The Instigator
annakimma
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
PlagueDoctor
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Music is all about looks now!

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 2 votes the winner is...
PlagueDoctor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Arts
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 80595
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

annakimma

Con

I think that music has no meaning, it seems to be focused on the looks of the singer and not the words. there was a time when singers had meanings to thier songs and rappers rapped about the deep stuff. there was a time when rock was a riot against the world and now all music is about is sex, drugs, and getting money. Back when there was no youtube, people were more concerned with the music than the artist's looks-now poeple are mor intrested in whether the artist got chest implants then whether the artist's music is good. Overall music has just gone downhill...
PlagueDoctor

Pro

Music does, indeed, have meaning. Songs with pleasant-sounding lyrics and melodies will gain accolades and awards more than songs based on egotistical divas. While I will concede that the original purpose of several musical genres has become lost in the modern world, there are still deep and emotional songs that are produced by artists. Take, for example, Eminem's "When I'm Gone" and "Hailie's Song", which both profess his love for his daughter. But Eminem is just the tip of the iceberg-there are so many other musicians who put emotion into their songs that it would be unfair to say that music is about looks. While appearance has become a major part of music, there is still so much else that could be said about music nowadays.
Debate Round No. 1
annakimma

Con

you are right, but in this year, this music that is coming out has no meaning. 2014 had the last of the good music and now it all sounds like the same thing, everyone wants to rap, or create jungle type music. Rock isn't even rock any more, it's pop rock, country music sounds like One Direction. Artists and groups like HAIM, Imogen Heap, Dumbfounded, Toro Y Moi, chairlift, etc. don't get the credit they need even when they have good music and the music they put out there for the public, on the radio sucks, big time. Every one I know likes the music they like because either the singer is "hot" or because the music video was cool, they don't focus on the concept of the song.
PlagueDoctor

Pro

While I agree that music has changed mostly to pop-type music, is that nessecarily a bad thing? We have seen numerous changes in musical style throughout history, notably through civilizations. Why, then, should this be different? While there may be good artists who don't get the credit they deserve, there is plenty of legitimate, emotional music out on the radio today. The only reason that music videos exist is to promote marketing and the purchase of music recordings-so of course they want the video to be cool and the singer to be "hot"! In the digital age of today, marketers and advertisers have learned to adapt to the rapid change in public interest. People now focus on looks more than the quality of the music, and the marketers know this. So it's hardly the thought of the people who actually care about music that it's this way now. To conclude this argument, music is not all about looks now. The musicians actually put effort into their songs and create interesting melodies that are catchy and capture the attention of audiences. It's only the advertising companies' fault that the music industry is this way.
Debate Round No. 2
annakimma

Con

When you say that every generation has its own style you are right but it gets a little different when you are referring to the music of this day and age. The music of now has almost all of the same melodies, and a lot of the artists out today have similar voices. During the 80's you could tell the difference between journey and Bon Jovi, even though they had the same style of music, their melodies weren't the same. Now however, you can hardly tell the difference between Miley Cyrus and Tailor Swift, because their Music is just too similar. No artist that they promote seems to have their own style anymore, except the seniors that started their career in a earlier time. You are also right about the music videos being a good way for artists to advertise but, they have taken their music videos too far, all their women half(or fully) naked and their men singing with twerking women beside them, its quite revolting, really. There was a time when music videos were more about the song than the actual person singing. Now you see artists trying extra hard to look good for the camera. Sure artists work hard to create interesting music, but it becomes less interesting when the next artist comes out with a song that sounds just like it. Sure the artist is meant to look "hot" to attract attention to the songs they make but the songs become less important when the artist's hotness is the focus and not their music.
PlagueDoctor

Pro

PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
annakimma

Con

do you want to continue debating this subject?
PlagueDoctor

Pro

No, thank you-I would rather let the voters decide from here on out.
Debate Round No. 4
annakimma

Con

annakimma forfeited this round.
PlagueDoctor

Pro

PlagueDoctor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by annakimma 1 year ago
annakimma
okay if you would like to I will challenge you to a debate(: are you for or against this topic?
Posted by Mr_bucket 1 year ago
Mr_bucket
I enjoyed reading this, and I would like to be able to debate more on this topic if you are willing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
annakimmaPlagueDoctorTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited more turns.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
annakimmaPlagueDoctorTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro seemingly forfeited R3 because he was done with the debate and wanted to let voters decide based on what was already given. This is poor conduct, as any debate should be finished until the end. Due to the lack of a reasonable excuse, I award Conduct to Con due to Pro's forfeits. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con set a very high burden on themself by making the claim that music is *all* about looks now. All Pro had to do was provide evidence that music is about more than just looks, and successfully did so with evidence like Eminem's two tracks, both of which reflected the fact that emotional music was just as popular now as ever. On the flip side, Con was unable to prove, without a doubt, that *all* music is about looks now. Thus, Pro wins arguments due to Con being unable to uphold the burden of proof they set of themself. Sources - Tie. Neither side utilized sources.