The Instigator
Destructo819
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Himans45
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Modern Music makes no sense and has a bad influence on todays society

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Himans45
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2015 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 980 times Debate No: 74799
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Destructo819

Pro

Music is subjective to ones taste, however i believe with the recent stuff that's being released today, it's starting to have a bad influence on the modern society. 90% (exaggeration) of the music that's being released now mostly talks about relationships or something alluding to some form of relation whether it may be sexual, a genuine relationship or a breakup. It's mostly about having the best music video instead of actually going through a whole thought process on whether their music actually sounds good or makes sense. It's like the music "artists" just said screw it, lets release this song. Isn't it also a coincidence that every musician looks good and there's not one dude who actually makes good music and looks ugly at the same time. The genres i am pertaining to, is mostly pop and rap.
Himans45

Con

I accept, I'll post my arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Destructo819

Pro

My argument, is that music is not as sophisticated as it used to be. In Pop, most of the time the topic of the song is about relationships or alluding to some form of a relationship whether it maybe sexual, a genuine relationship or a breakup. It takes almost no talent to make and some songs are solely comprised of auto-tune and meaningless lyrics.

As for the instruments... or should i say instruments?? everything is digital nowadays, but that doesn't mean songs should be heavily modified with simplistic beats and simplistic tunes. Artists in the 80s actually used their instruments and played it with passion, and tunes were often instilled so much emotion that it would be moving. An example of this would be Gary Moore's The Loner (a song). He was renowned for being a virtuoso and you can clearly see that in his songs. Lyrics in most songs in the 80s not only spoke about relationships, but wars in the past and famous events that had also occurred in the past. An example of this would be Metallica and Iron Maiden . Their lyrics would not state directly the event that they are singing about, but they would allude to it and have their listeners thinking about the lyrics.

Music today is often comprised of simplistic lyrics and it takes more than one writer to create a "song". Beyonce's "All the single ladies" took around 6 writers to make and the lyrics were way too repetitive. Bohemian Rhapsody was written by one writer which was Freddie Mercury. With such complex lyrics, i'm surprised that he managed to do that. Since Freddie Mercury actually worked hard to create that song, his result was one of the most famous songs in the world.

Music today also practically encourages kids to go out drink, smoke and engage in other activities which has led to juvenile activities.
Himans45

Con

Since you didn't really post a format I'll just rebut your arguments, I know it's not the usual to have rebuttals in the second round but whatever.

"My argument, is that music is not as sophisticated as it used to be. In Pop, most of the time the topic of the song is about relationships or alluding to some form of a relationship whether it maybe sexual, a genuine relationship or a breakup."

Are relationships not meaningful? Love is one of the biggest driving forces in today's society, and therefore when something important happens in a songwriter's life, they may be inclined to write a song about it. In what way is this "less sophisticated" than older music (which also had songs about love and such). Also, there are plenty of non-relationship songs in the pop genre that come out, one example would be little game by benny. This song comments on gender equality and discrimination, and how it's becoming a huge problem in our society
http://www.azlyrics.com...

"It takes almost no talent to make and some songs are solely comprised of auto-tune and meaningless lyrics."

First of all, just because something doesn't take as much talent as something else, it does not mean that it is less meaningful or makes no sense. There are plenty of things in life that are incredibly easy and yet incredibly important. Second of all, a large amount of music today DOES take a lot of talent. Even though many things are made with machines, it does not mean they are incredibly easy to create. This is a common misconception about technology and the music you can create with it, it takes time and skill to be able to make a quality song like this.

"As for the instruments... or should i say instruments?? everything is digital nowadays, but that doesn't mean songs should be heavily modified with simplistic beats and simplistic tunes.

See above, and just because something is simple does not mean it has no meaning behind it. Just as songs a long time ago were made with passion, songs now are made with a different kind of passion.

"Artists in the 80s actually used their instruments and played it with passion, and tunes were often instilled so much emotion that it would be moving."

Emotion is subjective, what you may find moving another might find incredibly dull. I personally find many of today's songs moving, even ones made entirely with computerized sounds.

"An example of this would be Gary Moore's The Loner (a song). He was renowned for being a virtuoso and you can clearly see that in his songs. Lyrics in most songs in the 80s not only spoke about relationships, but wars in the past and famous events that had also occurred in the past."

So just because songs back then talked about wars and past events means that they are more meaningful? There are plenty of songs today that talk about the artist's personal story and hardships they have gone through. There are songs that comment on CURRENT social issues, issues that to many are more important than past ones.

An example of this would be Metallica and Iron Maiden . Their lyrics would not state directly the event that they are singing about, but they would allude to it and have their listeners thinking about the lyrics.

There are plenty of bands and artists that do the same thing in today's music, you seem to just be judging the few songs that play on the radio. There are thousands of artists, all over the world, and a large amount of them actually make "meaningful" music.

"Music today is often comprised of simplistic lyrics and it takes more than one writer to create a "song". Beyonce's "All the single ladies" took around 6 writers to make and the lyrics were way too repetitive. Bohemian Rhapsody was written by one writer which was Freddie Mercury. With such complex lyrics, i'm surprised that he managed to do that. Since Freddie Mercury actually worked hard to create that song, his result was one of the most famous songs in the world."

Like I stated previously, a more difficult song does not equal a better/more meaningful one. Just because beyonce had more writers for her song does not make it less meaningful.

"Music today also practically encourages kids to go out drink, smoke and engage in other activities which has led to juvenile activities."

Sure, there's some music out there, but look at older music (mainly music from the 60s-90s). Back when the hippies were still around there were plenty of songs out there that encouraged drug usage. This has been a thing in music forever, and has no bearing on the music as a whole.

Since I'm running out of characters I can't really post my argument in this round, but yeah. Sorry if some of this didn't make sense, I'm exhausted at the moment.
Debate Round No. 2
Destructo819

Pro

"Are relationships not meaningful? Love is one of the biggest driving forces in today's society, and therefore when something important happens in a songwriter's life, they may be inclined to write a song about it",

Relationships to an extent are meaningful, but every single modern song that i have come across, talks about relationships and i did state that most artist do allude to other forms of relations like sexual relations which does have a bad effect on todays society. I believe that rap artists tend to do this more than pop artists and i think that there are just better things you can base your song on.

"Also, there are plenty of non-relationship songs in the pop genre"

There may have been plenty of non-relationship songs but i'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are associated with relationships. This idea of relationships tends to become repeated and when something is repeated way too often, it loses its meaning.

"First of all, just because something doesn't take as much talent as something else, it does not mean that it is less meaningful or makes no sense. There are plenty of things in life that are incredibly easy and yet incredibly important"

Despite the recent advancements in technology, i think that many artist's talents are hindered by machines. If someone has the talent, they'd be willing to go that extra mile to create an amazing piece. Yes there are plenty of things in our everyday lives that are considered to be important yet simple, but i believe that this is irrelevant to the topic since the topic pertains to music. When it comes to music, there are certain factors to take into consideration such as talent, meaningfulness, passion, determination, etc. If there's no talent in a song, frankly speaking what's the point? why bother.

https://www.youtube.com...

I'm using this song as an example of talentless artists in the mainstream media who still were popularized by today's society. This song in my opinion does not sound appealing. The lyrics apparently talk about how they "made it"in the real world or something along the lines of that, but there are other things to sing about which would be less boring (opinion).

"So just because songs back then talked about wars and past events means that they are more meaningful? There are plenty of songs today that talk about the artist's personal story and hardships they have gone through. There are songs that comment on CURRENT social issues, issues that to many are more important than past ones."

I'm saying that at least they had a purpose, their songs had meaning and reached out to a vast audience instead of a specific group which modern songs tend to do ( reach out to specific groups). True some artist do sing about their personal hardships, but have most of them really gone through anything that bad? There are many other people who are going through things way worse than them. Im not saying that they shouldn't sing about their struggles but just know that there are millions of other people who are actually suffering and have it way worse than these artists.

"There are plenty of bands and artists that do the same thing in today's music, you seem to just be judging the few songs that play on the radio. There are thousands of artists, all over the world, and a large amount of them actually make "meaningful" music."

Well that's what people do, we tend to judge things we come across and you can't really help it, but from what i know there were more bands in the past that had meaningful lyrics then there are today, and if there are bands that have lyrics like that today then i commend them. From what i've heard, a lot of it doesn't seem to make sense and just encourages people to do things that are considered unorthodox.

"Just because beyonce had more writers for her song does not make it less meaningful."

Yes but does that mean it's her song since she had this many writers to write this song for her? With song being what it is (repetitive), and with the 6 writers working alongside beyonce i have come to the conclusion that this was a talent less song since you would expect with that many writers she could have come up with lyrics that were far more sophisticated than that.

"plenty of songs out there that encouraged drug usage"

Most of the songs back then didn't directly encourage drug usage, and just because of a band's psychedelic playing style, doesn't mean that they encourage drug usage.

My question is that if you have all the resources available and you have the talent, then why create something so simple and expect it to be a hit when you have the ability to create something way more powerful.
Himans45

Con

"Relationships to an extent are meaningful, but every single modern song that i have come across, talks about relationships and i did state that most artist do allude to other forms of relations like sexual relations which does have a bad effect on todays society. I believe that rap artists tend to do this more than pop artists and i think that there are just better things you can base your song on."

Sexual relations are not inherently bad, different people see things like this different ways, it's entirely subjective just like the rest of your argument.

"There may have been plenty of non-relationship songs but i'm pretty sure the vast majority of them are associated with relationships. This idea of relationships tends to become repeated and when something is repeated way too often, it loses its meaning."

Sure, a lot of the songs in american mainstream are about sex, but since you never said we're talking about american music exclusively, we should include other countries' music. (Japan, Korea, European, etc) For every relationship based song there's multiple non-relationship songs.

"Despite the recent advancements in technology, i think that many artist's talents are hindered by machines. If someone has the talent, they'd be willing to go that extra mile to create an amazing piece. Yes there are plenty of things in our everyday lives that are considered to be important yet simple, but i believe that this is irrelevant to the topic since the topic pertains to music. When it comes to music, there are certain factors to take into consideration such as talent, meaningfulness, passion, determination, etc. If there's no talent in a song, frankly speaking what's the point? why bother."

The reason why talent should have 0 influence over whether a song is good or not is that music is entirely subjective. Millions of people enjoy simplistic good sounding songs, whether they're meaningful or not. The sound that machines can produce is desired in today's musical community, therefore they make music using them.

"I'm using this song as an example of talentless artists in the mainstream media who still were popularized by today's society. This song in my opinion does not sound appealing. The lyrics apparently talk about how they "made it"in the real world or something along the lines of that, but there are other things to sing about which would be less boring (opinion)."

Entirely subjective, as you even stated "This song in my opinion does not sound appealing" Other people obviously enjoy it, even if you don't.

"Well that's what people do, we tend to judge things we come across and you can't really help it, but from what i know there were more bands in the past that had meaningful lyrics then there are today, and if there are bands that have lyrics like that today then i commend them. From what i've heard, a lot of it doesn't seem to make sense and just encourages people to do things that are considered unorthodox."

There may have been more bands with meaningful songs back then, but there are still plenty of bands with meaningful songs.

"My question is that if you have all the resources available and you have the talent, then why create something so simple and expect it to be a hit when you have the ability to create something way more powerful?"

Because people enjoy simplistic sounding songs, even if you don't.

Anyways, this debate isn't over whether modern music is meaningful or not, it's about if it's a bad influence on society and makes no sense. For the part of it making no sense, that's all you. Other people including me understand the songs that are popular in today's media, even if you don't. BOP is on you to prove this, as you are the one making a claim.

[1] "First things first, most of these kids have barely scraped the surface of modern music, because they assume that modern popular music is all modern music, which is blatantly untrue, especially today. Thanks to the internet, experimental groups like Death Grips or Crystal Castles are able to find a decent audience because of today"s technology and people's willingness to try out experimentation in general.

"Even if you're not a fan of experimentation, there's plenty of acts who make music similar to old rock that are in the independent scene like Unknown Mortal Orchestra or The War on Drugs. The amount of diversity in music in general nowadays is just mindblowing. There's a little something for everybody in today's modern music."

This quote shows that modern music is incredibly diverse, and I'm sure you'll be able to find something that you like. People tend to forget that years ago there were still trashy bands, but it was harder to see them without the spread of social media etc.

[1] http://www.ultimate-guitar.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Destructo819

Pro

I have received several comments saying that my statements are subjective, but music is a very subjective topic and i do commend a few artists that have taken the time and effort to make a great song. It is true that people like simplistic songs but lets look at the guitarist Jason Becker, to an extent his music can be considered simplistic since his solo work was instrumental but what he did with the guitar (Complex guitar solos Which most modern bands tend to lack, using a lot of legato and sweep picking) was enough to attract a large audience.

"Sexual relations are not inherently bad, different people see things like this different ways, it's entirely subjective just like the rest of your argument."

I never said that sexual relations itself was bad, but to sing about it too much can have a bad effect on our society. Some songs can provoke the under educated youth to go out and have sex. Young children are also being exposed to this music since a lot of artists do tend to sing about it. Especially with explicit scenes in Music videos which aren't uncommon can also rub off on our society whereas artists were more careful about what they released back then.

"there are still plenty of bands with meaningful songs."

this is probably a small percentage of bands today that do this that receive almost no credit as opposed to artists that don't much time and effort to release a song yet they still receive a lot more credit that artist that do, do this.

I would also like to refer to your ultimate guitar link, i never said anything about being born in the wrong generation and i do agree with the points made in this article. I think that being born in this generation is a privilege since you have various ways of accessing things. I just don't like the music which is subjective to my tastes

Anyways back to my point which is modern music makes no sense and has a bad influence on the modern society. When i talk about music nowadays, i should have been more specific. I should've said popular modern music. Lets look at a popular song. http://www.azlyrics.com... Uptown funk from what i heard was a very popular song, but lets look at the lyrics. "This hit, that ice cold, that Michelle Pfeiffer, that white gold", it seems like he's just naming things or he's just running out of things to say. Anyways it doesn't really make sense. He then goes on to say "gotta kiss myself i'm so pretty", isn't this just the pinnacle of narcissism you may think not but than he goes on for a few more bars saying that he's "too hot", and please tell me what he means by "Girls hit your Hallelujah".

http://www.azlyrics.com... Lets look at this song where this so called artist openly "raps" about cocaine, should this be acceptable in our society. Kids might be oblivious to the topic of the song but teens who absorb this stuff like a sponge might be provoked by this stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Another trend which has been constantly repeated in many popular songs, the drug "Molly". More teens have become aware of this drug and have start abusing it. Side effects could prove deadly.

My apologies as well, i should've specified that i'm talking about popular modern music in the mainstream media. Mostly English and American .
Himans45

Con

"I never said that sexual relations itself was bad, but to sing about it too much can have a bad effect on our society. Some songs can provoke the under educated youth to go out and have sex. Young children are also being exposed to this music since a lot of artists do tend to sing about it. Especially with explicit scenes in Music videos which aren't uncommon can also rub off on our society whereas artists were more careful about what they released back then."

Young teens will have sex regardless of whether or not there is music about it, for the sole reason that teenagers are horny and hormonal, the music has nothing to do with this. There is nothing really wrong about teens having sex either, as long as they use protection and do it safely.

"this is probably a small percentage of bands today that do this that receive almost no credit as opposed to artists that don't much time and effort to release a song yet they still receive a lot more credit that artist that do, do this."

First of all, no, it's not a small percentage. In fact, the small percentage of bands are writing about drugs and other things that you look down upon. Mainstream media is a VERY small part of the music around the world, and there are plenty of songs within the mainstream that are quite meaningful.

"I just don't like the music which is subjective to my tastes"

Exactly, music is entirely subjective.

"Anyways back to my point which is modern music makes no sense and has a bad influence on the modern society. When i talk about music nowadays, i should have been more specific. I should've said popular modern music. Lets look at a popular song. http://www.azlyrics.com...... Uptown funk from what i heard was a very popular song, but lets look at the lyrics. "This hit, that ice cold, that Michelle Pfeiffer, that white gold", it seems like he's just naming things or he's just running out of things to say. Anyways it doesn't really make sense. He then goes on to say "gotta kiss myself i'm so pretty", isn't this just the pinnacle of narcissism you may think not but than he goes on for a few more bars saying that he's "too hot", and please tell me what he means by "Girls hit your Hallelujah"."

Taken from http://www.lyricsmode.com...

The phrase "white gold" refers to Michele Pfeiffer's race and good looks. Michele Pfeiffer is an iconic white actress known for her good looks.

The "gonna kiss me I'm so pretty" isn't narcissism, it's because he has a good self image, which is a positive thing.

Girl's hit your hallelujah could possibly mean this, as quoted from that site.

"I tend to lean more to this being an inappropriate euphemism. However, it could also be argued that the downtown, poorer girls are dancing and laughing and beginning to feel better about themselves. Bruno and the other men and women around could be very ecstatic for these young girls and their new found joy. The woo could be cheering the girls who are dancing on, encouraging them to keep dancing, either to support them-or to objectify them. Your call."

"http://www.azlyrics.com...... Lets look at this song where this so called artist openly "raps" about cocaine, should this be acceptable in our society. Kids might be oblivious to the topic of the song but teens who absorb this stuff like a sponge might be provoked by this stuff."

There are literally songs about everything, one example of a song promoting cocaine means nothing, especially when said song is highly criticized.

"Another trend which has been constantly repeated in many popular songs, the drug "Molly". More teens have become aware of this drug and have start abusing it. Side effects could prove deadly."

There have always been plenty of songs about drugs. It is up to the parent to make sure their child does not listen to these songs if they feel they can not control themselves.

"My apologies as well, i should've specified that i'm talking about popular modern music in the mainstream media. Mostly English and American ."

Bit too late for that, this should have been stated at the beginning of the debate, so I'll just continue to argue about ALL types of music today.

You seem to be only focusing on then negative songs, instead of the positive, less inappropriate songs that are still quite popular. Even if we are talking about mainstream music, outside of the genre of rap there are fairly few songs that focus entirely on drugs, sex, or whatever else you think are detrimental to society. Once again, check out the song little game by Benny, http://www.azlyrics.com... Or Dollhouse by Melanie Martinez http://www.azlyrics.com...

Both of those are quite popular songs which comment on negative trends in today's society.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
Destructo819

Pro

Destructo819 forfeited this round.
Himans45

Con

Pro ff, vote con
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Destructo819 1 year ago
Destructo819
I listen to old music because i love it and i grew up listening that sort of music, It doesn't make me feel special in any way and i don't see it as an accomplishment. This is the problem nowadays, when you listen to old music instead of modern music you're immediately judged and labeled things like a hipster just because you listen to music that got released before the 2000s.

The reason of why a brought Freddie Mercury and Bohemian Rhapsody because of its diversity in terms of lyrics and very few repetitions. Lets look at the Band Rainbow and their songs like "Catch the Rainbow", or "Temple of the King". There lyrics meant something and it felt like the band was telling you a story something that you don't OFTEN see or hear of. Why because the bands that do, do this aren't well known

Let's look at Deep purple's "When a blind man cries". It also feels like the band is telling you a story. So don't start to make assumptions that i'm a generic YouTube commenter who always brings up the same artist all the time. I had a reason for bringing up Bohemian Rhapsody and i had stated the reason above.

I never said that Beethoven and Mozart were the only 2 composers in the classical era, there were many. Tchaikovsky, JS Bach, Vivaldi, Chopin, just to name a few. What do you mean by hipster bait and honestly sucked? Are you saying that one of the greatest guitarists in the world (Jimi Hendrix) sucked? Are you saying that the Who and the Clash were simply just hipster bait? These bands were one of the most influential bands of their time, bands after the 60s followed a similar style to these bands and some bands today still do.

That's great for you if you've learnt how to to use C++ and Maya but i never said that i was proud of myself for listening to old music. As an aspiring musician i feel that certain artist back then had more technique than most of the artists today.

Con, you seem to be cherry picking my statements and saying Many modern artist still do that
Posted by Espera 1 year ago
Espera
Oh wow... this is a stupid thing when said on YouTube comments and it doesn't gain anything from being made a "debate" here. There are always stupid songs, there are always pointless groups and irritating artists - which is why the people who make this point are generally only able to bring up a couple of the exact same artists or songs. But of course there were far more songs and artists about - however they weren't as good as the Freddie Mercury's or they were considered the Ganghum Styles and Macarenas of the day.

Do you really think only Beethoven or Mozart were the only classical composers? There were hundreds, but they simply were as lasting in nature. Do yo think there was only Jimi Hendrix and the Clash and the Who and the like? There were tons of groups out there, but they don't fit the narrative or they were only average or they were hipster bait or they honestly sucked. So it goes - Nirvana wasn't the only Grunge group, but they are the one talked about most. Metallica got famous covering the songs of others, but they get the Lion's share of credit.

Honestly, if you really want to hear some music then look for it - you have internet access obviously. Try Earmilk, try Hypem, try Musicforants or even YouTube. Hey why not Pandora or Soundcloud? Because you don't want to hear good music - you want to feel special because you only listen to Old Music. Seriously that is not an accomplishment - I listen to early 19th century music but I'm much more proud of myself for learning C++ and how to use Maya.

And I apologize for the rant if not the content of it - but this argument requires an almost obstinate amount of willful ignorance of current music.
Posted by Himans45 1 year ago
Himans45
Are you implying that making music with actual instruments IS easy?

Of course not, but you seem to be implying that making music electronically IS EASIER than making music with traditional music. There is just as much talent and skill going into electronic music as there is with traditional instruments.

"I like older music for a reason, since most of the artists in the past much like Ritchie Blackmore have studied the concepts behind musical theory and have looked up to classical artists way before their time and have used some elements of classical music in their songs."

Many current edm producers take inspiration from classical musicians as well. Also, just because someone looks up to a musician from a long time ago doesn't make them any better. Your entire argument is subjective anyways. Also, pretty sure almost every acclaimed musician has studied or at least has some knowledge of music theory.

"And are you assuming that I myself don't play music?"

Nobody said anything of the sort, he is just stating that making music with electronic instruments are just as difficult as classical instruments.
Posted by Destructo819 1 year ago
Destructo819
Are you implying that making music with actual instruments IS easy? I like older music for a reason, since most of the artists in the past much like Ritchie Blackmore have studied the concepts behind musical theory and have looked up to classical artists way before their time and have used some elements of classical music in their songs. And are you assuming that I myself don't play music? I've been playing the drums for about 9 years now and will take my grade 8 trinity exams for it this year. Just saying, that wasn't easy as well... I also play the guitar which took me 2 years took get to a decent level but many others who are way better than me have been playing for a long time and still have a lot to learn
Posted by BootsWithDefer 1 year ago
BootsWithDefer
Con all the way. I make electronic music, its NOT easy, it does take talent...and pro is romanticizing older music.
Posted by m4j0rkus4n4g1 1 year ago
m4j0rkus4n4g1
Con, have fun showing that Pro's resolution and arguments are all subjective. Pro quite obviously does not listen to music made in the last two decades at all, or listens selectively to the tiny portion of tunes promoted on the radio. I have heard this argument from countless individuals, but whenever I bring up modern artists that do not match their negative statements, they act as if they can't be troubled to look up such artists. I suppose the allure of appealing to "the good ol' days" is too much to be troubled with objectivism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Destructo819Himans45Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round