I like rock, from the raw Neil young and early Grand funk to to highly polished Eagles, Boston, Steely Dan. And anything from the Beatles, since they seemed to cover every genre of rock at some point in their catalog.
I also listen to classical quite a bit nowadays.
My room mate is a country fan, and I must admit it's starting to sound not so bad... but it's not the same country Mom listened to.

backwoods
 
Funny how people have an aversion to "black" music too. But I guess that flips both ways and as Anton newcombe said "GnR were not a great band because black people don't listen to them"

 
Overgeneralization.
 
It's entirely possible - and quite frequent - to be the biggest blues, gospel, jazz or reggae fan and not to like hip hop or RnB. Not counting the fact that black music influenced many of the biggest white stars, starting with Elvis and the whole British Invasion... You can acknowledge and appreciate those roots w/o having to like Jay Z.
 
There are many more "black" music genres that I like than not.
 
Just because I don't like Wagner doesn't mean I hate German composers.

Mostly, I like variety.  Here are some of my favorite styles are(with a few examples):  
 
Rock--Beatles, Springsteen, The Who, Toy Matinee, James Gang, Blue Oyster Cult, Led Zeppelin.  
Pop(not the current bass heavy, over-Melodyne processed vocals, teen stuff that is so popular these days)--Beatles, Marshall Crenshaw, Squeeze, Warren Zevon, Kirsty MacColl.  
Blues--B.B. King, Albert King, Tommy Castro, Chris Cain, Walter Trout, Robin Trower, Robben Ford, Gary Moore.
Jazz--Steely Dan, David Sanborn, Joe Sample, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck.   
Prog--King Crimson, Yes, Ambrosia, Pink Floyd, Be Bop Deluxe, Gentle Giant, PFM. 
Acoustic--James Taylor, Dan Fogelberg, CSN&Y, Simon & Garfunkle.   
Classical Guitar--Muriel Anderson, Laurence Juber, Preston Reed,
Electronic music--Synergy, Tonto's Expanding Head Band, Tomita, Jean Michel Jarre, Massive Attack.  
Early R & B--Drifters, Sam & Dave, Supremes, Chakka Khan.  
Southern--Allman Brothers, Poco, Pure Prairie League.  
Classical--Grieg, Tchaikovsky.  
I also like a little bit of country music--mainly older stuff.  I find I get tired of the newer stuff because it starts sounding the same after a while.  
 
Regardless of style, I generally like earlier releases from many artists--usually the first three or four albums.  It's unusual for an artist to keep my interest after that, they start repeating themselves or they change so much that they're unrecognizable from the early efforts.  Peter Gabriel and Joe Jackson are ones who managed to avoid that situation.  

craigb
1)  Are you one of those that pretty much stay in a small, focused area of music?  Or do you like a wide range of genres and styles?

 
I think my tastes are pretty diverse. Hip hop and Rap being the areas I generally dislike
 

craigb
2)  What are your favorite types/genres/styles?

Progressive Rock
Celtic and English Folk
Folk Rock
Earlier R&B  (ie Mowtown, Stax etc.)
"Classic" Rock
The Blues
 

I like music from almost any genre. If, to me, it's well executed and shows proficiency, depth and engages me on an emotional or visceral level.

I honestly don't have a favorite genre.

Old55
Regardless of style, I generally like earlier releases from many artists--usually the first three or four albums.  It's unusual for an artist to keep my interest after that, they start repeating themselves or they change so much that they're unrecognizable from the early efforts.  Peter Gabriel and Joe Jackson are ones who managed to avoid that situation.  

I think this is a great point for me as well.  I've had some "over a few drinks" discussions with friends about this and, personally, I've come to two conclusions for this: 
 
The first is that the new group is raw and organic so that what you hear is really what the band is all about (the exception to this is when a group makes a definite change early in their existence - usually because they stop copying someone else and come into their own "sound" - then it's the first three or four albums from that point).  After a few albums, it seems like others start pushing them in what they consider "more marketable" directions which also causes the band members to attempt higher levels of musicianship and to strive to produce a more polished product.  In my mind they cease to show that wonderful sense of innocence and new-ness.
 
The second is that the first few albums generally contain songs that have perculated in the band member's heads for a LONG time.  They've had a lot more evolution and they now hold more meaning to the musicians (which shows in their performances).  Eventually, for several of the same reasons as conclusion one, they begin just pumping out songs that never have any lengthy roots to them and they begin to have a bit of a jaded feel to them.  Basically quantity starts to trump quality and formulaic music begins to replace the more emotional, if less elegant, original offerings.
 
Another way of looking at all of this is that earlier works seem to appeal to the emotional senses while later efforts get recognized intellectually.
 
Or it's all complete bollocks.

Considering that popular music is generally a rather restrictive format and that you are often dealing w/ a small finite number of individuals, often self-taught and with limited versatility and talent*, working in a specific genre, statistically speaking, it's almost inevitable that the band will either simply refine/dilute their work, or start repeating themselves or start doing something entirely different and/or sell out.
 
There are exceptions of course. 
 
But often:
band put out a few good records and reach peak
band try to re-invent the wheel and express creativity lose themselves and alienate fans.
singer fires everyone and reaches new low
band reconcile amongst themselves and with their past and understand that this is their meal ticket.
 
Greed works. Nostalgia works.
 
* Of course, I'm speaking relatively as there are amazingly talented individuals, and musicians who are darn good at what they do.

For the record..its not much hating rap that sometimes has racial overtones in this forum, it is typically the way it is expressed. That makesbit appear that way.I'm not a big fan of rap these days myself but I habe seen more than a few theeads where it takes an ugly turn.

As for dubstep. Not a fan either but I feel it gets a bad rep due to the ineveitable focus on one aspect. I don't think the eaely makers of dubstep called it anything. Oddly enough b it was a minmalist offshoot of UK garage with a lot of influence drum drum n bass production techniques. The screeching, wobble bass drop obsessed bastardization that evolved once it reached the US is a far cry from the sparsely produced, moody trip music that actually used space as an instrument.

Race only comes into play when stereotypes are considered.  Sorry, but most of the Rap that's really crap comes from undereducated, anti-social, losers of lower intelligence who have a distorted version of reality and actually think that drugs and violence are tokens of accomplishment (ok, so I sugar-coated my sentiments).  This crosses all racial lines, however it's statistically relevant that a greater number of certain races fall into this category just has it does for gang and murder statistics.  It doesn't have to be that way.
 
On another side, age comes into play and people learn to like certain music if it helps them identify with their generational members.  Personally, even though I love some of the music, I simply can't stand Cookie Monster vocals.  I consider it the equivalent to someone puking into a microphone.
 
That said, most of these types of things don't appeal to us because they aren't meant to.  They have meaning within the social groups that they are meant for and, if they sound ridiculous to others outside the group, so what?  It's like someone from a knitting forum reading our FSF thread or wondering WTH we keep going on about "becan."  Who cares?  Neither is meant for their enjoyment anyway.