The Instigator
IDontKnowHowToCallMyself
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Petfish
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Pop is real music

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 2 votes the winner is...
Petfish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2016 Category: Music
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 84625
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

IDontKnowHowToCallMyself

Pro

There are some people that think pop is not real music and I do not agree with them so I would want to debate them.
I (PRO) will be claiming that pop is indeed real music while my opponent (CON) will be claiming otherwise.
First round is only acceptance.
Petfish

Con

I accept. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
IDontKnowHowToCallMyself

Pro

I personally do not like most of modern age mainstream pop music but i do still believe it is music.
An objective definition of pop music is not really stated anywhere so I will show the most popular and the best definitions of it.
The free dictionary by Farlex states, 1st definition: pop music - music of general appeal to teenagers; a bland watered-down version of rock' n' roll with more rhythm and harmony and an emphasis on romantic love.
2nd definition: popular music, popular music genre - any genre of music having wide appeal (but usually only for a short time).

Lets see some more definitions, shall we.

Webster dictionary states: music written and marketed with the intention of achieving mass distribution and sales now principally in the form of recordings.

And finally lets see Wikipedia: Pop music (a term that derives from "popular") is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form in the Western world during the 1950's and 1960's, deriving from rock and roll. The terms "popular music" and "pop music" are often used interchangeably, although the former describes all music that is popular (and can include any style).
Pop music is eclectic, and often borrows elements from other styles such as urban, dance, rock, Latin, and country; nonetheless, there are core elements that define pop music. Identifying factors include generally short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure) as well as the common employment of repeated choruses, melodic tunes, and hooks.

I will talk about all definitions in general.
Okay so lets start this up. Now that we know to some extent what pop music is we can define music.

Dictionary.com defines music as: an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

We also have Webster dictionary which defines music as: sounds that are sung by voices or played on musical instruments.
That was the simple definition but if we want to look at the full definition here it is:
the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity.

Now it is time to look at what real means.

Definition of real from dictionary.com : True; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
Existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious.

We will also look at the Webster's dictionary definition:
Actually existing or happening : not imaginary.
Not fake, false, or artificial.

That was the simple definition of it but now lets see the full definition:
not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine ; also : being precisely what the name implies .
And also:
(1) : occurring or existing in actuality (2) : of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities (3) : existing as a physical entity and having properties that deviate from an ideal, law, or standard .

So now that we know the definitions we can get to the debate.
I am trying to show that pop music is indeed real music.
REAL music. How can we prove that it is real. Now we could get all philosophical and start talking about what is real and what is not and while I do love philosophy and I believe we live in a real life universe and that we are real I am still only in this debate to talk about music and to drag philosophy into the debate least I can. To prove that something is real we have to be able to feel it in one shape or another, it can be by touching, hearing or in any other form of sensing and felling.
Now that we got the REAL part of the debate out of the way it is time to get onto the MUSIC part of the debate.
We will go through all of the definitions of music:
Dictionary. com definition of music is: an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.
If we look at this definitions it fits the criteria. It is sound and through that sound musicians express their emotion and ideas and pop music also has element of rhythm, melody, harmony and color.
The whole genre of pop follows this but to make it observable for everybody I will link 4 pop songs and through them you will see that pop fits the criteria of music.
https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

Now to get to the Webster's definition of music: sounds that are sung by voices or played on musical instruments.
Now that was the simple definition of music but non the less a valid one. Everything in that definition applies to the genre of pop. Genre of pop are sounds and they are sung by voices or played on musical instruments and sometimes even both.

Lets now go to the full definition of music provided by Webster dictionary: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity.
The genre of pop does all of that, it orders tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity.
I have shown that pop is REAL and also that it is MUSIC.

Final conclusion: Pop is real music (also it says it both in the name and in the definition, it is pop MUSIC, and I did show it was REAL but of course I also showed that it was MUSIC and with that we can see that pop is indeed real music).

My sources:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Petfish

Con

I thank my opponent for bringing up this debate. This idea and similar ideas should be studied by all who appreciate real music.

Now my opponent"s opening started with a list of definitions, which is a good place to start. But I find some of the definitions provided to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons.

1. Real + Music does not necessarily equal real music. We find all sorts of similar ideas in the English language. The definition of one word plus the definition of another word does not necessarily equal the exact definition of the two words combined. Day care, lighthouse, and restroom are all examples of this idea.

2. The definitions provided by my opponent are too inclusive. Followed to its logical conclusion, Hanon"s scales or horrific shrieks might be classified as real music. But if my opponent objects and claims that this would still be real music, perhaps we should just agree to disagree and leave the debate at that.

3. My opponent might be familiar with the thought experiment "Mary"s Room." We do not have the ability to create a precise definition of red; it must be experienced to be known. So these definitions of music are all incomplete in a sense and cannot be used as an absolute definition.

My opponent provided us with a list of definitions, but he/she did not indicate the definition he/she would use for each word. This leaves us with unnecessary confusion.

I"d prefer that this debate would stop being a semantics game. But if my opponent wishes to continue in definitions to win, let me just say that the way my opponent defines real music includes all music. The problem here is simple in argument form:

P1: All music is real music.
P2: But pop music is not all music.
C: Therefore, pop music is not real music.

This is obviously a joke, but it just shows that you can play the definition game forever. What we need to do is to look at what real music is. Instead of purely defining it, I"ll list some requirements for music to be "real music."

1. Real music has a real (potentially unspoken) message.
2. Real music has significant creativity.
3. Real music has the potential to inspire any society and any individual.

Now my opponent may object that this does not fit a precise definition. But let me provide a thought experiment. Suppose you are in a car ride, and you hear something boring on the radio. You might say, "Hey! Let"s get some real music going!" Now no one would want the dial to switch to a station full of random or robotic tones; we would want a structured
song that speaks to us. We would probably want a song that fits my three requirements.

Argument 1: The messages of pop songs are often different than the messages of real music.

We know real music when we hear it. Calm, exotic, or funny, the emotions of real music captivate us in an indescribable way. But the messages of pop music have mainly been about angst and sexuality, drugs or profanity. Justin Bieber, a purported Christian, cannot rise from the nonsense. His song "Love Yourself" focuses on a petty relationship that no one should care about. Sarah Knoploh writes, "Some songs on the [2008] charts did feature positive messages" But more than two-thirds of songs had lyrics that promoted sexual activities, alcohol, and included profanity."1

In addition, our poetry has gotten far worse as a result of pop music. I would like to ask our voters to compare the hymns of Longfellow with the lyrics of Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, or anyone else on the top charts. The art of prosody has been lost. The rest of our poetic devices have flown out the window. Whatever happened to the genius of Isaac Watts or the creativity of Charles Wesley? And even if pop music is not the main cause of poetic deterioration, it at least perpetuates the disease.

Argument 2: Pop music usually has no musical creativity.

This argument has to be accepted by the serious musicologist. Not only have we lost musical form, we"ve also lost musical ideas in general.

There is a significant percentage of pop songs that have a four-chord-loop structure. Chord structures like vi-IV-I-V have been overused to death. These sorts of songs repeat the musical structure after every 6 seconds. Basically, if you"ve heard 30 seconds of an average pop song, you"ve heard the whole thing.

Instrumentation is excruciatingly bland. You"ll note in an average pop song that the drummer repeats his riffs every 4 seconds. Oboes, violins, or other instruments are hardly ever used creatively if at all.

Argument 3: A significant amount of pop music degrades society.

Bozell III writes about Master P, "The former gangsta-rapper (his real name is Percy Miller) came to Congress and apologized for his musical transgressions. The angry music of his past, he said, came from seeing relatives and friends shot and killed.

But he said now he doesn't even want his own children to listen to his music, "so if I can do anything to change this, I'm going to take a stand and do that." He also apologized to women for his music. "I was honestly wrong."

Later on NPR, he explained that listening to other gangsta-rappers "inspired" his own violent lyrics, like Ice-T boasting, "I am a nightmare stalking, psychopath walking." He said that song "put me in the mood when I was in the ghetto just to continuously make music like that." It was inspiring that he mustered the fortitude to confess before Congress."2

This is not an anomaly. Pop music sometimes has an obvious negative effect on society. Sometimes the effects are a bit more subtle. But obviously, this music is generally useless to us. We do not want to think of shallow relationships or boring harmonies. Our minds are fit to study better things. So when we listen to pop music, we sometimes do ourselves a disservice. My opponent listed 4 songs that do have tones which would technically put them into a musical category. But these songs have little creative value and are basically garbage.

Now these arguments do not rip apart every pop song ever made. Rather, they just exist to show that over fifty percent of pop music is not real music. I do not believe that I have to attack every single pop song, but just the majority. And when you look at the majority of pop music, it is usually meaningless, dry, and bland. Real music, in contrast, is meaningful, rich, and creative.

Modern musical geniuses can still be found. Yanni gives us heartfelt melodies. The Piano Guys add lush harmonies to otherwise boring songs. Jarrod Radnich creates brilliant piano solos. Still other composers work at creating cinematic music or video game music. And when you compare their compositions to the top charts, there are clear winners. This might be because one side understands real music and the other side can only think of money and drawing in a wider audience of sheep.

Sources:
[1] http://www.mrc.org...
[2] http://ic.galegroup.com...
Debate Round No. 2
IDontKnowHowToCallMyself

Pro

1. Yes I do know that combining definitions of two words does not need to make it the definition of two words combined but they can get a definition like that. Now your examples were good and true but it does not need to apply it to everything. Now, we do not have a definition ( at least not a real or a plausible one) of real music. I showed that pop music is indeed real and indeed music and with that we can conclude that it is real music. It has everything the definition of music requires it to have and it has everything the definition of real requires it to have. Now even if we took this without dictionary and we tried to debate whether it is real music or it is not it is still real music because I can prove that it is music because it has everything music in order to be music has and than that means it is real music. Conclusion here is that pop is real music any way you put it.

2. I in fact do think that Hanon"s scales or horrific shrieks can be classified as real music but I do not think that it is that important what I think or what you think or what anybody thinks personally, it is important what the most objective meaning, definition or anything else are, for example while you might not like pop music but someone else does does it not mean that pop music is not real music it just means you do not like it but we can look at an objective source or in this case dictionary and see if pop music is indeed real music and as I showed it is, with or without the dictionary.

3. I do know about the Mary"s Room a.k.a. Mary the super scientist and I see what you are trying to say and you say that these definitions of music are all incomplete in a sense and cannot be used as an absolute definition and I understand that but we have to look at it in the way that we might not have a complete definition of music but we can still use the most logical ones and I did that, for every important factor I have given a definition and through the definitions I have given the most objective meaning to that factor or should I say word.

Now you say that I did provide definitions but I did not say the definitions I would use for each word but if we actually look I have actually not only given the definitions and applied all of them to every word. I gave the definitions of real and I applied all of them, I gave the definitions of music and I applied all of them and I also gave the definitions of pop and I applied all of them. All of them fit with the statement that I am making (pop is real music ) and all of them show that pop music is real music.

I have never seen a problem with semantics, they give the most objective and the least subjective meanings. I believe that the definitions I provided are much better to follow because they give us the least subjective and the most objective( closest to objective )definition or should I say a meaning to a word that we are using.

That is a good joke but is also flawed because we as people understand how to apply logic and my definitions and also my appliance of them were logical and were trying to be least objective and most objective they can be while you are just saying a joke which is not really an analogy that can be used because it is flawed and it is not proving a point as I showed right now but still non the less it is a good joke and I even started laughing to it.

I see that you want to propose some requirements for real music and I do not think that does should be or should need to be requirements because they are not objective and they are very subjective and I will show.
So these are your requirements:
1. Real music has a real (potentially unspoken) message.
2. Real music has significant creativity.
3. Real music has the potential to inspire any society and any individual.

So okay to start with 1.
Message people get from the song can be differ from person to person and also the message people get can be different from the message the artist wanted to give. All of this is subjective from person to person and it does not show us any objectivity.
2. Lets see what does creativity and creative mean
Definition from Webster's dictionary: Creativity- the quality of being creative
Definition from Webster's dictionary: Creative- having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas
and
having the quality of something created rather than imitated.

We can see that in fact pop music has significant creativity because its creative and I will show that now.
Having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas. Pop music might be similar to one another but its not all and it is still has its own lyrics and it still has different sound and if we really look at it it is different.
Now also, having the quality of something created rather than imitated. It has that too because it is different as I already explained. It has creativity, it is creative and all of that shows that pop has real significant creativity.
Now I know you might say that I am again using dictionary so I am now going to show you an argument without the dictionary.
I f we do not use the dictionary we do not have an explanation of what creativity is so in that case creativity is left to an individual. You might think something is creative while I think differently or reversed, like that we can see we need a dictionary so we can make better and more logical judgements that are as least as possible subjective and as objective as possible.

3. That is completely subjective, while someone can get inspired by something, others can not and reversed.

Through all of this I have shown you that pop is real music not only by the dictionary but also by your logic and I have fulfilled your requirements.

In you 1st argument you talk about how messages of pop music are different of those of real music and again I will just say this "Read what I wrote before under number 1 of your requirements".
2. I already explained that under number 2 of your requirements.

3. Not all pop music degrades society and we also have to see the meanings behind the violent and profound lyrics and also I have already explained this under number 3 of your requirements.

Now with all of that said and done we can still see that pop is real music , with or without dictionary and with or without your requirements.

Now I would like to ask you 2 questions so I would appreciate your answer, you do not need
1. Can you give an example of so called "real" music.
2. Do Beatles and Beach Boys do not have significant creativity? I mean they are pop both because of their popularity and by their genre.
3. Are you saying that so called "real" music is better than the not "real" music?
4. Is there fake music if you think that we divide music into "real" and "not real"?

Also I put "" on real because I do not believe in real and not real music. All music is real music, some is just better and some is not but it is all still real music and I showed that.

My sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Petfish

Con

Thank you, IDontKnowHowToCallMyself, for your response.

Now unfortunately my opponent did not seem to really take my points seriously. We see a lot of bare assertions and some circular reasoning. My thought-experiment went unacknowledged, which I believe is rather important in this debate.

My opponent insists of playing a semantics game. I wanted to avoid this because I wished to have a significant discussion, but I realize now that if my opponent wishes to continue, I can claim victory based on the following argument.

1. Pop music is a genre of music. –From the Wikipedia definition.

2. A genre is a collection of a medium.

C1. Pop music is a collection of music.

P3. But a collection of music is not in itself music.

C2. Therefore, pop music is not, in fact, music.

To disagree with this, my opponent would have to commit the composition/division fallacy.

Now to respond to my opponent’s other points.

“Message people get from the song can be differ from person to person and also the message people get can be different from the message the artist wanted to give. All of this is subjective from person to person and it does not show us any objectivity.”

This does not follow. We would not say that a book does not have an objective opinion on an issue just because the message is not universally acknowledged to be the same.

“We can see that in fact pop music has significant creativity because its creative and I will show that now.

Having or showing an ability to make new things or think of new ideas. Pop music might be similar to one another but its not all and it is still has its own lyrics and it still has different sound and if we really look at it it is different.”
The evidence I provided has gone unrefuted. Like I said, some of these songs have very similar rhythm structures, the same chord structures, and the same harmonies. We know that plagiarists sometimes change words or small effects to get away with their theft, but we would not consider these changes to be creative. I would like to submit that if books were written the same way pop songs are, the original authors would claim that their work was plagiarized.

“That is completely subjective, while someone can get inspired by something, others can not and reversed.”

Quite right; I made an error. What I should have said is 3. Real music can inspire a society or an individual on any level. This means that we can always look at an old composition be proud of our heritage.

Music is not really as subjective as laypeople might think it is. One can accurately analyze mistakes in compositions and the quality of compositions. If colleges went with my opponent’s definitions of music, the musical world would fall apart. If radio stations went with my opponent’s perception of music, no one would tune in. Even though we might have different tastes, we can analyze some qualities of music to compare it with other music.

1. Can you give an example of so called "real" music.

I believe Scott Joplin’s Treemonisha is an example of real music.

2. Do Beatles and Beach Boys do not have significant creativity? I mean they are pop both because of their popularity and by their genre.

I do not know enough about either band to accurately assess their levels of creativity. My argument is simply about the majority of pop music, not the entirety.

3. Are you saying that so called "real" music is better than the not "real" music?

Yes. I take it that on your view, fake music does not exist.

4. Is there fake music if you think that we divide music into "real" and "not real"?

Yes. Fake music would include anything by Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber.

I’ll leave it to the voters to decide whether Taylor Swift and Justin Bieber write real music.
Debate Round No. 3
IDontKnowHowToCallMyself

Pro

IDontKnowHowToCallMyself forfeited this round.
Petfish

Con

My arguments are to be extended onto this round.
Debate Round No. 4
IDontKnowHowToCallMyself

Pro

IDontKnowHowToCallMyself forfeited this round.
Petfish

Con

My semantic argument from round 3 stands. Additionally, I believe my points are valid. Burden of proof is currently on pro, so I claim victory.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Noah4oo 1 year ago
Noah4oo
Pop is technically a real form of music. I used to actually listen to it, but then became enlightened after being exposed to classical and romantic music.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
IDontKnowHowToCallMyselfPetfishTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
IDontKnowHowToCallMyselfPetfishTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture