The Instigator
Spinellzi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

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 3 votes the winner is...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,944 times Debate No: 18296
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Spinellzi

Pro

Arguments begin in round two.

Better is defined as a higher quality.

Nirvana was a late eighties to mid nineties American rock band from Seattle. They had four albums including Bleach and Nevermind. Their most popular song was Smells Like Teen Spirit[1].

RHCP is an American alternative rock band formed in the mid eighties from California. They have a compilation f many albums including Blood Sugar Sex Magik and One Hot Minute. one of their more popular songs was Californication

[1]
[2]
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I'd like to welcome Spenellzi to DDO and thank him for instigating this challenge. With the first round being for acceptance, we have two rounds to present our arguments. I will show through my arguments why the Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than Nirvana. If my opponent agrees, I would like both of us to post a video of the band we are saying is better in each round in addition to our arguments. I will not post a video in round 1 since Pro has posted videos for both bands in his round 1. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Spinellzi

Pro

I would like to start off my argument by saying that Nirvana is a better band than the Red Hot Chili Peppers for many reasons, one being that they were able to take one chord and turn it into an inspiration for musicians all around the world. Although Nirvana does not have as much complexity in their songs they still manage to make amazing sounding melodies, bass lines that are again not as complex as the bass lines of the Red Hot Chili Peppers but still are pleasing to the listener, an the sound of their drums is very recognizable, as well as the guitar and the voice of leader singer and guitar player Kurt Cobain. For my video i will choose a song that displays all of the factors that i have mentioned about Nirvana.

[1]
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con

I thank my opponent for this interesting challenge.



I will show through my arguments that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than Nirvana in many ways.

1) Longevity
The Red Hot Chili Peppers formed in 1983. They are still currently active after 28 long years, 4 times longer than Nirvana who were only active for seven years. Nirvana depended too much on its lead singer. Once Kurt Cobain died, Nirvana disbanded. RHCP on the other hand did not let deaths or departures stop them from playing. They released a total of nine albums which is three times more than that of Nirvana which only released three. Nirvana was a short-lived band whereas RHCP is a long term success.

2) Overcoming addictions
Many RHCP members were addicted to drugs. John Frusciante left the band and later developed a heroin addiction, which left him in poverty and near death. However, the band at an all time low decided to invite Frusciante back into the band. This was a turning point and led to the huge success of Californication. Overcoming difficulties set RHCP apart from a band like Nirvana which disbanded as soon as its lead singer died.

3) Diverse music
The music of RHCP evolved from funk rock to alternative rock to mainstream rock. They have a wide variety of styles that adapted with the times.

4) Meaningful music
Anthony Kiedis writes most of the lyrics for RHCP. He states that most of them have a much deeper meaning than is evident at first glance. For instance, the song "snow" talks not about actual snow but about Kiedis's addiction to heroin. The song "Californication" does not make a lot of sense at first. But when you replace the word "Californication" with "sex", everything starts to make sense. I would describe all of their songs in detail, but since my opponent is young, and his brother may not approve,(lol) I will stop here.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)


The video to the left shows one of RHCP's most famous songs: Under the Bridge. The lead singer (Anthony Kiedis) in this video is talking about Los Angeles. It is a prime example of how RHCP songs have deeper meaning in their lyrics. Here is a sample of the lyrics.

Lyrics:

Sometimes I feel like I don't have a partner
Sometimes I feel like my only friend
Is the city I live in, the city of angels
Lonely as I am, together we cry

I drive on her streets 'cause she's my companion
I walk through her hills cause she knows who I am
She sees my good deeds and she kisses me windy
I never worried, now that is a lie

I don't ever wanna feel like I did that day
Take me to the place I love, take me all the way
I don't ever wanna feel like I did that day
Take me to the place I love, take me all the way

It's hard to believe that there's nobody out there
It's hard to believe that I'm all alone
At least I have her love, the city she loves me
Lonely as I am, together we cry
Debate Round No. 2
Spinellzi

Pro

I would like to remind my opponent that this debate is not on which band was able to deal with problems better, i was debated which band was better. Better was describes as a better sound quality. IT was said that RHCP was more diverse than nirvana, fist of all, diversity has nothing to do with the definition of better that i posted, second of all, Nirvana is very diverse. Compare the song "Jesus Don't Want Me For a Sunbeam" to the song "School". It was also said that RHCP had a deeper meaning, so does Nirvana, the song "Rape Me" isn't actually a song about Kurt Cobain wanting his friend to rape him it was actually a song apposing rape.
[1]
F-16_Fighting_Falcon

Con




My opponent says in Round 1 "Better is defined as a higher quality". He now changes his definition to " Better was describes[sic] as a better sound quality". He then concedes pretty much every point I made.

My opponent completely contradicts himself when in round 2, he says: "Although Nirvana does not have as much complexity in their songs they still manage to make amazing sounding melodies, bass lines that are again not as complex as the bass lines of the Red Hot Chili Peppers but still are pleasing to the listener."

Now he says that Nirvana has a deeper meaning comparable to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. First of all, this isn't true. Kurt Cobain complained when fans attempted to extract meaning from his lyrics. He would also insist on the unimportance of the lyrics. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, my opponent can seem to decide neither the importance of deeper song meanings to Nirvana nor its relevance to this debate as evidenced by his contradictory statements.

My opponent's third round argument seems to be that diversity is unimportant, overcoming difficulties is umimportant, the only thing that is important is sound quality. Q: How does he argue that in the debate? Ans: Simple. He doesn't argue. He just says so.

My opponent also attempts to say that Nirvana is more diverse than RHCP asking the voters to compare "Jesus Don't Want Me For a Sunbeam" to the song "School". He never really explains why they are different.

I showed that RHCP has a diverse musical tone because its earliest songs have been mostly rap rock and funk rock such as the song posted here titled: True men don't kill Coyotes. Then they proceeded to mainstream rock. They also cover a wide range of topics such as love and friendship, various sexual topics and the link between sex and music, political and social commentary, romance, loneliness, globalization and the cons of fame and Hollywood, poverty, drugs, alcohol, dealing with death, and California.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent never really provides any arguments at all beyond simply stating that Nirvana is better, and changing the definition halfway through so that he doesn't have to respond to my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rusty 6 years ago
Rusty
Nirvana has to be one of the most over-rated bands in the history of music.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
ack hole sun is good but if you really want to appreciate them look up pretty noose or fell on black days.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Black hole sun is awesome. I have no idea why I never heard of it before!
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
v and "spoonman" :)
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
To those of you who have never heard of Soundgarden: Please look up "black hole sun" in youtube. you all need in your lives.
Posted by Spinellzi 6 years ago
Spinellzi
I have to agree with waylon.fairbanks, accept i would move Nirvana to number two right above Soundgarden.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Told him he should change it.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
@Spinellzi, if you want to compare Nirvana with RHCP, I'll take the debate.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
@Benny, same here. Never heard of Soundgarden. But I think the Red Hot Chili Peppers are much better than both of these bands. They adapted with the times from underground in the 90s to mainstream in the early 2000s when they released Californication.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
Considering I have never even heard of Sound Garden this is probably true.
(I do realize my logic here is flawed I just figured it was an interesting thought)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
SpinellziF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It would have been interesting if Pro tried to make legit arguments instead of just submit his opinion. He didn't really negate Con's arguments. This debate aside, I'm not sure which I think is better - probably RHCP.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
SpinellziF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did refute a couple of con's points (longevity and addiction don't fulfill the established terms) but brought up no real convincing arguments of his own. Being told someone is good isn't the same as being told why they are good. Con focused more on the why and gave clear examples.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
SpinellziF-16_Fighting_FalconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mostly just stated his opinions and did little to back them up. For instance, he says Nirvana has "amazing sound melodies" and "pleasing to the listener", without really explaining why. He also doesn't answer 3 of F-16's 4 points, and the one he did address was contradicted by his definition in round 1. Also, Pro spent a lot time saying that Nirvana is great, but spent almost no time explaining why they are *better* than RHCP.