The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

Music like Sinatra's is better than music from people such as Skrillex and other modern artists

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Music
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 58868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)




I have a love for all kinds of music. However, my music taste seems to be favoured towards older music. I like music from 70's artists, however I also love the music from people such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin etc.

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.


Better: "superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability; more highly skilled than another"

With that said I graciously accept this challenge and am looking forward to an interesting debate.

On to you, PRO.

Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting Con.

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
Debate Round No. 2


I'm going to be using results from Amazon customer reviews for the albums 'Sinatra: Best of the Best', and 'Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites' by Skrillex. Both of these albums were released in 2011. (See the links in comments)

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.

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Hmm, I guess the reader's perspective is what matters, maybe the time has come for me to reconsider and modify my way of presentation in debates. *Looks into the distance with glazed eyes while a melancholic music plays in the backdrop *
Posted by knight.j 2 years ago
No disrespect Con, but I agree with Ameliamk1. I did find that the pictures were a little distracting and upset the flow of reading. Of course, I agree that sometimes you should use pictures, but only when they have a purpose.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed this debate with you, and look forward to future debates.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
@ Ameliamk1 Primarly, I would like to convey the fact that the fundamental purpose of me using the said font and pictures is to make my reading more enjoyable.Of course I know they won't help me get a leverage in the debate but still I am of the opinion that doing so makes the debate more captivating, this view has been shared by many other prominent debaters in this site too who have also given their appreciation for the same.So I think I will keep following my style.

and second you should understand that the absence of sources in this debate is because of the word limit of 1k that has been imposed; but thanks anyway for spending your time to vote on this debate.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Links for amazon ratings (R3):

Modern artist 1(dubstep) :

Modern artist 2(A$AP) :
Posted by knight.j 2 years ago
Links for amazon ratings (R3):


Posted by knight.j 2 years ago
Yes, R1 is acceptance. Sorry for not mentioning that before.

Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
I assume R1 is for acceptance??
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: con made excellent points
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
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:-Vote Checkmark
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.