The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Clarinet is a *better* instument than a flute...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,579 times Debate No: 5384
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




A clarinet (I am defining the instruments for those who may not know, my opponent plays flute, she knows about the musical instruements, for those of you that knows about these instruements, you can skip the first section of material), is a somewhat long wooden instrument, consisting of five parts, a head, a neck, a top body, a lower body, and a bell, it is played with a small wooden reed, pressed against the wooden (sometimes plastic, wood makes a better sound) using lips. it is held in place with a ligature which is partly or wholey made of metal, that has screws that tighten or loosen so that the player can adjust remove/place the reed on the instrument. it's ranges are fairly far.

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.*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRC&defl=en&q=define:flute&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


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.


My opponent already well-defined the differences between clarinet and flute, so I see no need of defining the differences again. However, since the topic is "clarinet is a better instrument than a flute." my opponent should have more defined why a clarinet is more superior to a flute. My opponent simply supported his idea of superiority of clarinet my expressing

"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.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for this debate.
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.


"Clarinet is the best insterment because it is the easiest to learn", it is "Clarinet is better than flute".
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.
Debate Round No. 2


Im_always_right forfeited this round.


My opponent failed to refute my argument, therefore I simply expand my arguments.

Vote con since my opponent did not successfully support his view point, and made flawed arguments without reliable supports.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by suoupavlichenko 5 years ago
I agree with the con. The flute is a very nice instrument (and I say so because I am a fan of flutes. I am one myself). Clarinet supporter says that flute sounds very Squeaky, but the truth is, when played by a good player, flutes can be at the highest octave and sound beautiful. In the regular and low octaves, it is not squeaky at all. And flute fingering is a pattern. Anyone learning the chronwtic scale would feel their fingers closing or openning in order. Also, flutes are made out of metal in even student models, while clarinets are plastic, sometimes even cheap quality, in student models. I agree that flute is better.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
I'm so sorry...... I was looking forward to, but as is clarinet is better but I forfeited so my opponent desearves the votes.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
Awww... I was looking forward to this debate. It's a shame.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
No, I play clarinet, tenor sax, and percussion...not trumpet, but I know it sounds really good, when played right.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
Do you play trumpet?

And the triangle is only for the fieldshow... one of the pit members plays it. It would be awfully silly to march around with one, am I right!
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
And PoeJoe, I actually haven't.... but, This one time at band camp.....!
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Trumpets are awesome, one of the to clarinet of course...Your band is odd, for football we use snare drum bass drum, and regular band instruments....No triangle...or cowbell.....
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
"PoeJoe, I never thought of you as a band geek before...."
I'm a flamboyant band geek. Surely you've seen me talking about band before!
Also, trumpets are teh pwn.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
"One of the most uncomplicated instrument, triangle..."
"When is the last time you heard a triangle in a jazz band? During a football game?"
Oddly enough, my band's field show requires a triangle... someone in the pit plays it.
Posted by uj0320 8 years ago
correction : My opponent simply supported his idea of superiority of clarinet my expressing
-> by expressing..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03