I wrote a reply but was using this HN app for the iPhone and, of course, it didn't go through. We disagree on a couple of contentious issues, which is fine :)

I wrote a reply but was using this HN app for the iPhone and, of course, it didn't go through. We disagree on a couple of contentious issues, which is fine :) I'll try to re-cap very briefly (Argh! No time for long, deep conversations, anymore!) I think the keyword is 'meaningful'. I think Reynolds would agree that music genres and movements aren't linear or unorganic. They start, have hiccups, move and are flexible. They're dynamic. As you kind of alluded to in your edit. So, I guess we half-agree (?) on this. The African thing is a bit of a stretch, no? The comparisons I made are in-tune with each other and had stronger (and direct) ties and similarities. This is the tricky part of comparing conceptual/theoretical ties within music periods and sound, from a musicology point of view. The treatment of sound within my comparisons are much closer, I think. Also, remember that the 'electronic dance music' that is now popular in the States wasn't so in the 90s--it was underground--whereas you can make a case for it being popular in the UK in the 90s. If you hear people like Kevin Shields talk about music in the US vs. the UK back in the 90s and 80s, he talks about how the UK had a larger audience that was 'thirstier' for newer sounds and it was more accessible to 'mainstream audiences', whereas the States had a strong disparate audience and division. For example, talk to anybody in the US and ask them if they think The Smiths is mainstream. They will tell you they are not. Yet The Smiths was an extremely popular band in the UK. The same sort of thing occurs now in the radio up until now. So-called 'indie' or 'underground' music in the States is popular or listened to at a wider scale in the UK and even Canada.