> I'm trying to think of newer styles

Future bass (Illenium, Mura Masa), bass house (Habstrakt, Jauz, Matroda), g-house isn't new, but it recently became popular (Malaa, Bijou, Dr. Fresch), future house (Oliver Heldens, Martin Solveig, Don Diablo, Zonderling). Also I could swear Chris Lorenzo's and Chris Lake's songs in recent couple of years (especially under the Anti Up pseudonym) are forming their own thing.

Nice, those are all glaring omissions from the chart. Although if you trace them back, weren't most of them initiated in the early 2010's?

> Playlist culture negates the need for a clear taxonomy of music

Very true. Playlist culture has the potential to organise and label sound aesthetics in ways that genres do not do justice. My playlists are labelled similarly like "Silk" (mostly smooth and deep house with elements of other electronic genres that fit the aesthetic). Silk is obviously not a genre but it's a valid taxonomy to me.

> It takes a few years of hindsight to recognize what is a real genre and not just marketing/hype

I think this has greatly shortened in recent years. I think new genres can be clearly defined on timescales of months or less although it's hard to verify the "legitimacy" of a new genre.

> Electronic music is "done"

There are lots of traditional folk genres and acoustic styles that don't have a clear synergy with electronic genres yet, I'm sure more will surface.

> 3) Electronic music is "done": most interesting permutations of notes, rhythms and timbres have been tried already

hold my beer

It's not up to date by any measure. There are new electronic genres popping up yearly, and usually it's the opposite of what you describe. Usually one artist does something new, quickly gets labeled and then the copycats start up. It's almost a branding exercise. Genres come and go as you say, and technically most genres are "hype" as they tend to last only briefly. There's nothing unique or new about that.

I don't understand point 3 and how that relates to electronic music specifically. There's a technically-infinite but practically-shallow set of pop music configurations and, yes, most have been done. What differentiates similar songs is composition, timbre, tempo, instrumentation choice, etc. In that regard electronic music has a wider palette to work with.

It's akin to sorting an incoming set of something like Lego, where you never know what's coming next.

Do you need a bin for "red"? Or a bin for "2x4"? Or will there be enough for "2x4 red"? Should this new "red hat" become it's own bin, and if so is it "hats", "red figure decorations" or "misc"?

You don't really know until a bunch of the same things come in (or don't), and guaranteed you'll get a bunch wrong along the way.

Of course any style of music can get old and repetitive. But electronic music in particular has been very tied to the technological development of electronic instruments, from the moog modular and forward. A style like jungle/dnb was simply not possible before the advent of samplers and sequencers (well in theory you could do it with tape machines, but). Since about 2005 we can do "just about anything" with DAWs and plugins.

With the development of additive synthesis techniques, technically any form of audio/sound is possible. However, replicating a single acoustic (or "organic") sound - much less an entire composition - through this technique would be strenuous and prohibitively labor intensive. Analogously, it would be like rendering a new banana by arranging some atoms.

Although we can technically "do anything" with the tools before us, there are still great strides to be made in harnessing the power to organize and control them. For this reason, I think we're still far from seeing the full potential of electronic music. We need better tools, and methods for manipulation of electronic instruments. We can barely even replicate and sequence the timbral control of something as seemingly simple as singing.

Anyone who thinks that electronic music is “done” should listen to Iglooghost. Most fresh and unique music I’ve heard in a long time. It sounds like it was made by aliens (while still beinhg quite catchy and listenable, IMO).

To my ears, Iglooghost sounds like an extension of hyperpop. Listen to "Super Ink Burst" after "Immaterial" by Sophie.

The hyperactive, glossy aesthetic is definitely similar, although I'd place Iglooghost closer to hip-hop/grime (e.g. "White Gum"). Sophie sounds more like a mutated version of chart pop music.

> 3) Electronic music is "done": most interesting permutations of notes, rhythms and timbres have been tried already

Have you heard last week's release 'Promises' by Floating Points, Pharoah Sanders, and the LSO? I haven't heard anything like it before (although that might be me), and it completely blew me away.

My guess is that genres have become kinda diluted, because they've been sliced hyperfine. Wouldn't you rather be "the preeminent producer of Shoe-Slap HyperPunk Shibuya-by-way-of-Baghdad Grunge Disco!" than "A decent enough Techno composer"?

You show me a playlist of "techno" I've never seen before, I have a general idea what I'm in for. You tell me about "future bass", I have no clue.

Some of these genres seem more like they're really about some specific artist rather than a "genre", that is, the "genre" means something more like "I'm inspired by this artist or small number of artists" more than anything that ought to be called a "genre", if genre is to have any meaning.

... and as evidence... consult your own emotional reaction. Does it feel like I just "attacked" your favorite genre? That's actually my point; "genre" somehow carries cache with it that "being inspired by" doesn't. So of course there's a rush to declare new genres at a breakneck speed.

I can't see how you'd think niche subgenres are replaceable by "influencing artists", for even very niche subgenres don't tend to gravitate around a single artist as you imply. Niche, and at first glance similar stuff like future bass, future funk and kawaii future bass are still easy to tell apart and have many artists producing original sounds that people still associate to the genre.

I don't understand your point in the end either, but it feels like you're trying to project anger onto other people. Do you feel angry that electronic music genres are not as easy to understand as you hoped and are trying to rationalize this as people coming up with random genres for publicity? Try to think of clear, obvious examples that should validate your rationalization, if it is more than just that then you'll easily be able to come up with a few without reaching for a search engine.

I guess if I had to summarize my point, you get more of what you reward. If you reward people for identifying themselves as super-niche genres with acclamation, you're going to get an absurdly-finely-sliced set of genres. It doesn't mean those hyper-fine genres are necessarily all that useful.

If anything, I kinda think it hurts artists to be slicing this finely. You can't really just be ambiently "creative" without having some sort of constraint and structure around you, but jumping into a really small box isn't necessarily a great plan either.

That's a big lol at any form of music being "done". How and when would you judge something as broad as a musical style to be "done"?

In your opinion, if most of the "interesting permutations have been tried" what innovations would it take for a new genre/style to develop and broaden the scope of what can be expressed?