Stylistic Morphing

Barry Sandwell and David Beer's article on stylistic morphing argues that there is no such thing as genre, "rather there are generic resources, parameters, incitements." (119) This would explain the fluidity of music in the ever-advancing digital age. Sandwell and Beer give several examples of artists who have crossed traditional generic boundaries (inter-morphing), artists who fit within two or more genres (trans-morphing), and artists who morph within their existing genre (intra-morphing).
The article also states that intra-morphers usually morph between serious and popular versions of their own genre. This dichotomy is mentioned in the article's conclusion as well. To me, it would be the same as the distinction between "mainstream" and "underground." Does such a clear distinction actually exist? Wouldn't that be like saying that popular music cannot be serious or that no underground artists desires to be within the mainstream? Perhaps, as Nabeel suggested last week, there is no such thing as an underground scene.
I think it's exciting that technological advances are opening so many doors for both established artists and aspiring musicicans. And so many artists are stepping out of their own generic confinement. Jay-Z, for example, did his collaboration with Linkin Park. Not one of my personal favorites, but creative all the same. Even Justin Timberlake continues to amaze me. He, like Ronan Keating and Robbie Williams (both mentioned in the article) has trans-morphed. Timberlake's music keeps some elements of the boy-band pop that initially made him popular, while also incorporating hip-hop and soul conventions.
I am curious to see if the traditional concept of genre disappears completely. Stylistic morphing can only become more prominent. In an earlier blog, I said that I had lost my faith in popular hip-hop. This article has restored my hope for music as a whole.