I didn't mean that in a completely literal sense, but yeah, talk to or read any interview with any influential artist in the music industry and they'll tell you the same thing, that being put in a box and limiting yourself to genres only limits your creativity as an artist. Genre's exist literally, sure, but do they make sense anymore? I think thats up for debate. Its just a way to limit people to exposure of different kinds of music and keep them closed minded.
The bold part above btw is a strong argument for why the use of genres don't make sense anymore, because this is the direction that literally all of music in general is taking whether or not anyone likes it.
Genres make sense depending on what you use them for. They're essentially just shorthand for a sound, now. If you were refusing to use genres like they were some kinda anathema to meaningful discussion, I suppose you could answer the question "what kind of music is
Blonde by Frank Ocean?" with a mini-review: "Trippy, delicate, experimental, minimalist R&B with avant-garde-inspired arrangements." But it's not only shorter to refer people to the
Alt R&B page on Wikipedia, but condensing these descriptors into a tag confers meaning to the history of that music, lifts up other artists who take on the same banner, and creates momentum around good ideas.
For example,
here is Big Freedia talking about being an ambassador for bounce -- in which she educates the interviewer on how bounce music rose up from New Orleans. I think that's beautiful. That's not the only interview where she does that, either.
I'm a musician myself, I get what you're saying regarding the prickliness musicians feel when asked to label themselves or respond to being labeled. But to be honest, micro-genres are so prevalent now you can pretty much call yourselves by any label you want, embrace it, talk about where it's coming from and what it means to you, and never be put in a "box" in the process.
Uncelestial is the worst dude to have a conversation about music with. Genre tags are so fucking stupid. Don't get him started on Grimes.
I'm sure you have a lot more to add to the discussion that will explain why what I just said was crazy and why people like Big Freedia should shut up; it's a shame you forgot to post it, tho.
Also, I'll say it again, regarding Grimes: In the age of Black Lives Matter and the post-Trump resistance, soft-as-hell white pop music holds no interest for me. I want artists to have melanin and/or anger about the state of the world and/or challenging, novel musical ideas. If you are zero for three, as Grimes was on her last album (I have always granted her that
Visions at least had a cool DIY/solo auteur aesthetic), then I have no use for you and your shit is not revelatory or necessary. Grimes makes "I haven't had an overdraft fee in 5 years" pop music. Pitchfork's sweet tooth is on display both on this pop-overloaded list and their lifting of Grimes to, literally, "song of the decade." I mean, really? If we're all just going to hang out pleasuring ourselves to pale-ass, wispy pop music, then I don't know what it will take for music to rise up and be part of the zeitgeist again. When fucking Green Day has more to say about the world than you do, you are not the artist of the decade.