Learned that word from Magic. I don't know if she coined it, or just used it. But it's a great word. Music is Music. It makes a little bit of sense to classify music to some degree. But slicing it and dicing it into a plethora of itty-bitty categories so that people can argue over what each category means, or whether a band belongs in this tiny little box or that other tiny little box is a fool's exercise. Why should the decade a band or song started in be important? Were the songs popular in 1961 all that different from the songs in 1959? Were the popular songs of 1969 all that similar to the popular songs of 1961? Do the decades run like normal numbers, 1 through 10, so that the 60's were 1961 through 1970, or did the 60's begin on January 1, 1960? Does anyone count to ten 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9? So why wouldn't the 70's be '71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80? Does something magical happen when the decade changes? Do all the recordings that were being worked on towards the end of the decade get erased instead of releasing them in the new decade? What about songs or albums that sold well for an entire year, from the Summer of the last year of one decade until the Summer of the first year of the next decade? Which decade does that album belong to? Why should anyone even care? Why is the decade of a piece of music even a thing that needs to be acknowledged? Why are Folk music and Celtic music mashed together? Folk music is any and all "music of the people" (aka "the folk"). Celtic music is the music of the Celts, a distinctive group of European people. Yes, since the Celts are "folk", Celtic music is, I suppose, a branch of folk music. So is Flamenco, polkas, Klezmer, zydeco and dozens of other kinds of music of specific "folk". And, modern folk music isn't really music of the folk, it's just a catch-all for anything and everything performed on acoustic instruments, except for the acoustic music that the suits pigeonhole as something else. What makes Jazz and Blues bedfellows? Jazz includes both BeBop and Dixieland. What does a bunch of hipsters playing atonal improvisations on pianos in smoky nightclubs have in common with sharecroppers relaxing after a hard day working in the fields? It gets worse! It's the evil overlords of the music industry that created the concept of genres, though they use weasel words like "formats" to hide their loathsomeness. I'm referring to the suits who run the recording industry, and their cohorts in crime, the suits who ran terrestrial radio into the ground. They are the leeches who suck the lifeblood from music and musicians. They declare which musical styles will get exposure and airplay on the radio, and who will get access to recording equipment and distribution channels. Granted, in modern times, a creator of music no longer needs access to multi-million dollar studios to make good quality recordings. Nor do they need access to expensive equipment to make hard copies of their music for sale. Despite that, the evil legacy of the suits survive. What sense does it make to force any musical act into a teeny, tiny little box? Can't a band or solo artist possibly make multiple recordings in multiple styles? So why is it that if a band gets a "hit" record, usually because the suits decided to make the recording a hit, henceforth and forever the band is classified as being in the genre that song fit into? Take action! Whether you are a maker of music, a listener of music, or both, refuse to play the game. Do not support any attempt to compel you to pigeonhole individual pieces of music, recorded albums of music, or makers of music. If you want to talk about music, talk about the music. Just don't talk about what genre it belongs in. It belongs in the genre "MUSIC".