re: government intervention in music, look at Canada (I would say that...)
Gov't intervention works here at a couple of levels. First, there are the "cancon" (canadian content) regulations on radio stations (and TV channels too). A certain percentage of prime-time radio airplay must play canadian content. Canadian content is determined by some (probably out of touch) formula which takes into account the composer, the performer, and the recording, among other things. The point of these regulations is to reserve some airtime for canadian music etc., against total takeover by the big-$$$ US industry. The consensus among Canadians similar to the people who browse this forum seems to be that the result of this kind of intervention has led to a medium-sized selection of very mediocre singers and bands having bigger careers (mainly in Canada, but sometimes outside, as in, say, Nickleback) than they might otherwise have had. So, nothing thrilling from that angle.
However, the government also gives out small grants to independent musicians to record albums, do tours, host websites, etc. Although some of this is controversial, it has allowed a fair number of independent musicians and groups to get more exposure than they might otherwise have had... This is certainly true of middle level Toronto and Montreal indie bands (most of whom, I'm sure many dissensians would not love!). I don't really know how many of these grants go to more electronic/dance style musicians, nor whether they have made much of a difference in that sort of scene. Anyway, this second type of gov. intervention, if done right, seems rather congenial to me...
of course this really doesn't have too much to do with grime meeting the symphony. I'm pretty damn skeptical of what the results might be, but it seems worth a try. Remember Portishead's live disc?