I was talking with someone today and realized I did something I do quite often that might be a trait that gets me into trouble: I boldly state my preference for (or against) something.
In this case, it was being tired of classic rock from a lifetime of overexposure. I think I offended the person, but saved it by clarifying that I’m mostly tired that there is a play list of seemingly 100-songs that have been in continual rotation for 50 years.
Anyway, it occurs to me that I’m just stating my preferences and I personally thing that’s fine and normal, but that people get personally offended if you don’t like what they like; which makes no sense to me. It’s like if you don’t like bland food, I’m not going to get offended because I can’t handle anything hotter than black pepper. It doesn’t ultimately mean anything significant.
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
Country has a lot more range than people give it credit for. Most people hear “country” and they think of CMT, Toby Keith, Garth Brooks… but that’s just “pop”… seriously it’s just Pop Country. Like there’s Pop R&B or Pop Rock… but we of course understand there’s more to “rock” than just Nickelback and Creed. But Country never gets the same level of scrutiny. People hear “bro country” once and think that’s the whole genre.
You’re listening to the most bland made for mass consumption version of the genre. Just like “techno” can be split in drum-n-bass, phonk, trance, etc… Country splits into many more complex genres. There’s bluegrass, outlaw, honky-tonk, and even gothic country.
Look up more artists, you wouldn’t judge all of rap by Vanilla Ice.
“I hate country” is a perfectly valid was of expressing that you hate what most people conceive of as “country” music–the stuff they hear on the radio, the socially normative trash to bottlefeed alcoholic manchildren through a thematically impoverished nipple of watered down rock.
But I agree with you that country has some really amazing range to it, though I’d have no idea where to listen to new stuff that doesn’t suck.