That's literally in OP's post

Fleetwood Mac has 3. Linsey Buckingham, Christine McVie (R.I.P.), and Stevie Nicks.

All 3 wrote equal amounts of songs and sang equal amounts.

I want to make it with you by Bread

Came here to say this

https://open.spotify.com/album/049BOD1Z0UGXHD0oOmTzd8

She by Tyler, the Creator

According to Mike Damone side one of Led Zeppelin IV.

“Tyler” - Toadies

Can’t Fight This Feeling- REO Sppedwagon

Closer - Nine Inch Nails

EAST - Earl Sweatshirt

First Date - Blink 182

The Bad Touch

Mamba number 5 of course

Ed Sheeran - perfect

Bruno Mars - just the way you are

Mastodon, Mushroomhead

ZZ Top

Garbage

Linkin Park

Of Monsters and Men

Depeche Mode

Heh trruuu. To answer you though, genres only have utility if theyre popular enough for the fan base or general public to give them a name. This isnt unprecedented. Look at the history of grunge for instance. Kurt Cobain paved his own lane and enough people wanted to give that music its own identity that it became grunge. If a new and different sound comes up but not enough people follow it or too few people think it deserves it's own name, i dont think itll get a name. If a famus person made an album of white noise and screaming, i dont think anyone will name it. If they do, itll likely just be called "abstract music" or something like that and in that genre there will be a lot of unrelated types of music that also never got a following

Dang u killed me

Sounds like the same genre as whatever Miley Cyrus does.

ZZZZIIIIINNNNGGG

Okay I get your point dude. But to what genre will you attribute white noise with indistinct melodies in the background and screaming like a chimpanzee vocals that are impossible to listen to. What genre does that music at least come close to? But people call it music you know. I myself think that "genre" is an offshoot of music that a group of people like, and dont care what is dat "music" sounds lıke. That's all.

Genre is conditional, changes as time goes by and depending on a mass of people identifying it as such.

What youre asking is a question about taxonomy and taxonomy questions are always kinda annoying and pointless. In broad strokes we know what the different genres of music are but when you zoom in and try to split hairs you'll realize things are more grey than they appear.

I'll give you some bad examples. Take nickleback for instance, are they more rock or country? Can we except that they're inbetween? What happens if there are two groups of people: one who thinks theyre a "rock-country inbetween" group and another who thinks that their genre is different enough from both rock and country that it deserves to be its own thing called "rountry".. who is more correct?

We havent even gotten into how genres change over time. Frank Sinatra is often called a pop singer, but when I think of pop today, he does not fit the bill. Again lets say there are two camps: one who wants to call sinatra jazz cuz he sounds more jazz than pop from today's prospective and another who wants to call him pop cuz thats what he was originally and we need to accept the genres change over time... who is more correct.

Frankly we just need to accept that these genres are semi democratically made lables that help us understand the types of music we like and we shouldnt put a lot of stock in them. But yes btw new genres can be created. It'll be just as hard to define them as previous genres but itll happen

Btw i am just writing this to procrastinate on smth else I'm supposed to be writing. Hope you enjoyed lol