[mdp2021]

From the article:

> Specifically, the confusion of the genre system disturbed the means for the proper release of the soul’s passions, causing audiences to be ruled instead by their unfettered emotions and impulses

I.e.: there are more ways to tackle the same topic, to develop an artistic work about some area. And there are progressive and regressive experiences. The topic is clearly too hefty to be summarize here - but the very submission has several points of "progressive vs regressive" expression as its theme...

If the poster writes «quite disturbing», probably he means that "the progressive is not there" (as sensible interpretation).

[specproc]

Many of the acts I listed there were truly genre-defying, progenitors, originators and auteurs: I'd point to the Beatles, Sabbath and Zappa as some cases in point. For me it's a tough stretch to argue that any of them had a genre system disturbing the release of their soul's passions.

Sex and intoxication, two of life's finer pleasures, have for millennia been captured in art, song and poetry -- at various points in civilisations' rise and fall. Pearl-clutching around "disturbing" modern music is, I'm sorry, something that's been going on pretty much as long as there's been music.

[mdp2021]

> finer

You chose an especially wrong word there (etymonline: «unblemished, refined, pure, free of impurities»).

But it leads to revealing that you seem to be embracing "one side", while the whole of the article was about "that side of yours fighting the other side" - can you see the other side?

If when speaking about music you refer it to intoxication, then of course since that kind of music has been there some noted it's "disturbing".

--

Edit: incidentally: it seems checking again the chain of posts that you definitely misunderstood my use of 'progressive'. (If you related it to «genre-defying, progenitors, originators» - no, that's really not the direction meant.)

It is again something that has "intoxicant" as an opposite.