Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists
Debate Rounds (3)
I hate modern music that all of my friends seem to like, such as Dub step and modern pop music. There just seems to be a lack of passion in the artist when you listen to the music; completely the opposite to Sinatra.
I'm looking for a person who likes modern music such as Dub step to debate my proposal that the music of people such as Sinatra is better than music from the people like Skrillex.
Resolution is 'music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists'.So in order to win this debate I will be required to show that modern music is better or atleast in par with 'older music' like that of sinatra's by either negating PRO's arguments or making them unsound.
I feel that Frank Sinatra's music is better than music from people such as Skrillex. I have more than one reason for this, however the one which stands out most to me is the lack of passion which I feel modern artists, such as Skrillex, have for their music.
When you listen to music from Sinatra, Dean Martin, Nat King Cole etc. you can tell just how much energy and passion they have for that particular song. When I hear their songs I can imagine them performing it live; however when I hear music from people such as Skrillex, I can't see any passion or energy, because they aren't actually performing. All these artists do is sit at a computer and put one track over another. Where is the passion in that?
I await my opponents reply.
With advancements and enchancements of musical instruments modern music
is filled with varieties of songs and genres that wasn't seen during
earlier times(for this debate lets say the 1950's).New instruments
introduced have helped create songs with such unique and different styles
that such songs have been assigned to totally new genres(dubstep,electronic
Hence, modern music appeases a wider section of people with
different tastes and preferences.
==Probability for appeal==
The sheer overwhelming number of songs produced per year,in comparison to
the olden days, is enough to empower superiority to modernn day produced
music.Songs are just an artistic combination of different vocal tunes
that may be found appealing to a person while not to another.Given the
plethora of music produced today there exists a higher probability of
songs being created with combinations that satiate more specific likes of
people than in earlier times.
Rebuttals in R3.On to you,PRO
From the customer reviews, Sinatra's album received 4.8 out of 5 stars. This means 96% of people liked the album.
From the customer reviews, Skrillex's album received only 4.4 out of 5 stars. This means only 88% of people liked the album.
Although 8% may not seem like a big difference, like Con said, this is in a time where modern music 'appeases a wider section of people.' Shouldn't that mean that the modern albums should have higher ratings than Sinatra's album, which contains music from the 50's. So clearly Sinatra is better, as 60 years on, his songs sell more than new songs.
I have posted the links in the comments as I would have run out of characters if I posted them here.
I await your response Con.
All these...sit at a computer and put one track..
And I could very well say violinists are people who rub a stick on four strings; saying things as such implies nothing.Talent is when simple recipes and formulae are used to create something unique that people enjoy.
I...can imagine them performing it live;
The only logical conclusion that follows from this are
a) Probably, that type of music suits PRO's taste.
b) PRO's imaginative senses are going berserk and needs medical help.
I assume it's the former, but that doesnt show why olden music is 'better'.
however...aren't actually performing
This is quite surprising PRO, cause when I hear dubstep I feel like they literally radiate energy especially during the drops.It takes immense skill to create music that has such effect on the listener and modern artists need to be appreciated for that.
PRO's R3 only implies that the page got visited by comparitively more fans.
Anyhow, I give links of two modern albums that got 4.9 and 5 in comments.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: con made excellent points
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Con destroyed Pro points, proved dubstep good. (IE, it causes emotion)
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Really short debate. Could've been longer (at least 2000 chars per rd). Also, this really needed a 7-point system. Con had inferior S&G, but made effective rebuttals. Not much to say, really. 96% to 88% isn't really a very viable comparison. Besides, Con showed higher ratings. Anyways, I don't really think those links ought to count as sources since they were posted in comments. Conduct didn't seem bad enough on either side. In a 7-point format, I'd give 3-1 in Con's favour, awarding arguments to Con and S&G to Pro. Anyways, Con is the winner in my opinion. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-||-|
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, Con: please, please save us the huge font, logos and pictures. They play no part in the debate. With that said, Con made some good points, as did Pro. I cannot, however, reward arguments points, as very little numerical or empirical evidence was presented, leaving the two sides at equal levels.
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.