Covers of songs are better than the originals.
Debate Rounds (3)
*First round is for "I accept your challenge, good sir or madam!" or whatever you want to say*
You are allowed to use examples if you want.
You can start first in round 1 or if you would like me to start, you can wait until round 2.
Popular musicians are collapsing in terms of creativity and begin to slowly resort to using dubstep sounds, writing lyrics about sex and drugs, using the chorus five times to fit three minutes, and in some cases, autotuning their voices.
The public who listen to music could think, "This is a terrible/great song. If I could make my own rendition of it before it blows up, that'd be awesome". The creativity of that person goes through the roof with ideas.
I believe covers are better no matter how good the original is.
For my first example, an Australian guitarist and vocalist named Steve Welsh uploaded a ska cover of Dean Martin's "Everybody Loves Somebody" which was a hit from the 50's. Have a listen to Steves cover:
This cover got me into ska music. When a song speaks to the brains of aspiring musicians, their cover will speak to the brains of others.
Earlier, Steve (the same guy) has made a cover which came out in an utterly hilarious way. Selena Gomaz's "Come and Get it", also in ska:
I don't see any reason for covers to be seen as 'bad' or 'worse' than the originals. Whether professionally edited or not.
My opponents first premise is that popular musicians are losing creativity and that their lyrics are becoming less meaningful. However, this only makes a case for why covers are not better than the original. It would be better and more creative, for instance, for a songwriter to construct their own lyrics with meaning. If the source material is not creative with poor lyrical choice, then why would the cover of said song be better? As they say, garbage in, garbage out.
For sake of argumentative clarity, I will now move to my opponents final premise. He states that he doesn't see how covers could be bad or worse than the originals. However, that is not the scale of this debate. As my opponent has already asserted, covers are always better than the original. This implies that not only are they at the same level of quality and professionalism (as content obviously has not changed), but that this duplication of someone else's art is actually better than the source material.
My opponent cites very limited examples of covers that he enjoys more than the original songs. However, all one needs to do is Google or YouTube search "bad song covers" to see that not all covers are of any standard of quality. In fact, since my opponent based this argument on an allness statement, I need only provide one situation in which a cover is not better than the original song for his conclusion to be invalid. https://www.youtube.com...
PartTimeHipster forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.