fried, 2003; Kubrin & Nielson, 2014; Fatsis, 2021; Owusu-Bempah, 2022; Hall et al., 2022). Violent lyrics of non-Black (pop) singers seem to be interpreted differently, for example when pop singer Adam Levine sang “Came without a warning, so I had to shoot him dead” in his song Wake Up Call (Maroon 5, 2009, 1:08). Critics wonder: why are lyrics like these no issue? According to Frisby and Behm-Morawitz (2019), it is said that pop music has lighter and ‘sweeter’ lyrics, while hip-hop music is more critiqued due to its cultural style and history. According to Fatsis (2021), racial prejudice has a long history that dates back to colonial legacies and continues to influence how people see Black culture and race in modern times. 

Please note that, in response to comments of reviewer 2, but also relevant to these comments, we have also added a reflection on counterstorytelling as decolonial practice and epistemic justice in the methodology section. 

  

Comment 2: I was also intrigued to read about the fact that this paper was co-created with artists themselves but I think that more detail on that process could be given as this could be a significant (methodological and ethical) contribution in its own right. 

Response 2: Thank you for this point. We agree that this was not very detailed described in the article. On page 18, lines 813-820, we tried to make the claim about co-creation more clearly. Your comments have made us think more critically about the concept of co-creation and we have concluded that we have attempted, rather than achieved, co-creation, and thus decided to refer to these choices with other words: 

Our approach aimed to maximise artists’ involvement in co-constructing the analysis by jointly identifying narratives with respondents and allowing them opportunities to revise these accounts. Reflecting on this process, we suggest that future research would benefit from involving participants at an even earlier stage, particularly in co-developing research questions and objectives. By attempting to co-create this study together with the respondents, we hope to highlight the agency of artists, a perspective often overlooked in literature focussing on their criminalisation rather than their meaning-making and their art. 

Comment 3: My final point is very minor indeed and has to do with ensuring consistency in the References as some publication details are missing. 

Response 3: Thank you for this sharp observation. We have added occasional missing page numbers, volumes, and publishers. see page 20, lines 894, 911, 920, 932, and page 21, line 962. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article includes interesting and useful research, but I believe it is framed in an unhelpful way. The article does not actually address drill as an art form as it says in the introduction (it does not discuss how poetic or sonic artistry, form, conventions, etc. affect the meaning-making, and does not engage with musicological scholarship). Therefore, this article should be framed as "taking drill artists seriously as social actors" rather than "taking drill seriously as an art form" - and it should be reviewed by sociologists and/or psychologists.

Although I recommend "reconsider after major revision," this might actually turn out to be multiple minor revisions. For example, the title needs to be changed (meaning-making "around" rather than "through" music, or remove "through music") and other framing in the introduction. The main body is well constructed and clear, though I do not feel I can comment on engagement with scholarly literature in psychology and sociology.

Author Response

COMMENT 1: The article does not actually address drill as an art form … therefore should be framed as ‘taking drill artists seriously as social actors’ rather than ‘taking drill seriously as an art form.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We do recognise drill as an art form, just like other music genres. However, we choose to address UK drill artists as both artists and social actors. We do feel that it is important to emphasise that we as researchers position and narrate UK drill artists as artists, and not ‘just’ social actors, as this creative role is an important part of their identity and to counter the popular tendency to overlook this cultural and creative part of drill. We decided to change the article’s framing in the title. Current title: A Narrative Study into Meaning-Making Through Music by UK Drill Artists. New title: A Narrative Study of Meaning-Making by UK Drill Artists (p.1, line 2-3). This would help to move away from the claim that meaning is produced “through music” or that musical form is analysed and it emphasises sociological focus on artists’ agency.

Furthermore, we revised the opening framing in the abstract. We agree that it is important to show the reader that we address drill as an art form and its artists as social actors. We added ‘and cultural practice’ at the end of the first sentence: While drill music is often talked about in relation to crime, it is often overlooked as an art form and cultural practice (p.1, line 6-7).

Also, we changed the sentences on p. 2, lines 65-69 to: This paper therefore turns the focus to UK drill as a social and cultural practice, and foregrounds artists’ meaning-making around drill as an art form. It specifically looks at the two dimensions of expression within this cultural practice presented above: drill as the outcome of intra-group expression of emotions and social relations; and as the platform the engage with social injustice on the inter-group level. We aim to reconcile our understanding of UK drill as an art form with our sociological and anthropological perspectives on its artists’ ways of meaning-making.

Moreover, we added a clarifying note at the end of the introduction: While this study takes drill seriously as an art form, this article does not analyse its musical structure, poetic form, or sonic conventions. Instead, our focus is primarily sociological and anthropological: we examine how drill artists interpret their own practices, identities and experiences of misrecognition. (p.3, 124-127)

We also wanted to change the heading of Theoretical Framework to: Theoretical Framework: UK Drill Artists as Social Actors (p. 3, line 129). By doing this, we hope to show the reader our intention of using the theoretical framework as we did.

We also changed the first sentence: As presented in the introduction, this paper aims to take drill seriously as an art form (p.3, line 130-131) to: this paper aims to take drill seriously as an art form and conceptualises drill artists as social actors.

COMMENT 2: Title needs to be changed (‘around’ rather than ‘through’); introduction needs reframing; main body is clear.

Response 2: Thank you for your keen eye and concrete suggestions. Most of Comment 2 is already satisfied by our response to Comment 1.  We also added the following:

We inserted a short justification for not engaging musicological literature: Given the article’s focus on narrative and social interpretation, we do not engage with musicological debates about drill’s sonic or poetic form; such an analysis lies beyond the scope of this study (p. 4, line 137).

We finally added a one-sentence methodological reminder in the Method section: Our interview-based approach centres artists’ sociocultural interpretations rather than analysing musical form. (p. 6, lines 263-265)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, well-written and compelling paper that makes a valid contribution to discussions of UK drill and its relation to criminalisation. I believe adding the voices of drill artists is an important contribution that the author correctly identifies is mostly absent from the main works in this area. The idea of analysing and presenting these contributions through narratives - or, rather, counter-narratives - is also very interesting. I believe this paper is in good state and should be published. The main suggestion I had is that the notions of narrative and counter-narrative in the paper were slightly under-theorised, given their centrality to the argument and methodology. Maybe more could be said about them. Also, regarding the notion of presenting the paper's findings as counter-narratives, I wonder if more could have been said about tensions between the narratives identified and their underpinning - for instance, UK drill as personal/subjective artistic expression x UK drill as cultural manifestation of its context; different framings of UK drill (e.g. different notions of authenticity, different views about its growth and diversification, etc.); and so on. This could perhaps also lead to a more comprehensive discussion of the potential of these narratives to act as counter-narratives - especially since the author's definition of counter-narrative is directly linked to its capacity to challenge dominant narratives. Finally, the author mentions an engagement with intersectionality but such engagement is very limited, and indeed, according to the author's own discussion of the paper's limitations in the final sections, the study's sample of participants is also limited in its capacity to ground a thicker discussion of intersectionality.

Author Response

Comment 1: The main suggestion I had is that the notions of narrative and counter-narrative in the paper were slightly under-theorised, given their centrality to the argument and methodology. Maybe more could be said about them.  

Response 1: Thanks to the reviewer for giving these very helpful suggestions. We agree that we can make these links more explicit. We have added a reflection on counter narratives in relation to epistemic justice in lines 268-275, using decolonial work of Dutta, Azad, and Hussain that can also be read as a response to the valid criticism of reviewer 1 on the lack of critical theory. Through reference to this work we have tried to also make clear in what precise way counter narratives can challenge master narratives. To illustrate this also throughout the paper, we have tried to categorise our findings more consistently in relation to counter and master narratives in lines 294-295, 453-455, 594-596 of the results-section.   

Comment 2: Also, regarding the notion of presenting the paper's findings as counter-narratives, I wonder if more could have been said about tensions between the narratives identified and their underpinning - for instance, UK drill as personal/subjective artistic expression x UK drill as cultural manifestation of its context; different framings of UK drill (e.g. different notions of authenticity, different views about its growth and diversification, etc.); and so on. This could perhaps also lead to a more comprehensive discussion of the potential of these narratives to act as counter-narratives - especially since the author's definition of counter-narrative is directly linked to its capacity to challenge dominant narratives.  

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We recognise that there may be tensions between the different narratives. We deliberately do not elaborate on this further, given the length and word count of the article. It would be helpful if they could be brought into conversation with each other. Therefore, we have included the following in the discussion on page 18, line 812-814, to recommend that further research also focus on connections between the narratives: 

Also, it would be valuable to bring different narratives into dialogue with each other in future research in order to discover tensions and make connections between them. 

Comment 3: Finally, the author mentions an engagement with intersectionality but such engagement is very limited, and indeed, according to the author's own discussion of the paper's limitations in the final sections, the study's sample of participants is also limited in its capacity to ground a thicker discussion of intersectionality. 

Response 3: Thank you for your perspective on this point. In our study, we employed intersectionality primarily as an analytical lens through which to understand the vulnerable social positions occupied by UK drill artists, rather than as a methodological framework in its own right. The reviewer is right in their feedback that this is not made sufficiently clear, potentially suggestion that our article also aims to add to the debate on intersectionality, rather than taking it on as a point of departure. Accordingly, we have expanded the theoretical framework to clarify how intersectionality informed our approach—specifically, by examining how their positionalities as Black male artists shape the ways in which they are commonly perceived, drawing on the relevant theoretical literature. We hope that this point was also further addressed in response to reviewer 1, who has, for good reason, asked for more critical, decolonial theoretical engagement. See page 5-6, lines 244-249:  

Additionally, early research on Black youth relations with the police underscored the inherent tensions within environments of institutional racism, discrimination, and disadvantage, revealing subsequent negative portrayals perpetuated by media, education, and welfare systems (John, 1970, as cited in Barn et al., 2018; Solomos, 1993; Barn, 2001). Particularly Black men are frequently viewed as ‘perpetual suspects’ in the UK (Long, 2018).