What's Better Rock or Country?

[Cold Start 21]

So every one what's better? Country or Rock? you tell me your thoughts.

[Megas 27,571]

lol almost no one is going to pick country. Rock is one of the most popular music genres while country is the complete opposite.

 

Personally I grew up with rock music so it has a big place in my heart. I have a good share of country music that I enjoy, but it's not a genre I care much for

[TheRockARooster 50,821]

I'm gonna have to pick Rock but I love Country as well.

 

Bur Rock has been the genre of music that has made interested in music and helped me through tough times.

 

My favourite band is KISS.

[rarity1 461]

I like them both.

 

My favorite rock band is Linkin Park.

 

One of my favorite country songs is from Fallout: New Vegas.

[Lil Pip 775]

Rock appeals to more people thus it is superior. I also like rock more. There are 976m results for country and 816m for rock though in google. So my assumption rock was better may have been misguided.

[An Unknown Pony. 370]

I made a similar topic before,except i added pop into the poll.

Anyway,Rock,even tho i like both genres.

[1111 1,284]

I like rock more but how can you objectify something as opinionistic  as you're taste in music.

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,824]

Hard to say for me. I like country because sometimes, you gotta chill, you gotta lay back, but often times, quite a few of those country songs can be a bit depressing. Rock gets me pumped, but sadly, not all rock is positive, some talk about sex, drugs, fame and other controversial themes. It's a 50/50 for me. 

[Envy 6,147]

I'll definitely have to go with rock! I really hate to generalize, but it's just true in this case... Country is no fun to listen to. I've been forced to listen to it so many times, and all of the songs fit into one or both categories - depressing to such an extent that even I can't take it (and I listen to a lot of depressing music and have no problem with it, it's just country's version of depressing) or extremely irritating.

 

I don't like the vocals. I don't like the instrumentation. Country just isn't appealing to me at all. There's plenty of rock that isn't appealing to me, as well, but rock definitely wins this one because at least some of it IS appealing to me. lol. Country... No. It's one of those genres that I just don't and can't like, period.

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm just sick and tired of country. It is such a love or hate genre, yet it's pushed on me so much. I don't make other people listen to my music, so they should learn to keep their's to themselves. Seriously. Maybe then I would shut up about not liking country music.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Envy

[Mesme Rize 15,683]

Rock all the way baby. Most of my favorite bands and artists are playing in the rock genre.

 

But, i won't hate on Country though. There is actually a bit of country that i like. Especially from Johnny Cash.

[Guest]

Two words: Johnny Cash

 

 

He is definition of both.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Gone Airbourne

[Denim&Venöm 18,753]

Oh rock all the way, hooves down. Country is very limited in it's subject matter. In general, it tends to revolve around beer, depression, the troops, Jesus and 'Murica. Like some on here, country was kinda forced on me, by my mom when she had that phase, by my school busdriver for about a year, and by my nearest mini-mart. It's depressing or annoying. It's actually my 3rd least favorite genre behind rap and pop. But it still falls into my disdain category. 

 

On the other hand, rock happens to be my favorite music genre behind heavy metal. It's more diverse in it's subject matter, from relationships & issues of self, to relationships and sex,drugs & namesake, to political and anti-establishment, etc. It also has more energy, mroe diversity in ti's sounds, more sub-genres, more musicianship, more of a DIY attitude.

 

That and country doesn't have guitar solos.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVJjV94ZNzs

[SilyGeny 369]

I actually really enjoy both but I would tend more to like rock because of the hundreds and hundreds of subgenres it has

[Daring_Do 552]

Mm, I've gotta say country.

[MLPFanatic34 3,234]

I have to go with Rock on this one.

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,259]

I like both just about equally. 

[CT-1138 3,182]

Rock n' roll all the way, baby!

[MEOWKB48 1,864]

Personally I prefer rock music

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,356]

In my opinion, Rock, by far. While not all Rock music is spot on, it has far more variety and diversity than the vast majority of country music. Country is one of the very few genres that I dislike, mainly because a lot of it sounds far too similar and the subjects always feel so....exploitive. Rock has it's moments of this as well, but in my opinion, to a much lesser extent. 

[Lucky Star 972]

Normally I go for the j-pop and show tunes side of music.

but when it comes to these two, I'll go for rock, like the beatles kinda of rock. 

 

though growing up there were some country songs I liked, I can rarely say that I like any these days.

if I listen to country now, the song is nine times outta ten from the sixties and seventies or earlier.

 

One name for you, loretta lynn.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Lucky Star

[Kit 102]

Rock. Rock any day. I don't usually listen to country--ever.

[Wonderbolt 68]

I have to say Country, but there is not much in it I love Rock as well.

  Both genres are sadly missing from the UK top 40 =p

Edited October 13, 2015 by Wonderbolt

[Omega Centauri 317]

We talking about new country music or old country music?

 

I like old country music, but despise most newer "country" musicians.

 

Either way, I like Rock better.

Rock appeals to more people thus it is superior. I also like rock more. There are 976m results for country and 816m for rock though in google. So my assumption rock was better may have been misguided.

 

I'm confused. Are you trying to say that one genre of music can be objectively better than another?

[Lil Pip 775]

We talking about new country music or old country music?

 

I like old country music, but despise most newer "country" musicians.

 

Either way, I like Rock better.

 

I'm confused. Are you trying to say that one genre of music can be objectively better than another?

Yes but it'd be alot harder to quantify than what I just did. It'd be a task too large to handle without some ai doing it. Which would be an entire waste of our time when ai could do better things than that. But its like this, lets say theres a song, not touched up, then the touched up final version. The final version is superior for listening value, which makes it superior for emotional content, and it can also make more money. But some songs have less content and make more money arguably because lets say the artist is well known, and someone does better than one of their songs who is a complete unknown, technically their song is better even if it made less money. Its the marketing for the song thats worse. 

 

But to add different genres to the mix then we have to consider alot more things. Like for all I know rock songs could be higher quality but less in quantity thus less results. It'd be too hard to measure it objectively with all variables considered instead we would need to measure it for its content person to person which would take eons hence an ai doing it. But even then some people are going to have more charisma in explaining how it effects them which would bias the results. 

 

Then if we want to measure happiness of music all we need to do is find out how much dopamine it causes in people and their previous listening record, but songs are worth more than just making happy, they can be political and give change as well. Not to mention music listening history effects dopamine so that'd be a very biased study if it doesn't take that into account. So we would basically have to measure change in a system triggered by each genre and measure the change as novel political economic spiritual or religious even. 

 

So its possible, its just beyond the scope of us so most people assume its pointless, and it is our culture to sort of think its stupid as well to try and figure it out objectively. Like which soda is better could be about dopamine (enjoyment) or it could be about is it less expensive than the other options, or do you buy it because of the label/advertising which is a psychological trick or which soda is healthier. If one soda costs the same as the rival or less, and is healthier and tastes better(to most people in a specific region) its going to be a superior soda (for that region). Same with music.

[Omega Centauri 317]

Yes but it'd be alot harder to quantify than what I just did. It'd be a task too large to handle without some ai doing it. Which would be an entire waste of our time when ai could do better things than that. But its like this, lets say theres a song, not touched up, then the touched up final version. The final version is superior for listening value, which makes it superior for emotional content, and it can also make more money. But some songs have less content and make more money arguably because lets say the artist is well known, and someone does better than one of their songs who is a complete unknown, technically their song is better even if it made less money. Its the marketing for the song thats worse. 

 

But to add different genres to the mix then we have to consider alot more things. Like for all I know rock songs could be higher quality but less in quantity thus less results. It'd be too hard to measure it objectively with all variables considered instead we would need to measure it for its content person to person which would take eons hence an ai doing it. But even then some people are going to have more charisma in explaining how it effects them which would bias the results. 

 

Then if we want to measure happiness of music all we need to do is find out how much dopamine it causes in people and their previous listening record, but songs are worth more than just making happy, they can be political and give change as well. Not to mention music listening history effects dopamine so that'd be a very biased study if it doesn't take that into account. So we would basically have to measure change in a system triggered by each genre and measure the change as novel political economic spiritual or religious even. 

 

So its possible, its just beyond the scope of us so most people assume its pointless, and it is our culture to sort of think its stupid as well to try and figure it out objectively. Like which soda is better could be about dopamine (enjoyment) or it could be about is it less expensive than the other options, or do you buy it because of the label/advertising which is a psychological trick or which soda is healthier. If one soda costs the same as the rival or less, and is healthier and tastes better(to most people in a specific region) its going to be a superior soda (for that region). Same with music.

I see where you're coming from, but I strongly disagree.

 

You can't judge a song by how popular it is, or how much money it made. By that logic, every musician that doesn't release albums and just performs live or plays as a hobby is utter garbage. There are plenty of great musicians who released great albums but never quite took off for one reason or another. Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin used to be some of the most popular musicians out there, but few people listen to them today. Does that mean that their music used to be good, but is not good anymore? Nothing's changed about their music, so why would the quality of it have changed?

 

The only way you can judge a song is by how much you, as a person, enjoy it. The amount of enjoyment someone gets from listening to a song boils down solely to what kind of taste they have in music, and there is no good or bad taste in music, just different taste. Some people like it when the music they listen to is raw and unedited, some like it when it's carefully processed to sound perfectly clean. Some people like simplistic, easy-listening, some people prefer huge, complex symphonies. Just because more people prefer something doesn't mean it is objectively better. The majority isn't always right, and in this case, neither side is right nor wrong.