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.
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.
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.