Notting Hill Carnival Strategic Review - Intelligent Space

service with additional staff. The total cost of this operation – approximately £100,000 – is
borne by the tenants themselves out of their rents and service charges.
1.50 A crucial aspect of residents’ concerns was the extent to which they felt unable to influence the
way in which the Carnival is managed. Views were often communicated via pre and post-Carnival
meetings organised by the two local authorities (RBKC and WCC). Apart from this, there
appeared to be no direct communication or link with the event organisers themselves. This lack
of dialogue was identified as a significant barrier and issue for Notting Hill residents who wanted
to be recognised by the organisers as a legitimate stakeholder group.
The Carnival Arenas
1.51 “Carnival bands are a feat of great organisation. There is the designing and making of the
costumes, organisation of the masqueraders, providing food and drink, hiring of the music
section and organisation of how the band will look on the road on Carnival day. This is usually
organised by one bandleader who is also the designer or an individual who acts as the band
producer or a committee of people. This organisation is based in a temporary or permanent
building where costumes are made called the mas camp. This is the working, social and cultural
heart of the band. Financial management, artistic creativity and social organisation are crucial
ingredients for the organisation of a Carnival masquerade band. Plans and preparations start 9
to 12 months before the coming festival.” 39
1.52 During the second phase of this review, representatives of all the Carnival arenas - the
masqueraders, calypsonians, soca DJs, static sound system DJs and the steel band players - were
given an opportunity to address members of the Review Group in detail at a series of public
hearings held between April and July 2001. The hearings were used by the disciplines to not
only offer their views as to what they felt the critical issues or concerns were, but also to connect
with and share information across the various disciplines themselves. In that sense, the hearings
(there were eleven in all) became extremely important vehicles for the dissemination of
information about Carnival. It also became evident that in many cases, the disciplines tended to
be quite insular in their approach: prior to the public hearings for example, it emerged that there
had been little or no systematic interaction between the static sound system DJs and the
masquerade bands. In the earlier stages of the hearings, some members of the “traditional”
Carnival arenas (i.e. masquerade bands, soca DJs and calypsonians) expressed open hostility
towards the static sound systems and questioned their presence at the Carnival, with the
problems of Carnival – overcrowding and rising crime figures - being laid squarely at their feet.
As the hearings progressed, attendees were able to listen to the views of other Carnival arenas
and that of the sound systems in particular. This gave rise to a small but noticeable shift
amongst members of the ‘traditional’ sections of the art form.
1.53 There was a clear recognition that the sound systems represented modern black popular culture,
served an important role in the Carnival environment and more significantly, communicated a
message and a language that engaged young people. At one level this was an inter-generational
issue. A strategy would have to be found to ensure that all the various elements, which go to
make up the Carnival, can co-exist in relative harmony. A number of issues were common to all
the artistic arenas:
1.53.1 lack of recognition of the immense work and skill involved in creating the spectacle of
Carnival.
39
Michael La Rose, “A Short History of Carnival in the Caribbean and Britain”, June 1999, p8
48