Queen's bohemian rhapsody is pretenious garbage
Debate Rounds (3)
2)Also, how could anyone love what sounds like the chanting of muppets on crack (listen closely 3:28-3:32)?
3)There is no clear chorus, because said song think it is too cool for school.
4)Lyrics are non-sensical and do not offer any thought on the human condition.
"I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouche, scaramouche, will you do the fandango?
Thunderbolts and lightning - very very frightening me
Galileo Figaro - magnifico-o-o-o"
5)The girl who broke my heart danced to this song so it must be a pretious garbage song.
Just to be clear, we are debating about the song Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. Specifically, is it pretentious garbage? I think it's a fine song, though not Queen's best, and I think Pro has failed to prove this assertion.
1) Other people's opinions about and reactions a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song. The song is widely played because many people like it, which should be an indicator that it is not pretentious garbage (people tend not to like pretentious garbage).
2) Pro will have to post a link to a video because I don't hear chanting muppets on crack in any of the verisons I checked. I will respond to Pro's question anyway: it is possible that what sounds awful to you may sound better to other people. Perhaps you have differing musical tastes.
3) Lots of songs have no clear chorus. Pro thinks this is because "said song think it is too cool for school." However, the song does not have thoughts of its own. It's unlikely that Queen made the song with the intent of proving that they are too cool for school, but if Pro can submit some evidence of this we can consider it.
4) A song does not have to offer any thoughts on the human condition. If anything, making bold claims about the human condition would make a song more pretentious. Instead, many of the unusual lyrics probably serve to add more complexity to the vocals on the song. Freddie Mercury was ranked as the 18th greatest rock singer by rolling stone (a bit underrated in my opinion, I have no idea how Bob Dylan surpassed him), citing his four octive range . The lyrics showcase Mercury's singing ability.
However, the song does tell an interesting story about a young man who is setenced to death and must deal with his own mortality at a young age. While it might not offer a profond conclusion about the human condition, the song does tell a troubling story that gives the listener something to link about.
5) See number one. Other people's attitudes toward a song have nothing to do with the quality of the song.
1) The song features innovative vocal editing, a vocalist with incredible range, a complex guitar solo, and it weaves together very different sounding segements into a coherent whole. All of this requires great technical skill to play and record and brilliant songwriting ability to arrange at all. Because of the great among of skill required to produce it, we should not consider the song garbage.
The inadequacy of Pro's attacks and the great skill required to produce the song should be enough for us to conclude that it is not prentetious garbage. You don't need to like the song, but you can't reasonably conclude that it isn't a great musical accomplishment regardless.
2) Again, this is essentialy the same arguement as #1. I have different music tastes but again:the biebs!
3)More songs have a chorus than those that do not have a chorus, therefore it is pretenious.
4) A song does not have to offer thoughts on the human condition, but the lyrics, not matter how good the vocals sound, are idiotic and could have been thought of by a mentally challanged 5th grader with severe ADD.
5) ok you got me there but she's still a bitch who likes queen.
6) Technial skill does not make a song great. Muse is the best example for being technial but having uninspiring songs.
1) I did not say that the song was necessarily good because people liked it, I said that if it was prententious it is unlikely that it would have much popular appeal. Furthermore, any claims that Pro makes about the quality of the song based on people's reactions are rebutted by this claim. Finally, Con asserts the because the same argument can be made for the music of Justin Bieber, it must be flawed. I see no reason why this should be the case. In what way could we determine whether a song is good, if that is at all possible, except by looking at whether people like it?
2) Pro doesn't respond to the point about muppets. Instead, he asserts again that my argument that people have different musical takes could be used to defend the music of Justin Bieber. Indeed, it could. That I do not like a form a music does not give me grounds to call it objectively bad. Aesthetic quality is determined b tastes and people have many different tastes.
3) Just because something is not normal does not mean it is prententious. Most people are taller than 5'2" tall, but being shorter than this does not make one prententious. Pro has also not shown that there is any objective value to having a chorus.
4) Pro's claim about the vocals has not been warranted. He concedes that there is a relevant musical for the seeming nonsense and fails to address the fact that other parts of the lyrics tell a story about a young man's struggle with mortality.
5) Conceded by Pro. Bohemian Rhapsody is probably not a very good song to dance to but to each her own.
6) Technical skill does not have to make a song great, only not garbage. The music may seem bad to some people, but it took great skill and effort to write, play, and record. This is enough for us to conclude that it is not terrible. Pro's claim about Muse is not warranted. I like Muse and don't fine their songs uninspiring.
Voters, please enjoy listening to Knights of Cydonia
RicheyWentz forfeited this round.
Extend my arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Sources because Pro never provided a link to the song where he heard chanting muppets on crack. Arguments because Pro didn't uphold his BOP in any way other than putting out his own subjective opinion.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.