The Instigator
patsox834
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,596 times Debate No: 10650
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

patsox834

Pro

<"FORMAT/RULES:

1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical band line-up.

2. All band members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source.

3. All band members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not.

4. Bands must contain exactly four members and no more.

5. The band must include a drummer, a bass player, a vocalist and one other instrument. Musicians can also be singers and multi instrumentalists are allowed as long as these roles are permanently filled.

6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole.

7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2.

8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our bands and the individuals that comprise them.

9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them.">

And #10 -- a band member can't be on both teams. In essence, what this means is that whoever takes this can't pick any of the people I picked.

Copy and pasted from: http://www.debate.org... -- it was obviously the idea of feverish, so yeah..

Mine:

Drums: Keith Moon -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Bass: John Entwistle -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Guitar: Frank Zappa -- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vocals: Jim Morrison -- http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, uh, yeah....
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pat Sox, for this debate.

My hypothetical deceased band includes...

Drums: John Bohnam [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Bass: Charles Mingus [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Guitar: Jimi Hendrix [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Vocals: Ray Charles [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

[ Drummers ]

Keith Moon was great, sure, but John Bonham was a rhythmic beast. I consider him the most influential drummer in rock history. Completely self taught, Bonham was known to have drum solos that lasted for 20 - 30 minutes, such as on the infamous Led Zeppelin tune Moby Dick.

If you start watching the YouTube clip, you'll notice that the band actually walks off the stage after playing the first minute to give Bonzo his chance in the spot light as he pounds away for the next 9 minutes by himself. A true musician and master of the instrument, Bonham is able to keep the audience interested, entertained and awe stricken while creating harmonious melodies despite playing an instrument strictly rhythm based. Plus, since the song's main riff is a 12 bar blues, Bonham's drumming (essentially since he's the only one playing for most of the song) illustrates the dynamic complexity he can bring to such a simple structure. Any musician who understands the fundamentals of music knows that a 12 bar blues is incredibly simple; it even follows a specific and usually unchanging chord structure (usually a 1-4-5 progression). For Bonham to take such simplicity and make it so intricate is nothing short of sheer brilliance and talent.

When Bonham performed this song and others live (again - sometimes improvise soloing for up to 30 minutes at a time) he often played until his sticks broke. When that happened, he would continue the solo playing with his bare hands until they bled. The song, "Four Sticks", was named by the fact that Bonham had failed a few takes of the song in the studio because he couldn't get the drum track just how he wanted it. In his frustration, he grabbed a second set of sticks (four sticks total) to lay down the final track [1]. The song "How The West Was Won" features even more Bonzo greatness. Now given the fact that Led Zeppelin is timeless, it's pretty safe to say that he's influenced every great drummer that has come after him -- including his friend Keith Moon whom he'd worked with -- and contemporary greats such as Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters and Neil Peart of Rush (whom I think is phenomenal). I'll detail more of why Bonham is a better drummer than Moon in the upcoming rounds.

[ Bass ]

Now I noticed that someone else had chosen Charles Mingus for this category but I'd like to note that I chose him not for his immense fame and credibility, but because (1) I think he'd best fit in with my hypothetical band and (2) I'm actually a trained jazz musician myself who is all too familiar with this man's talent and skill. His mastery of various genres has earned him the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award among other prestigious titles. He could play bass, double bass and used both bass guitars as well as upright bass. Again, I'll compare his prowess to Entwistle's in the upcoming rounds.

[ Guitar ]

Like Mingus, I didn't select him for his household name, but for the way he revolutionized guitar playing in general. Rolling Stone magazine considers him the best guitarist of all time - and with good reason [2]. They mention how he did this thing where he would play a chord, and then he would sweep his left hand through the air in a curve, and it would almost take you away from the idea that there was a guitar player here and that the music was actually coming out of the end of his fingers. The guy was, in short, magical... and ingenious. It wasn't just his psychedelic larger than life persona either. In addition to the most well recognized solos ever (such as his rendition of The Star Spangled Banner), he had a knack for taking other songs and mastering them even further - such as the infamous "All Along the Watch Tower" originally performed by none other than Bob Dylan. Indeed Hendrix HAS to be considered one of the most influential guitar gods of rock-n-roll; another incredible guitarist - Stevie Ray Vaughn, respectively, in particular idolized Hendrix for his style and romanticism while playing.

Everything about Hendrix's music is electric. This guy's influence on rock-n-roll was immeasurable. Even another great - Zeppelin's Jimi Page was on the scene at the time and bowed down to Hendrix. The guy just had it all: talent, charisma, passion, he commanded attention, brilliant solos, could make great things better, innovation, presence, etc. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of people here on this site going "Frank Zappa... who?" which speaks volumes for Hendrix's impact not only on the music scene but the rock culture in general compared to Zappa's limited commercial success. Hendrix is a household name and a forever legend, whereas Zappa's known more so by musicians and whose impact is somewhat exaggerated by fans on his Wiki.

[ Vocals ]

Ray Charles hands down owns Jim Morrison in this category. Now I like The Doors as much as the next guy; however, listening to these guy's voices in comparison to each other is laughable. I'm not even sure I have to type much (though I will) comparing the two, as their voices speak for themselves. For instance, take Charles' most famous song "Hit the Road Jack" and give a listen to the deep soul he brings to the track. Now listen to one of The Doors' most famous songs - which I love - called "Touch Me." While great, in comparison to Charles, Morrison's voice almost sounds hokey. It's as if Neil Diamond could have sang the exact same thing and no one would have known the difference. But again, I'll leave the comparison for the next few rounds and focus on Charles here.

Rolling Stone lists Charles as the best male vocalist of ALL TIME (second only to Aretha Franklin) [3] and though we shouldn't take their judgment as gospel for fallacious ad populum or perhaps even appeal to authority purposes, we cannot dismiss such a well renowned source of music journalism in their assessment. You'll notice that Jim Morrison doesn't even make the top 100. One reason Charles is so significant his the uniqueness of his voice, and the impact he made on music and society. Again, character space is limited, but I will easily pin him up against Jim Morrison in the next round.

[ Band ]

My band is INCREDIBLY conducive; each influencing and bouncing off one another to create a sound that I'm willing would be one of the best in history. One noticeable advantage my band has over Pro's is the diverse range of music that each musician plays, in addition to the fact that Charles is a fantastic pianist who could contribute to the band's overall sound and make it more versatile. While Pro's band features only rock musicians, mine hosts accomplished jazz artists as well as features pioneers of blues, soul, funk, bebop, AND rock amongst others. While Hendrix for instance shreds on the guitar with the rest of rock's grittiest soloists, he also brings a certain funk to his rock similar to how Bonham and Led Zeppelin did with their music. Bonham's playing is "raw" much like Mingus' bass solos AND rhythmical chord progressions. Add in Charles' soulful, one of a kind voice in consideration with their individual accomplishments in addition to the impact they had on both music AND society, and we've got a winning band.

[1] http://www.buzzle.com...
[2] http://www.rollingstone.com...
[3] http://www.rollingstone.com...
Debate Round No. 1
patsox834

Pro

Drums:

I find the claim that Bonham is more influential than Moon to be borderline insane. John Bonham is one of my favorite drummers, and members of any band, but Keith Moon simply did things nobody else before him did -- he set the table for the John Bonham's of the music word. Hell, Led Zeppelin even had Moon take Bonham's place during live shows on more than one occasion.

...from what I said in the first one of these I did:

"Moon revolutionized a drummer's position in a band. It's akin to how Jimi Hendrix took the guitar and did things nobody else had done. In most bands, and in any band I can think of that preceded the Who, the drummer was mainly hovering around in the background; not much emphasis was put on them.

But then Keith Moon came along, and not only did he stand out, but he caught the complete attention of whoever listened to him or saw him. He was the focal point of the Who; he was the first drummer that was emphasized so significantly. It wasn't a title that was given to him, either; he took it, with his destructive, energetic style. It was a style that really wasn't seen before. Nobody else had pounded on the drums and just annihilated them the way Moon did. But it's one thing to beat on the drums...it's another to do it, and continue to stand out in a band with such big rock n' roll personalities, such as Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey. It wasn't as if Moon was a big fish in a small pond, like Page was for a time in the Yardbirds. He was surrounded by some great musicians who were as nuts as he was on stage.

But Moon went the extra mile. Really, Moon deserves a lot of credit in the development of the rock n' roll star's archetype. He was all about abusing drugs, off the wall parties (he bought his own strange house, so he could have a constant party), and overall destruction. I mean, the man was incredibly famous for smashing his hotel rooms, and he even once drove a car into a pool. Many stories of Moon's violent and sociopathic behavior exist; I probably don't have enough room to fit them. Point is, Moon was the first to behave this way, and he set the stage for the Led Zeppelin's of the music world.

Speaking of Zeppelin, another way to see how great Moon was is to see how Zeppelin were actually friends with Moon, and were fans of him; they supposedly wanted Moon to be in a band with them. Hell, Moon and Entwistle apparently gave Zeppelin their name (by saying they'd go over like a "lead zeppelin.) Even Jeff Beck was a Moon fan, and recorded with Moon, Page, and John Paul Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org.......)"

I think, even by this, we can see how Keith Moon really smashes John Bonham in terms of influence. It's a bit of a joke, really. Moon was the cornerstone of arguably the best band of all-time. While Bonham was certainly great, and a big name, it's not easy to say that he stood out more than Plant or Page. He was a big fish with other big fish. With Moon...he was surrounded by big fish, too, but no of them matched Moon. Not even Pete Townshend. He was a d-mn whale.

I also notice the bit about live performances. Ha, also not territory where anyone matches Keith Moon. Moon literally smashed his drums, put explosives in them, and played with this incredible intensity for whole shows. With the video I'm using, take notice of the part where Moon is surrounded by the remains of a drum kit, and is standing there pounding the f-ck out of the cymbals. And, well...I don't think I need to mention the Smothers Brothers incident. Btw: that video is shots of Moon when he was playing live to the song "the Ox," which is also him, as well as the rest of the Who.

Bass:

Like I said in another debate:

Now, I didn't choose Entwistle because I figured he was the best dead bassist (I tend to think that's James Jamerson), but because we *know* he can keep up with Keith Moon, and can harmonize his bass with Moon's drums to form an incredible sound which was the backbone of one of the biggest bands ever -- the Who. Moon and Entwistle are a combination that we can safely say equates to serious success, and an awesome sound. The perfect rhythmic section...well, out of dead people.

In essence, I think Entwistle really solidifies my hypothetical band -- the rhythmic section of a band is crazily important, and the one I have has proven to be successful, influential, and talented. The selection of Entwistle really rounds out my rhythmic section with a formula we know to be successful based on experience.

Though your rhythmic section is damn talented, mine has proven to be all of the things I mentioned above -- successful, influential, and talented. I'll talk more about this later.

Guitar:

Ha, Zappa vs. Hendrix. This is a pretty good one. Now, I'll admit Hendrix was better at playing the guitar, but I don't think it's a beasting at all; Zappa certainly made his own contributions to the music world with his guitar. I'll also admit Hendrix has a greater following, but Zappa has his own; he's more well recognized that you're giving him credit for. I mean, how many musicians in the rock 'n roll hall of fame have a small following? Not many. But really, I think Zappa offers more to my band than Hendrix does to yours. Also from my other debate:

Zappa is a perpetually underrated, innovative guitarist, who guided other musicians and got them their big break, such as the virtuoso Steve Vai.

Zappa, in a way, did things that nobody else did; he had a big hand in the pioneering of guitar shredding, which has become incredibly popular (Vai, Buckethead, Malmsteen, Gilbert, Petrucci), and is the first guitarist I can think of who was completely self-taught. Not only that, but he was one of rock's greatest and first satirists (Billy the Mountain), and seems to be the one who popularized "comedy rock" (Bobby Brown Goes Down.)

Zappa's influence is...well, large. Primus (http://www.reviewjournal.com......), Steve Vai (http://www.vai.com......), Alice Cooper ("Popin," issue five), System of a Down (http://www.rollingstone.com......), Black Sabbath (http://www.black-sabbath.com......), and even Weird Al (http://www.weirdal.com.......)

But not only was Zappa a talented, creative, and original guitarist, but he was an extraordinary musician...maybe one of the best in modern times. Not only could he write rock songs with shredding (Montana), catchy, bluesy songs (Don't Eat the Yellow Snow), and powerful riffs (Disco Boy), but Zappa also composed classical music and orchestral music (http://en.wikipedia.org......), and was a conductor, producer, editor and, well...he wrote just about anything you can imagine, from jazz, to reggae, the blues, to hard hitting classic rock. He could play the guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, and even a synclavier.

Every band needs someone to write the music, produce the hits, edit, etc., and Frank Zappa is more than capable of all of these things. The icing on the cake is that he's also an innovative guitarist, and is one of the better guitarists alive or dead.

[Hendrix] simply doesn't have anywhere as much to offer to any band as Frank Zappa. And really, as with Entwistle, I think Zappa adds more than individual talents and skills; he just makes the overall make-up of the group that much better with his experience leading bands, his technical ability, and knowledge of music. The addition of Zappa really makes my band crazily diverse musically.

Vocals:

I won't be able to say much about this, but Ray Charles vs. Jim Morrison is clearly a beasting, but for Morrison. Like I said in my previous debate, if this position was just about singing, then I would've picked some American Idol winner. I mean, Ray Charles is some blind guy; what else can he do? Sitting/standing there and singing is great, but Morrison's powerful onstage antics, fantastic lyrics, and legendary status as a rock 'n roll star put him very, very far above Charles. I'll explain more later.
Danielle

Con

[ Drummers ]

So basically, the arguments for why Keith Moon was a better drummer are:

1. He was a focal point of The Who
2. He was a party animal
3. Keith and John were friends
4. KM put explosives in his drums

Pro says, "I think by this we can see how KM smashes JB in terms of influence" and that it's a joke to think otherwise. Interesting. I personally disagree and think that these 4 arguments do not even come close to demonstrating one's superiority over the other. Let's take the first argument - the fact that Keith Moon stood out as one of the most prominent members of The Who. How does that in any way demonstrate his superiority over Bonham? It doesn't. Surpassing Pete Townshend in band popularity is a lot easier than surpassing Plant or Page. Led Zeppelin was a more dynamic, influential, creative and explosive band than The Who. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that The Who is a better band than Led Zeppelin. So just because one drummer had more attention amongst their band members in no way says anything about their skills in comparison to one another.

Further, KM was an attention whore who went out of his way to demand that type of attention (I mean putting explosives in your drums? Really? Looks like he couldn't "stand out" on his own), whereas Bonham's drumming spoke for itself. It is widely agreed upon that Keith Moon often over-played; he would add in complex extra drum parts that while featured his drumming abilities, sacrificed precision, time and overall rhythm keeping

One critic notes, "It almost seemed like he got bored with keeping with the rest of the band and said 'Hey! Why don't i pull this drum roll out of my a-ss and splice it right here?" [1]. Indeed anyone who knows Keith Moon's playing philosophy knows, "He always believed that the drummer should be front and center on the rock stage, rather than the timekeeper in the corner as most rock drummers had been previously, and his antics ensured that he was never ignored... Most rock critics agree that the result, 'Two Sides of the Moon' [his solo album] released in 1975, had very little musical value" [2].

I agree that a drummer ought to be able to keep in touch with the rest of his band rather than selfishly going off on tangents just to hog the spotlight. Keith Moon was an interesting fellow, but known more for his off-the-wall antics which is what REALLY garnered him all of the attention - not necessarily his drumming. He was a bad a-ss drummer, but he cared more about showing off than keeping time... which is the real point of having a drummer in the first place. Moreover, I think it's obvious that just because he and Bonham were friends and that Moon like to party a lot that these are both terrible arguments for demonstrating one's musical prowess. Plus, Bonham, like Moon, was known for being "out there" and they both died in their early 30s due to drug overdoses.

In short, Pro's going to have to work a hell of a lot harder in discussing Moon's musical superiority other than pointing out the obvious that Moon was a party animal attention whore who was friends with Bonham.

[ Bass ]

Now Pro says that he chose John Entwistle as a bassist because he has shown to be able to "keep up" with Moon. Choosing 2 members who are band-mates for a 4 person band is a safe way to ensure that this is the case. However, Pro has made the argument that KM undoubtedly stood out and stole the show from the other Who members. In that case, there is no reason to think that he would not do the same in this hypothetical band. KM was known for his antics, for his complex drumming and for his live performances. However he was not known for keeping the best time and rhythm. Having John Entwistle in this category does a few things -- (1) It ensures that he is overshadowed by KM by Pro's own admission, and (2) Does nothing to to explain how he's a better bassist than Charles Mingus.

If you look back at Pro's last round, he merely states that this dynamic duo of JE and KM makes for a fantastic rhythm section, but as I said, it'd be easy to choose a wildly popular band and then choose the rhythm section of said band to come up with 2/4 members for a new band. How is Entwistle better than Mingus? Pro hasn't offered one shred of evidence. Mingus not only composed numerous hits and was a rhythmic perfectionist, but also was a master at bass solos - something we don't see often in rock in general let alone from Entwistle in particular. On a personal level, we know that Mingus was incredibly controversial regarding race issues and his detestation of authority among other issues. Moreover, while he was a jazz god, Mingus was one of the pioneers of an entirely new sound (bebop).

[ Guitar ]

Yes, Hendrix is a better guitar player with a bigger following. What else needs to be said, when by Pro's own standards we are to consider talent, popularity, creativity, charisma, body of work and attractiveness? Hendrix has the first 2 categories owned by Pro's own admission, and easily wins the others as well. Jimi Hendrix is FAR more charismatic than Zappa! Not to mention that Hendrix was and still is a cultural icon with just as much if not more influence than Zappa.

Pro writes, "The addition of Zappa really makes my band crazily diverse musically." Haha - how so? Notice that this is an assertion made with nothing to back it up. What does Zappa have that Hendrix doesn't? Hendrix was also a song writer, performer and definitely had about 1,000 more cool points... er, make that 10,000. Plus, while Pro notes that Zappa was "one of" the best guitar players, Hendrix is considered THE best guitar player. And furthermore, no, a band does not need someone to produce the hits -- that's what producers are for.

I think this category is so self-explanatory in highlighting the established criteria that in addition to my points about Hendrix's playing ability, innovation and creativity from the last round, I am going to post live clips of both Zappa and Hendrix playing in order for the audience to see clearly who dominates in terms of charisma, stage presence, skill, etc. Note that Zappa starts playing at 8 seconds in.

The bottom line is that it's VERY clear who the superior front man is here.

[ Vocals ]

I cannot believe that Pro believes Morrison would "beast" Charles in a vocal situation! Once again you'll notice that Pro offered not one shred of evidence or explanation, whereas I have explained that Charles is considered the #1 male vocalist of all time... and Morrison isn't on the list of the top 100. He also attempts to use Charles' blindness as something that stands in the way of his greatness, while I consider it proof that he can actually make it to a dominant level of success even with that enormous obstacle.

Morrison's "on stage antics" could be easily reproduced by any other member of the band. It's not only up to the vocalist to wild out on stage (Moon proves this). Plus, HE PLAYS PIANO... how much jumping around could he do?! Morrison's voice is kind of hokey and does not stand out in any way. Charles' is unique and powerful. Nuff said.

[ Band ]

Pro took a been-there, done-that rhythm section and added Zappa and Morrison. Morrison was good with The Doors but cannot stand out on his own; he certainly can't compare to Ray Charles in terms of his singing voice. Charles' voice was edgey, dynamic and unable to be reproduced. The same could be said about Hendrix's style, flare and talent. My band clearly dominates in terms of creativity, talent, diversity and focusing on the MUSIC in general along with generating popularity and crowd excitement.

[1] http://www.johnmcferrinmusicreviews.org...
[2] http://www.hotshotdigital.com...
Debate Round No. 2
patsox834

Pro

Drums:

"How does that in any way demonstrate his superiority over Bonham? It doesn't. Surpassing Pete Townshend in band popularity is a lot easier than surpassing Plant or Page. Led Zeppelin was a more dynamic, influential, creative and explosive band than The Who."

I find the idea of Led Zeppelin being better than the Who just plain wrong. If I had room, I'd go on about that, but I don't, so...

No, surpassing Pete Townshend is not easy to do. Crazily hard, if anything. Remember, there was nobody remotely like Townshend when the Who came along. That is, people didn't write the same way he did, they weren't borderline sociopathic, aggressive nutjobs on stage like he was, and really, even the way he played the guitar was new (what, with the windmills.) It's completely ludicrous to brush off Townshend like that, especially when you really have no basis for doing so.

"So just because one drummer had more attention amongst their band members in no way says anything about their skills in comparison to one another."

You haven't shown that. You say Led Zeppelin is better, give no rationale, and then conclude attention is meaningless. You're going to need to do more than type out random thoughts here; support them.

There's more than just "skill" to this, as well. My point was that Keith Moon is a much bigger name than John Bonham, which is evidenced by Moon being the most well known member of one of the most well known rock groups of all time.

"KM was an attention whore who went out of his way to demand that type of attention (I mean putting explosives in your drums? Really? Looks like he couldn't "stand out" on his own),"

So? He still did end up with that attention, no? I don't see how taking what I said and turning it into some attack on Moon means anything.

The explosives in the drum is gold. VH1 even ended up placing this it in the top ten list of the 100 greatest rock and roll moments on television.

"whereas Bonham's drumming spoke for itself. It is widely agreed upon that Keith Moon often over-played; he would add in complex extra drum parts that while featured his drumming abilities, sacrificed precision, time and overall rhythm keeping"

But the Who as a band went for the aggressive sound that Moon was good at. They threw rhythm keeping out the window, because that wasn't what Moon's job was as a drummer; he was the focal point of the whole band, so having his overall drumming abilities on display only made sense.

"..."He always believed that the drummer should be front and center on the rock stage, rather than the timekeeper in the corner as most rock drummers had been previously, and his antics ensured that he was never ignored"

Wait, so because Moon wasn't a traditional drummer, this favors Bonham somehow? That seems like you're trying to take that Moon revolutionized the instrument by being the first to have such an emphasis on him and use it against him, which is odd.

"He was a bad a-ss drummer, but he cared more about showing off than keeping time... which is the real point of having a drummer in the first place."

Not for the bands he was in. And who's to say what the point of a drummer is? It's up to him and the rest of the band.

"Moreover, I think it's obvious that just because he and Bonham were friends and that Moon like to party a lot that these are both terrible arguments for demonstrating one's musical prowess."

And here I thought I was pointing out that all of Led Zeppelin appreciated Moon an awful lot. Sometimes to the point where Moon would play with them in concert rather than Bonham.

I'd like to point out how little you said about live performances and influence, which are two big points of Moon's.

Bass:

"In that case, there is no reason to think that he would not do the same in this hypothetical band."

Duh? And a reason I chose him is *because* I knew he'd stand out. And a reason I chose Entwistle is because I knew he was more than comfortable being the anchor of the rhythm section; the guy who sits back and stays calm. So they clearly compliment each other. Hence why they were so successful. Not every bassist could stay with someone like Keith Moon, but Entwistle did, and that can only benefit my band, no matter how you try and twist it.

"1) It ensures that he is overshadowed by KM by Pro's own admission, and (2) Does nothing to to explain how he's a better bassist than Charles Mingus."

1 isn't a big deal at all. I've shown that above. With number two, individually, I wasn't planning on arguing that, as it would take up too much space. Instead, I think it makes more sense to argue that Entwistle's presence in my band puts together a proven rhythmic section, and since the rhythmic section is so important, that really give my band an edge. This notion has hardly been disputed; you claim Moon would get more attention than Entwistle...uh, so? That's the way it always was with the Who, and yet, they still are proven to be successful, influential, and talented based on their time in that band, so...

"...he merely states that this dynamic duo of JE and KM makes for a fantastic rhythm section, but as I said, it'd be easy to choose a wildly popular band and then choose the rhythm section of said band to come up with 2/4 members for a new band."

Ok. So?

Also, I included an Entwistle bass solo. I'd think this, and knowing what we do about Moon, kinda makes them more than just a popular rhythmic section.

Guitar:

I like how you tell me what my standards are. Read rule 8, and see this "and just about any other factor my opponent wishes." Yeah.

"how so? Notice that this is an assertion made with nothing to back it up. What does Zappa have that Hendrix doesn't?"

I guess you didn't see where I showed Zappa's overall musicianship..? It's there. When you have a composer who can write and perform any kind of music, it adds diversity to your band. Zappa could write rock (My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama), classical and orchestral music (gave a link in last round), reggae (Fine Girl), Bluesy stuff (gave example), etc., and he pioneered shredding (Muffin Man.) He could play multiple instruments, was a conductor, a producer, and an editor. Like I said, every band needs someone to write the music, produce the songs, and edit; Zappa can do all of that, and to top it off, he's still a very good and innovative guitarist.

Knowing that, he simply offers so much more than Hendrix. Hendrix, while a good musician, can't rationally be mentioned in the same sentence as Zappa, who could do it all, and seemingly play it all, while being self-taught. And then remember that Zappa produces and edits, and..too bad for Hendrix.

You call Hendrix more charismatic, when that's just not so. Zappa was known for being rather eccentric. His lyrics, song titles, album names, involvement with politics, etc., earned him that reputation.

"a band does not need someone to produce the hits -- that's what producers are for."

Nonsense. Of course they do. Hence the existence of producers. The fact that Zappa could produce is only more credit to him.

Vocals:

I never said Morrison was a better singer than Charles. I do, however, think Morrison is the better front man, but like I said, there's more than singing to this. So your whole bit about me not offering an explanation is attacking an argument I never made.

And his blindness doesn't help. It's like if I said some heroin addict would be good for my band, because of what an obstacle that addiction is.

No, it's not just up to the vocalist to go nuts on stage, but so? You claim it'd be easy for Morrison's antics to be doubled, but nobody like him was around before him nor after, so I doubt this. And it's still a strength of his that Charles can't match. And we can't forget how he's an icon in rock, his lyrics, etc.

My band simply has more to offer overall, as I think I've sho
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Con

[ Intro ]

First, I'd like to thank Pro for this debate as well as apologize again for missing the last round. I was road tripping and did not have access to wireless internet for awhile, though I don't think the missed round mattered much -- my opponent essentially forfeited his last round as well, and the arguments he made in R3 are what I will address in this final round.

[ Drummers ]

I pointed out that just because Moon was a focal point of The Who who did crazy things, that this no way proved that he was a better drummer than Bonham. Instead of offering up arguments why Moon is better, Pro continued to assert that since Moon garnered so much attention (even though most of it was irrelevant to his drumming) he is still the better drummer just because his style was different. That's bogus. Pro insists that The Who as a band did not need Moon to keep good time, but this debate isn't about The Who -- it's about a fictional band that needs a drummer... and a drummer's "job" is essentially to keep time. Sure, you can "rebel" against the music and try to purposefully not keep time... or whatever... but in the end, it's quite obvious to any musician that without one keeping accurate time, it throws the entire piece off. This is Music 101.

Further, I've explained and demonstrated (via video) Bonham's prowess insofar as his accomplishments - ie. 30 minute long live drum solos played with hands, 2-4 sticks, etc. These are all things that highlight Bonzo's musical superiority and feature his talent. Again, Pro comes up with irrelevant arguments. Did Moon drum for Led Zeppelin? Sure, maybe once or twice - but not because he was a better drummer than Bonham, so again this is irrelevant. Not to mention that Moon played with Zeppelin BEFORE Bonham was their drummer, and later he drummed ALONGSIDE Bonham. Pro is trying to manipulate the facts.

As I've said - KM changed drumming for sure and made the drums a focal instrument (insisting he be front and center on stage, have all of the attention, etc.). Yes, he revolutionized drumming and the roles of drummers... but again, his popularity is largely in part to his demanding that attention with his antics and not necessarily letting the music alone speak for itself. Bonham was a tremendous drummer with just as much if not more talent than Moon. Even if you disagree, you have to go with what was presented in this debate. Bonham's experimentation and creativity + talent has been highlighted by me pointing out his accomplishments, playing style, etc. Plus, due to Moon's habits and whatnot, he became increasingly unreliable as a band member and caused more trouble than he was worth.

Ps. I would be MORE than happy to do a The Who vs. Led Zeppelin debate with you, PatSox, if you're up for it.

[ Bass ]

Pro admits that he had no intention of arguing that Entwistle was a better bassist than Mingus. That's smart thinking on his part, since there is no way that any sane person would agree to that standard. In terms of influence, style and abilities - Mingus is your man. Yes, Entwistle can "keep up" with Moon, but as Pro said, Entwistle was comfortable giving Moon the spotlight and basically being overshadowed. I'm sure since Moon couldn't keep excellent time, that Entwistle was the crutch of the rhythm section of The Who. However if the point of Pro's rhythm section was to allow Moon to go off on tangents and have Entwistle merely follow along, then why choose Entwistle? Essentially any bassist can keep steady time and let the drummer shine. Pro hasn't given any evidence, facts, reasoning, etc. explaining why Entwistle in particular is even relevant to his band except for his experience with Moon. In that case, who provided the better bassist and reasoning obviously goes to the Con on this one.

[ Guitar ]

Pro - your attitude isn't helping your case any. I didn't "tell you what your standards are" -- I copy and pasted the standards that you provided. Yes, other standards can be considered, BUT, simply because I recited the ones you presented doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth. You said, "We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes..."

Now as far as attractiveness, popularity and charisma - Jimi Hendrix wins this hands down. The clips I provided prove this. Hendrix could capture the attention of MILLIONS and leave them silent and awe-stricken as they watched him play in a creative and innovative way that was completely new at the time. Hendrix revolutionized guitar and had the style, attitude and showmanship to go along with it.

Hendrix had a raw and unique sound; he pioneered several things such as his technique of guitar feedback and an over driven amplifier which he incorporated into his music to achieve what was once an undesirable sound - later to be duplicated by musicians following in his footsteps thereafter. He made guitar playing look like the coolest thing in the world, and did things his own way - most of the chords he used where unique to him. He played with more style than anybody - certainly Zappa!!!

Hendrix was the only guitarist to play rhythm and lead guitar at the same time, while fretting bass notes while singing. He was the only guitarist to make feedback sound good and melodic. He practically invented funk; he did chordal solos (interesting and unique), did long improv solos, etc. Contemporary guitarists like Satriani, Vai, Gilbert, Petrucci, etc. have all said Jimi is THE best: the most influential, innovative and creative to ever to plug in. Period. Eric Clapton's first words after hearing Jimi for the first time was, "Well, I'll never play guitar again." Luckily he didn't keep that promise, but you get the picture.

[ Vocals ]

Morrison is not a better singer than Charles. Pro admits it, and he's right. Everyone with any musical knowledge... or hell - just ears - can hear that this is the case. Charles can bring about a bunch of energy even while being blind and sitting down to play the piano (yet another advantage he has over Morrison). "He was simultaneously considered the best of the rock and-roll singers, the best of the Jazz singers — a category in which he won the Down Beat International Critics Poll more than once, and one of the best pop singers" [1]. Charles is the best male vocalist of all time. Hands down.

[ Band ]

Hendrix's style is described as rock, blues, jazz, funk and psychedelic. All of my band members can exemplify those styles. Bonham could do anything with these (obviously) and still stand out and keep time; Mingus OWNS bass in those categories and Charles can sing the hell out of it all. Yes - Zappa could compose different types of music (classical, for instance) but is that really relevant to the overall BAND? No. My band is cohesive -- Everyone fits together and they can play various styles of music and sound GOOD doing it. Their individual strengths and sounds can collectively form some bad a-ss music. On the other hand, we simply cannot expect Moon to be able to keep up with Zappa's classical stuff, so all of that is irrelevant.

[ Conclusion ]

Pro's rhythm section is relying on Moon to be considered the superior drummer... but Pro hasn't proven it at all (and just gave his opinion). He essentially conceded the bassist section to me (and rightfully so), so these 2 don't even matter. To say that Zappa has more flare, influence, style and charisma than Hendrix as a front man is just laughably retarded as I've proven with reasons and facts (citations and credits) and Ray Charles is hands-down the best front man for my particular band. He OWNS Morrison, who seems as he was just randomly selected to fit the profile and in no way does anything to make Pro's band any better or stronger. Con's band as a whole completely dominates.

[1] The Guardian Life Magazine
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
lol @ SaintNick for completely lying about his RFD.
Posted by SaintNick 6 years ago
SaintNick
Arguments- Con

Lemme say I'm a HUGE classic rock fan and music enthusiast. I have to say that Con completely dominated. Shame on Pro for making terrible arguments..... he hardly had any arguments at all as Con pointed out. Pro could have made such a better argument for Keith Moon but he didn't. He focused more on things that were not music related and while that could have helped him he ignored saying all the right things and the ways Keith's looney behavior could have helped his band. Now I actually disagree with Con and think that Entwistle could easily be compared to Mingus whom I think is a bit overrated. Yes Pro kind of copped out by using 2 Who members but again Pro should have illustrated more why his rhythm section was superior. He didn't make any good arguments for his side and barely seemed to even try. Now as far as guitarists, PRO LOST!!!!!! Listen Frank Zappa is good, but Hendrix is the MAN!!!! It would have been interesting if Pro took a crazy good guitarist with alot of enthusiasm and energy and talent and added him to Mooth's rhythm section (like maybe Van Halen). But to put Frank Zappa up against Hendrix in terms of charisma and stuff is just suicide. Hendrix won that category. And finally on the vocals, this point also goes to Con hands down. Pro didn't explain at all why Morrison was a better singer, nor did he explain how Morrison in particular helped his band (but Con explained Ray's influence and role). Morrison was wayyyyy too safe of a choice, and especially too tame to be up there with Moon!!!! Zappa's too weird and tame but Moon is too looney and crazy. Entwistle is blah just sorta there and Morrison was just an empty and safe selection. Overall Pro's argument just sucked and it seemed as if he didn't really try. In my opinion he shoulda picked Moon, Entwistle, Van Halen and Freddy Mercury...... he needed to rely on edge. He just didn't even come close to winning this debate.
Posted by SaintNick 6 years ago
SaintNick
My RFD is as follows:

Before- Tie
After- Con

Conduct- Tie

Pro's attitude and tone was nasty and unnecessary. Saying "What retardedly idiotic arguments" didn't make his arguments any better or hers any worse. But Con did forfeit a round so I had to award this point equally as a tie.

Spelling and Grammar- Tie

Sources- Con

Con used more of them, she linked to more live performances and sourced other articles (like Rolling Stone etc.
Posted by patsox834 6 years ago
patsox834
God, what retardedly idiotic arguments. Seriously.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Sorry for missing the last round -- I was back home in New York for a few days with no internet. I'll get to this tomorrow :)
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
Great debate so far guys.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Thanks, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Their styles aren't incredibly different. Mingus has the capability to walk a bass line - any bass line - and can solo upon request. Given the fact that jazz and bebop in that regard are very similar to soulful blues (easy for Charles), and that drumming requires just a steady beat (albeit with some flare... another thing called for in jazz and bebop in particular) which I know Bonham can do, I really don't see the issue. All 4 musicians can easily play rhythm, blues, soul, jazz, and funk -- We know Hendrix and Bonham can rock -- Mingus is easily adjustable and Charles can sing anything. Just because it's not exactly like the style that got him famous doesn't mean he can't adjust and that all of them aren't capable. I actually think the band is very cohesive that way and to assume they wouldn't be able to play any other style than what they're known for is kind of close-minded.
Posted by lliwill 6 years ago
lliwill
theLwerd, I have to agree with you on Ray Charles, but I don't think that the band as a whole would work well together, based on their very different musical styles.
Posted by patsox834 6 years ago
patsox834
<"Would you amend this debate so that the group of hypothetical musicians had to come together and form a hypothetical band?">

I thought that was covered with the sixth "rule."

<"6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole.">

And, well, a decent part of my whole argument will be about how the individual musicians I chose work as a group, so yeah, the four members playing as a group is clearly apart of the whole argument, as well as person vs. person. If you want to focus more on one than another, or something, then, uh, well...yeah.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
'Hypothetical Dead Musicians'

Can I hypothesize the perfect band as my group?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
patsox834DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
patsox834DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 6 years ago
SaintNick
patsox834DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 6 years ago
LaSalle
patsox834DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 6 years ago
patsox834
patsox834DanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70