Untitled

I rarely post images of men, but in tribute to @danni-gurrl's amazing song that she recently posted, I thought I'd add my contribution. Most of my music I use for my YouTube channel, and it's all very emotional and heartfelt. This one is called "The Dress that Held the Sky". Trust me, this isn't AI slop - it's written and edited by me, with lots of revisions and fixes (hence why V5!)

It's a beautifully poignant song about a simple sun dress which held the memories of lost summers and heartache. The lyrics are very personal, using specific, sensory memories - frayed straps, the smell of sunscreen, ticket stubs - to evoke a powerful sense of nostalgia and a love that outlived its promise. The closing image of a new girl twirling in a changing room, unaware of the ghosts clothes can hold, is a devastating and perfect conclusion.

It's absolutely worth a listen. Please do.

The first version was originally heard on one of my petticoat specials:

(because a brand built on chaos eventually collapses under its own weight)

The City Girls started with fire:

loud, fun, unapologetic Miami energy —

a “get money, live fast” feminine identity people ate up.

And for a moment?

It WORKED.

They had:

• the summer anthems

• the party girl aesthetic

• the meme culture

• the Instagram influence

• the early TikTok wave

But somewhere between the scandals, the branding gimmicks, and the personal drama overshadowing the music — the City Girls went from “movement” to “mess.”

Let’s talk about the rise…

and the fall.

⸻

1. The City Girls brand was always built on lifestyle, not artistry.

Their appeal was never bars and lyricism — it was:

• aesthetic

• personality

• chaos

• rawness

• humor

• attitude

They sold “the lifestyle.”

But here’s the catch:

a lifestyle brand can’t survive when the lifestyle becomes unbelievable.

As fame grew:

• the music didn’t evolve

• the persona stayed surface-level

• the shock value wore off

When your entire brand is “act up, get snatched up”…

people expect evolution eventually.

⸻

2. Their individual controversies overshadowed the music.

Both women had public headline moments that became bigger than their art.

JT:

• Known for explosive Twitter rants

• Constantly arguing with fans, blogs, and other rappers

• Developing a reputation for being confrontational online

This made her go viral more for drama than discography.

Yung Miami (Caresha):

• Her highly public relationship with Diddy drove way more conversation than her music

• The messy public situation became a meme

• People began focusing on her life, not her craft

Both became tabloid personalities instead of musicians.

And once fans start following the drama instead of the music?

The music becomes optional.

⸻

3. The audience changed — but they didn’t.

The hot-girl wave came and went.

People matured.

Female rap evolved.

Women wanted:

• actual lyricism

• versatility

• vulnerability

• storytelling

• longevity

• good albums

Meanwhile the City Girls stayed in one lane:

• party music

• club anthems

• surface-level content

So they got stuck in the very era they created.

⸻

4. Their brand wasn’t relatable anymore.

You can’t rap about “scamming n*ggas”

while dating billionaires

and living in mansions

and flying private jets.

The fantasy broke.

The authenticity cracked.

Listeners felt the disconnect.

⸻

5. Their music performance started slipping.

You even said it yourself:

“They make party music that isn’t pulling numbers like other female rappers.”

That’s because their formula didn’t evolve while other women diversified:

• Ice Spice mastered aesthetic marketing

• Doja Cat evolved musically

• Megan established consistency

• GloRilla tapped authenticity

• Latto tapped mainstream appeal

• Flo Milli tapped internet culture

Meanwhile City Girls doubled down on the same early-2019 vibe.

⸻

6. Their chemistry and unity started looking… off.

Fans noticed:

• less joint interviews

• less coordinated branding

• different artistic directions

• less promo together

• energy shifts on stage

The “duo” branding started to feel forced.

Once the audience senses disconnect, it’s over.

⸻

7. Pop culture moved beyond the “scam girl aesthetic.”

That whole wave —

luxury flexing, Birkin obsession, “F boys get no money” —

peaked.

People grew up.

Entertainment matured.

Even TikTok humor evolved.

The audience wanted depth —

and the City Girls stayed strictly surface.

⸻

8. Meanwhile, controversies kept piling — and overshadowing everything.

The Diddy situation especially dominated headlines.

Not getting into unverified accusations — but the public mess, the optics, and the overall chaos damaged her brand.

Because suddenly people were not laughing with her…

they were laughing at her.

When your persona becomes a meme, the music suffers.

⸻

9. The City Girls never established a solid core fanbase.

This is the biggest factor.

Their audience was:

• casual listeners

• social media users

• viral-moment enjoyers

NOT dedicated fans who stick around for albums.

Compare that to:

• Nicki

• Megan

• Cardi

• Doja

• SZA

Those women have fanbases, not just “listeners.”

When the hype slowed, the City Girls had no foundation to stand on.

⸻

Final Message: The Rise Was Loud — The Fall Was Predictable

The City Girls didn’t fall because they were “bad artists.”

They fell because the machine they built was:

• unstable

• image-based

• controversy-driven

• one-dimensional

• drama-reliant

They created a trend, but never evolved past it.

They sold an aesthetic, but never reinforced it with artistry.

They went viral, but never built loyalty.

Their story is a case study in how branding without growth collapses.

The industry changed…

but they didn’t.

And that’s how they went from the girls of the moment

I have just watched Paapa Essiedu in clips of the RSC at the Lowry and he absolutely has the acting chops to pull off Snape and do it well. In different circumstances, I absolutely would love to see him do a reading of the potions speech just because that delivery would be spectacular. Also the scene at the end of both POA and GOF because this man can do both fear and rage - seriously check out his Hamlet here and here

He has the build and with a little finessing of the descriptions of the character he absolutely could be tall, thin, lanky haired (wig) with a prominent (not necessarily hooked, but prominent) nose and unhealthy pallor. It would be no more an extreme change than casting a brunet as a blond, or a blue eyed kid as a character with green eyes.

He could speak to the American audience to open up the issues of class that Snape as a character faced in the UK in the 1970s, though there is an entire can of worms to be handled with extreme care if they're going to lean into his color and not just hand wave it as colorblind casting (which might be the better option, honestly, do you want Rowling to be consciously writing a black man? Give her three episodes she'll have single-handedly revived the blacksploitation genre with this character...)

My concern, other than Rowling's inability to write anyone who isn't cis, straight and Whitey McWhiteface with even an ounce of cultural sensitivity, is this;

Does this actor with the world at his feet really want to subject himself to the years of rampant and vicious racism from the audience that playing Snape will inspire?

Does he want to be the face of a clueless and unwilling to learn white writer grappling with racial issues using a character that she has already made it clear she ardently dislikes?

Does he want to throw away his credibility as an actor by throwing in his lot with a production that we already know is going to fail utterly?

Any actor who takes any role in that series has to accept that they are throwing in their lot with Rowling and that they will be expected to toe the line of not speaking against her politics. I don't know what his politics are, but he needs to know what he's willing to support and what he isn't if he chooses to proceed (this goes for all actors coming into this franchise).

If he has the support system to weather the racism and he thinks he can make it a good piece for his portfolio then it might be worth it for him, but he's no starving young actor desperate for a break. He's headlined for the RSC at the Lowry, twice. He doesn't need Rowling or HBO.

Most of the fandom who would be his character's natural fanbase aren't going to be watching for as long as JK has creative control or benefits from it, so it's going to be a lonely few years and a hard slog to for him connecting with audiences until the show eventually fizzles out before he even gets chance to play the character redeemed or sympathetic (if it isn't cancelled before then).

Despite me not EVER touching this shit with a 100 foot pole, them making a villain coded snape Black is gross.

However there's a actual serious conversation in here about how anti blackness is woven into the culture of society. Not just the U.S.A.. Whiteness is widely accepted and considered the norm. Anti blackness is the norm. Too the point that regardless of political stance (Republicans, Democrats, liberal, conservative) folks will inherently have some form of anti blackness indoctrinated in them. It's funny. Folks are pissed about this, but ok with a white man playing a romani character in a movie. Because white people are considered the norm. And that's racism/white supremacy. This whole conversation is basically that in a nutshell.

And white people especially will never cop to it or understand it because they benefit from it and it's indoctrinated in them. They'll make excuses (like the 1st comment I saw about Adam driver knowing damn well they can't afford him) or say it's a bad script (to most are honest because when they see a black made or focused film they'll automatically claim the script is bad, similar to when they see a black pilot and think d.e.i.). What I'm saying is racism is ingrained in our society. White supremacy is ingrained in our society. And it's not some skinhead.