> I believe there is a difference between generas of music being "dead" and genears of music not having mass popularity. That's fine, but there is context here

> I believe there is a difference between generas of music being "dead" and genears of music not having mass popularity. That's fine, but there is context here. Your belief is irrelevant. > Given that there are new artists making a living creating new compositions playing coutnry, as well as large audiences paying money to listen and dance... Same goes for rock. Just look at the constant stream of rock music coming out of Australia in particular right now. In that vein, rock has never been more alive. But rock is still dead per the context this discussion is taking place in. > The claim I was responding to is "Country music was never good post the Johnny Cash era. " The claim you speak of was in response to the comment that claimed that country music rose up to replace rock – meaning, for all intents and purposes, that country music radio replaced rock music radio. The comment you responded to was asserting that country didn't replace rock, so-called "elevator music" did. And then the best you could do was name some artists that most people have never heard of. Which only goes to confirm the idea that country music hasn't risen up to replace rock. Rather, they are both dead, as per what dead means in the context of discussion.