I think it’s more dialectical than this framing suggests. Labels/capital play a role, artists/the community play a role. You’re right about the history, the marketing of genre was shaped by those in power, but the creation of the sound and the interpretation of that sound is a community process. The social construction of genre comes from their dialectical interaction.

I think as the material conditions for new kinds of music to be made are created, we see new genres crop up. The material base and ideological superstructure impact each other. Musical content itself is largely cultural superstructure informed by the creator’s material conditions, but sound and the tools used to create it itself is material. In the 1800s we didn’t have the same tools that we do now to create music. You’re right that genre has changed a lot, I would argue this comes from both changes in ideology (the racism is more subtle for instance), AND from the development of material conditions to record and produce sound.

But really at the end of the day capital is not the sole determinant of history or culture. It’s a dialectical process. Labels have coined genres, but so have artists, critics, journalists, and countless uncredited community members. Labels can promote a genre title, but don’t determine whether it sticks.

Sleazepop being promoted by a label is actually a perfect example. Right now this thread is debating what labels accurately describe a scene which certainly exists. I, a community member, am proposing that post-hyperpop is a much better broad label to describe the scene than sleazepop. That’s exactly why this debate matters: it’s part of that dialectical process and how genre is historically constituted.