The Instigator
Midnight1131
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
oculus_de_logica
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Jazz music is better than classical music

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2015 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,435 times Debate No: 72177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Midnight1131

Con

I will be arguing for the side of classical music.

Definitions - From Oxford Dictionaries

Jazz -
a type of music of black American origin characterized by improvisation, syncopation, and usually a regular or forceful rhythm, emerging at the beginning of the 20th century. Brass and woodwind instruments and piano are particularly associated with jazz, although guitar and occasionally violin are also used; styles include Dixieland, swing, bebop, and free jazz.

Classical Music -
Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.
To open my argument -


Classical music has been around for much longer than jazz. Jazz has it's roots in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Classical music on the other hand has been around since the dark ages. Classical music also uses a larger range of instruments, whereas jazz bands have a very limited range.


oculus_de_logica

Pro

Please excuse how late my reply came. Sudden unexpected increases in workload and difficulty at my job rendered me tired and utterly uninterested in debating leaving only this makeshift, short opening argument and rebuttal. I'll try to provide a faster answer without making promises and expand better on my points.

I accept the debate and will argue against the notion that classical music is objectivly better than Jazz. My stance is such that for the resolution to be valid it must hold in each and every case and that the two genres will be judged and compared not based upon objective means but on the subjective, ever changing norms and viewpoints of whomever is asked. In order for Jazz music to be better I need to find but one person that believes that it is better; a single person for which the resolution hold. In addition I'll mark off some objective arguments and show the flaw in the logic of my opponent.

First of all we need to establish what 'better' means in this context. The general definition and the one I'll be using for the remainder of the debate is “Better[adj]: being more desirable, preferable or optimal of two items”. What is in fact desirable or preferable is not a fixed scale. What I find desirable might be your nightmare and such for any resolution in the form “<a> is better than <b>” without a third criteria <c> for which the comparison is to be base upon there will always be a person <x> that will either affirm or refute the premise based on his own axioms which are and will be logically consistent and valid within his own range of experiences. So, in order to start off this debate let's start a small logical deduction to demonstrate this.

Let us thusly assume that a person x exists so that x prefers the musical genre Jazz over Classical Music for reasons that are consistent but in reality not relvevent to the conclusion we are trying to draw. Under the reasoning x provides we will be able to see that the resolution holds for x and more importantly cannot be refuted or denied with any logical axioms for the limited set of all persons {x that believe a>b}, if we take a psuedo mathmatical route to this. Because this set must, statistically, include at least one member for the resoultion “jazz>Classical” the resolution is affirmed.

In addition we can perhaps strike upon if perhaps some of the more jazz coordinated geniuses may have gotten part of their creativity, or maybe led to jazz from it. A certain study[0] showed a link between creativity, being more active musically and have a greater number of musical projects under the belt at any given time than their classical loving counterparts. This might suggest that when it comes to honing, sharpening or maintaining an active musical 'lifetime' Jazz is already showing itself to be a strong candidate, and why shouldn't it be, for it does undoubtedly allow its lovers to express themselves in better and more accesable ways than classical music can. One of the key elements of Jazz, the ill definable genre, is improvisation and a free flow of melody and rhythm that might change key or shift a key or two. A musician performing a jazz piece is allowed to break row and show his skill and creative fast-thinking. A classical performer has but little wiggle room for such improvisations and while they do exists they are much rarer and farther between, meaning that a classical performer might not get many chances to express himself or further his creative pursuits.

However, my opponents opening arguments strike, or try to strike, a more objective route stating that classical music is the older genre and thus must be the better genre. This is a form of the “appeal to tradition” fallacy which states that something is old and thus that it is good. Following this chain of logic my opponent must concede to the point that Didgeridoo music (aboriginal australian tribal music)[1] is better than classical music; and that most forms of tribal music[2] and the ever-haunting tones of Gregorian Chanting[3]. I have nothing against any of these musical forms, but for my opponent to be able to maintain the notion that classical music is better for the sake of age alone all these genres are, by default and without argument, also in turn better than classical music is and will be along with literally any musical form, of which are thousands, that existed before the classical era, from which the genre draws the name, began.

My opponent then states that classical music draws its superiority from the possible range of instruments. This again is an extremely narrow viewpoint to have considering that the number of instruments does not affect a genre, that induvidual artists can break from tradition and perform the metrics and laws pertaining to each genre within reasonable bounds and thus expanding the range of instruments to near infinity. For the second flaw in this argument is the notion that for some reason more instruments are to equal a better genre. If we just take a book from classical music we see plenty of beautiful melodies and concertos, etudes and sonatas that rely on a single instrument and in fact are more likely to sound off if we add instruments to fill into the range that the genre is supposed to allow. Chopin's Nocturne f.i are a great example of a classical piece (written in the romantic era) that only requires a single instrument, the versatile Piano. My opponent has to fully argue and subsidize (a bit out of definition) why a larger range of instruments is better and why this does not make film scores some of the greatest musical pieces of all times seeing how they literally utilize every single instrument they can find in order to capture that perfect tone for their films.

As we can perhaps see from this first opening statements which we will further dive into in later rounds Jazz is not only semantically better for certain people being surveyed, but additionally give those performing additional freedome and power to create, to use their skill to express their moods and thoughts into the music which the classical performer is not always or often allowed to do. We see that a classical performer is not as active as the jazz player and we see that neither of my opponents opening arguments hold. On those notes I pass the ball back to my opponent and await further arguments.


0]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

1]https://www.youtube.com...

2]https://www.youtube.com...

3]https://www.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Midnight1131

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I'll start off with rebuttals.

Rebuttals
However, my opponents opening arguments strike, or try to strike, a more objective route stating that classical music is the older genre and thus must be the better genre. This is a form of the “appeal to tradition” fallacy which states that something is old and thus that it is good. Following this chain of logic my opponent must concede to the point that Didgeridoo music (aboriginal australian tribal music)[1] is better than classical music

My opponent points out that just because something is old, doesn't mean it's good. And my opponent cites certain forms of music that are, or are close to, being obsolete. But, the difference between classical music and Gregorian Chants, is that classical music is still being produced. Classical music displays that it has the qualities to last a very long time, while also surviving the major changes in society and art that have occured in the past century. Jazz music has not been around enough for us to conclude it can last for as long as classical music has.

My opponent then states that classical music draws its superiority from the possible range of instruments. This again is an extremely narrow viewpoint to have considering that the number of instruments does not affect a genre, that induvidual artists can break from tradition and perform the metrics and laws pertaining to each genre within reasonable bounds and thus expanding the range of instruments to near infinity. For the second flaw in this argument is the notion that for some reason more instruments are to equal a better genre. If we just take a book from classical music we see plenty of beautiful melodies and concertos, etudes and sonatas that rely on a single instrument and in fact are more likely to sound off if we add instruments to fill into the range that the genre is supposed to allow

I don't mean to say that the wide range of instruments means that a large amount of instruments should be used in every piece. But allows the genre as a whole to have more diversity. You have "Little Fugue" by JS Bach, which is a great piece of classical music, but it only uses one instrument, the organ. And you can also have symphonies that incorporate large orchestras, which would have more instruments. As a whole, it allows for a more diverse range of sounds in the genre.

Jazz is already showing itself to be a strong candidate, and why shouldn't it be, for it does undoubtedly allow its lovers to express themselves in better and more accesable ways than classical music can. One of the key elements of Jazz, the ill definable genre, is improvisation and a free flow of melody and rhythm that might change key or shift a key or two. A musician performing a jazz piece is allowed to break row and show his skill and creative fast-thinking. A classical performer has but little wiggle room for such improvisations and while they do exists they are much rarer and farther between, meaning that a classical performer might not get many chances to express himself or further his creative pursuits.

My opponent mentions improvisation as a way for jazz musicians to show their skill. Improvisation shows the skill of the jazz musician, and their ability to think fast. But classical composers also show creativity, though it isn't quick thinking like improvisation, classical music is very complex, with changes in mood, tempo, and dynamics. There are a lot more variations in tempo and dynamics in classical pieces, such as Sonata by Giovanni Sammartini, compared to a jazz piece, such as Blue Monk, by Thelonious Monk. I would like to point out, that while jazz music may allow more freedom and influence quick creative thinking. Classical music emphasizes the little details and variations, which are also important skills to have for a musician. But it's wrong to say there isn't versatality in classical music. Because the genre itself is so diverse, that you can find two pieces of music that are completely different, and have different qualities. The difference is that the classical pieces would be written out beforehand, whereas the jazz musician shows their versatality, on the spot.


In conclusion, the classical genre is very diverse. The wide range of instruments doesn't mean they all have to be used at once, but if you only look through the classical genre, you'll find that there are many different types of music in the one genre alone, because there are a lot more instruments and sounds for composers to choose from. There are subtle variations, and major changes in tempo and dynamics in classical pieces, which adds to it's depth, and helps the music really depict a mood.

oculus_de_logica

Pro

I thank my opponent for the last round.

At the start of his rebuttal my opponent notes that Gregorian Chanting and co. are close to being obsolete.I disagree with the notion seeing how GC is practised in catholic churches and monasteries and is still, thousands of years later, still “the most optimal way of worshipping” according to said Church. Chants are still composed, as shown in the pieces of Arvo Part, Maurice Durufle, Peter Maxwell and more. All of which were born in the last 100 years. GC is highly situational which is the cause of its appearance of being obsolete. It's hallow nature and holy content require it to be within a holy place. Outside the church you do not hear much of it without search. As is with Aboriginal music which has survived the cultural changes of millennia and is still appreciated despite an entirely different race, culture and age. It's a remainder of what used to be and is deeply integrated in the culture and history of the area it resides in.

Classical music is no different. It is situational and is rarely heard in the culture of today outside specific situations. Classical music is as situational and lasting as Jazz. The average human will be exposed to those genres either by actively looking for them or by accident while consuming other media. The difference is that Jazz is slightly less situational as the influence of jazz is more often seen in modern day pop and rock music, genres that are heard on their own media almost everywhere one could look.

To state that Classical music is longer lasting when Jazz has not been around for as long is a fallacy. My opponent has no ground to assume that the highly influential genre of Jazz won't last as long as classical music has when the Genre is only a good century old, which already is a great deal of length for a genre
that has spread out and has infused itself into so many other genres, just as with Classical. The issue my opponent has is to form an argument on knowledge that does not exist and thus is invalid.

Next my opponent attempts to state that Classical music has a more diverse range of instruments. Again, this is false. Jazz has the same range of instruments and then some as many jazz numbers rely exclusively on the melody of a single instrument, f.i a Piano; while others use string instruments as backing vocals; when brass and woodwind instruments dominate the front end and when jazz has a vocal superiority of using actual singers and interprets itself through lyrics. When Classical music usually does not rely on the string instruments of the guitar, bass, the rock instruments so called, synths or big room drums. You see; the difference of range of the genres instrumentally is not as big as my opponent wishes it to be. You can go to solo artists with just his guitar, as is the case with Martin Taylor[0] and all the way to orchestra levels (Which in fact is a thing in 'regular' jazz) the Manhattan Jazz-orchestra. This is a relatively small band but just the [1] in my sources shows us the Metropole orchestra delivering a fantastic jazz performance. So, the range is either the same or marginal for the genres only differing in few instruments. You don't often see jazz organs but you at the same time don't often see vocals or electric instruments in classical music.

My opponent next moves on to attempt to say that the backbone of classical music is its diversity. That it emphasizes the little changes, changes in mood or tempo or dynamics. I find this incredibly ironic to say seeing that jazz is incredibly diverse, sneaks up on you in many forms, shapes or sizes, and the fact that it is inferior to classical music on the account of dynamic changes is just hilarious seeing that one of the defining features of Jazz is conflicting tempos, sudden key changes and altering the rhythm and structure of the song at given segments and intentionally play certain parts off the main Key. It is this distinct behaviour (especially the last one and the polyrhythms) that give Jazz it's identifiable and well known trademark sound. I thus drop this argument.

On the subject of finding different sounds within Jazz I hereby challenge my opponent to do his research. Jazz is and will be diverse and span a broad range of songs, sub-gernes and situations. From the calm and begging Concerto for cootie[2], to fast,regular and blues-like Jumpin' The Blues[3], to the more harmonious sounding Esprit de Four[4] and here is where we get diverse: to the famous melody from Careless whispers[5] and to the even greater still driving sax from Baker Street [6] (both of which are Jazz or Jazz-like songs)to the heartbreaking Piano piece Let Go [7]which takes a bit of time to notice the Jazz characteristics which don't really become too clear until around the 2 minute mark with the conflicting key signature of the bass and the piano; and then to the romantic saxophone which is grabbed here telling it's heart warming stories[8]. You can just listen to the CD in that source, just listen how much variation comes from that lone instrument and the backup band in each track, how much each differs from the last one. How much variation comes from it.

Here is the key:My opponent is trying to remove attributes from Jazz to create some difference In the two genres. I disagree and find that to be a dishonest tactic to use. I've shown 8 songs that all are classified under the Jazz genre and anyone with a decently musical ear can hear how different they are from each other. Some might share a similar sounding structure, that is to be expected with Jazz, but we can also hear a distinct structure with many classical pieces. However, Jazz has influenced modern music no less than classical and in fact the entire genre of Rock and Roll spawned from Jazz. From Rock and Roll we have Metal, and maybe more recent, we have the entire Pop scene. Jazz has the influence background. Innovating from Classical music it went on and set the entire groundwork and frame for everything that came afterwards, including hip Hop and what is playing on your Spotify playlist now (unless you're listening to Classical)[9-13]

My opponent cannot use that to his advantage for Jazz is as diverse despite being more rigid, and if we were to accept the opposite my opponent must prove the notion that a diverse genre is a good genre; for if a genre is good there must be something to identify it as good. Diversity cannot be identified as good for it is not an attribute connected to quality. I'd say that the versatility of humankind does not make humankind good by default; for the diversity leads to conflict. If all humans would have a similar soul humans would no longer conflict over differences. If there was no deviations there would either be no bad nor good humans. The evils of humankind, of which are many, might all be erased for if all is average none is more evil than it. Same must apply to music, for a diverse genre means that some of it are horrid and detrimental to the genre as whole.

Thus end the rebuttals.

Now, I have but few chars left: so let me be brief. I find it to be so that not only has Con failed to uphold his own arguments but in addition he has not been able to refute mine. He has neither refuted, nor even answered the subjective stance that there will always be a debate on what good is and there is always someone in the set that prefers Jazz, and I feel he needs to properly support and prove his points in an objective manner. Range and age are not by default a quality sign, and he must objectively prove they are before using them as arguments. I leave it at those note and challenge my opponent to substantiate all his claims.


0]goo.gl/7v5Uwt

1]goo.gl/ZDdYvC

2]goo.gl/45kY19

3]goo.gl/IH7wqs

4]goo.gl/0lQRLj

5]www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGwDsrQ1eQ

6]goo.gl/QYpH4A

7]www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Zt8Rbup1A

8]goo.gl/beAHJ5

9]goo.gl/LL2LJi

10]http://goo.gl...

11]goo.gl/vKe9qM

12]http://goo.gl...

13]http://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 2
Midnight1131

Con

My opponent made very good points and rebuttals in the last round, that I can't refute. Therefore I forfeit this debate, and I congratulate my opponent on their win. Vote Pro.
oculus_de_logica

Pro

Very well, I wish to thank my opponent for a great debate and giving me a great excuse to listen to over an hours worth of Jazz while constructing my rounds. I wish him the best in future debates and life in general.


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Can't believe no one voted...
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
You can go full debate oculus.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 1 year ago
oculus_de_logica
First round acceptance or can I go full debate right off the bat?
Posted by Haywood_Jablome 1 year ago
Haywood_Jablome
Just curious- How does the "age" of a style of music make it any better than another?

Gregorian chant has been around forever, and I find it particularly boring.
No votes have been placed for this debate.