Music, like so much else, is one of the things we need to stop judging based on "tidy lil boxes" and instead simply put it all in one box, call it music and be done.
Some of why music is categorized -- rock, pop, jazz, R&B, blues, country, classical, etc. -- makes sense to me, and some of it doesn't. It makes sense from a marketing POV to classify music because doing so is essential to developing a marketing strategy. It also makes sense that the music industry gives more than simply a single superlative award, say, "best song," because doing so makes it easier to promote more rather than fewer songs/artists. Additionally, it's very hard to compare music across styles. Then there is the "democratization" dilemma:
- Should evaluators judge music as we judge, say, Olympic gymnasts and skaters where quality of execution and artistry, along with the difficulty of the routine as a whole all factor into the overall score?
- Should evaluators judge music based on market outcomes?
The same conflict exists among films. There are the theater blockbusters the general public really enjoys, as well they should for such films are quite entertaining, however, as manifestations of art of filmmaking, they're "not all that." There are also the films that may not have tons of popular appeal; however, they embody the artistic qualities filmmakers prize. And, once in a while, there's the film that is a knockout in both regards.
On the other hand, Lil Naz thinks his song is a country song. To me it sounds like a merger of country and hip-hop/rap: the lyrical themes are straight-up country; however, the musical flavor is rap/hip-hop. I'd say, therefore, that the song belongs on both charts.
Of course, if I had my way, there'd just be one chart: top songs. I'd have it that way because, for myself, there is no genre of music that has nothing I like and though I can say I like "this" song better than "that" one, but I want to hear them both, and it really doesn't matter to me in what category either song falls.
