Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...
Debate Rounds (3)
A flute on the other hand is made of silver and/or plastic (high quality, plastic if that is the case), that generally produces higher notes. It has three parts, the head joint, the body, and the foot. Instead of blowing IN the flute you blow across. You blow quicker to make the pitch go higher, and slower to make lower sound. The lower the sound the less the flute can be heard, in most cases.
clarinets may seem more intimidating at first, but if you had ever played both you will see that clarinet is easy. no buttons = g, it gradually goes up with each button, thumb, F, just first finger, F#, thumb and first, E, Thumb first second, is D, and it goes up alphabetically until you reach A, then you start over with G.
Flute on the other hand has no handy way of remembering, or knowing which buttons to push. They also have to change the frequency of air movement, to make it high of low sounding.
Clarinet has more of a wood sound, while flute has a shrill sound. True, if you have the clarinet to far in your mouth, or not put together (just the head, and neck, with reed, and ligature) it sounds like a dying goose, but, a flute always sounds like a dying bat. (okay just REALLY high pitched and pretty squeaky most of the time, so no offense), also, flutes have less styles they can play due to lack of flexibility in sound. Trumpet and trombone can be used in almost anything and for this purpose ARE better than clarinet, however we are not disccussing them, only flute and clarinet.
Clarinets can be used in a wider variety of music and is easier to learn.
I await my opponent's response.
"1. flutes have less styles they can play due to lack of flexibility in sound. 2.Clarinets can be used in a wider variety of music and is easier to learn."
The both statements are flawed. My opponent did not successfully explain why flutes have fewer styles they can play, because he did not mention anything about the flexibility in sound. If clarinet can not produce as high pitch as flute, and flute can not produce as low pitch as clarinet, how can we put them aside to compare their flexibility in sound? So the only point now left is "clarinet is easier to learn, so it's a better instrument." One of the most uncomplicated instrument, triangle, should be the best instrument in this world according to my opponent's argument. Just because it is hard to learn, it does not mean that it is inferior to those that are easy to learn. On contrary, if it is harder to learn, than it means it consists of more complex parts and more styles because hard to learn means hard to utilize the instrument's whole potential. However, this point is just an assumption because the speed of learning various instruments is often different depends on personal conditions and preferences. In either way, my opponent's flawed points can not supported.
Flutes can only play REALLY high, clarinets can play really high, and really low. Clarinets can play in the same places flute can, but they can also play in MORE places than just that.
Yes, triangle would be VERY easy to learn, but it does not serve in very many kinds of music. When is the last time you heard a triangle in a jazz band? During a football game? However the debate was not, "Clarinet is the best insterment because it is the easiest to learn", it is "Clarinet is better than flute".
So my opponent is saying 'the hardest instrements to play are the best ones'. So basoon tops both?
I assume my opponent thinks ALL percussion is easy to learn, so it is inferrior.
But it is MOST diverse and should top both, since I ha ve not heard a type of music that did not have a percussion line with it.
I await my opponent's responce.
Yes, I'm aware of the topic that "clarinet is better than flute." However, my opponent supported his side by saying since clarinet is easier to learn, it is superior to flute. I refuted this point by giving out an example of trinangle, and saying that it is more logical to say that the instruments that are hard to learn could be superior.
"So my opponent is saying 'the hardest instrements to play are the best ones'. So basoon tops both?"
I did not say "hardest instruments are the best ones", but I said "it is not true the easiest instruments are the best ones."
I can just question back to my opponent, "why not triangle?"
Also, there is not standard of easy and hard because the speed of learning can be different depending on each person's background knowledge and natural talents. Since my opponent used the idea that since clarinet is easier, it is superior to flute, my opponent should clrearly represent the standard of easy and hard first;it is impossible to set the standard, therefore, my opponent's argument is not throughly supported at all.
Is the range of pitch shows the superiority of an instrument? No. Each instrument has its own special characteristics, and it is impossible to say that "wider range = better instrument." Why would orchestra and bands use different kinds of instruments instead of one single instrument that has the widest range? Why would they choose to let those "inferior" instruments join together with "the best one with widest range?" You answer me.
Im_always_right forfeited this round.
Vote con since my opponent did not successfully support his view point, and made flawed arguments without reliable supports.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.