the fact is there's just not any single form around at the moment that's exciting / revolutionary enough to galvanize people together en masse, in the way that jungle, grime or dubstep dd. Web 2.0 makes it very hard for such scenes to take place anyway, because it removes the private, small-locality embryonic, digestive stage that such scenes need to form. And for sure, such scenes don't take place in university campuses, for whatever reason, they tend to come about in more cash strapped localities. i wouldnt care to speculate why.
But what do you expect these "post-dubstep" artists to do? They are doing nothing other than following their inspirations, which is the only real responsibility an artist has to their audience, and themselves. Charging them with inauthenticity doesn't stick much, if they're being authentic to themselves. Also, almost all of them lovingly and loyally soldiered in narrow scenes (dubstep, jungle, grime) before all of this. That counts, as they aren't the fickle petty, parasitic bourgeois art school types that they're being portrayed to be. Their old scenes were hijacked, remember. Esp dubstep & jungle.
Not a single argument can be raised to someone who simply doesn't engage with what they're hearing, and if you need revolutionary, scenius, "street" orientated music to get you going, none of this stuff is going to work much.
But an argument can be raised against someone objecting to non-scene music on purely ideological grounds. Because they're letting intellectual objects / junk skew the felt-sense of openly listening to music. And that is what I feel reynolds is doing.. he's built up a big conceptual frame work, which worked for a time (perhaps not any more?), and is accepting or rejecting music based on how well it fits into that. This is what a lot of blog types (im sorry if that sounds snarky) fall prey to , thinking about music rather than genuinely feel it. Ony reynolds really knows if thats the case however. maybe he just thinks it all sounds like shit. and well, a lot of it does.