CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Pop Music is inferior to Classical Music because it has not yet withstood the test of time. Maybe a 100 years from now people will look back and consider Lady Gaga one of the greatest classical artists of our time..... but I wouldn't hold my breath.... although...., I do like Bad Romance ;)
Pop Music is inferior to Classical Music because it has not yet withstood the test of time. Maybe a 100 years from now people will look back and consider Lady Gaga one of the greatest classical artists of our time..... but I wouldn't hold my breath.... although...., I do like Bad Romance ;)
Not, necessarily. We live in a tumultuous time. Technology and culture are changing at an exponential rate. 50 years then, could be equivalent to 5 years now. Not to mention the level of competition is much different. It's impossible to make a valid comparison on that basis.
As such matters are always relative, I believe pop music to be inferior. Pop music is refined and processed down to simple driving forces based on trends in the market. Classical music is far more difficult to define.
-
Modern pop music is refined to two basic elements, major and minor, OR happy and sad. These are the two simplest and most basic modal scales ever implemented, and as such require little education to preform. Classical music has been much more free, incorporating not only all modes, but far more atypical scales and complex rhythmic theory. The tones created by these scales are not found in pop music. Also, though rare, it is notable to point out that classical music has created composures in different temperaments, meaning that harmonies have been created which are impossible and nonexistent in the modern 12 tone pop scale. Only very few recent bands have tried to utilize classical components, and they are not noted in the mainstream market. Pop music simply cannot match the variety that classical music has founded, and as such it is simpler.
Pop music is always having to change to keep peoples' interest, but classical music can be varied but doesn't necessarily have to completely change to keep its beauty. There are tons of synthesizer sounds you can make but only a few instruments you can truly appreciate.
"If you accept that some art is better than other art then I don't see how you could deny the superiority of classical music. And I do think it's fair to say that art can be good or bad. My mom possesses a small piece of paper containing a mass of scribbles which bears the title, Giraffe. I produced this work when I was three. I think it's safe to say that that particular work of art is inferior to, say, the Mona Lisa.
Pop music, in general, is created mainly for commercial purposes -- this is the primary source of its flaws. It tends to be boring, derivative slop aimed at the lowest common denominator. There's little artistry involved. Classical music does not have a very high bar to clear, and it does so with ease."
-----
But then I thought -- I am comparing the best of classical music (the stuff people think of when they think "classial music") to average modern music. To be fair I would need to compare the best classical to the best pop.
Hmm...
According to this site the best three pop songs of all time are:
"Imagine" by John Lennon
"Born to Run" by Bruce Springsteen
and "(I can't get no) Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones.
According to this, the three best classical songs are:
"Symphony No. 9 in D Minor (Ode To Joy)" by Ludwig van Beethoven
"Clair de Lune" by Claude Debussy
and "Rhapsody in Blue" by George Gershwin
Hmm, ok, so this is getting complicated. For one thing, those "pop" songs are not what I think of when I think "pop" -- I would call those rock songs. But I guess it would be hard to draw a line between the two genres. So let's just let "pop" mean a more modern style and "classical" mean an older style.
And now I think I have to give the edge to pop music. None of those classical songs had nearly the effect that "Born to Run" had on me in my younger days. "Imagine" would also beat the classical works by the same metric. But then, my perception is skewed by a maelstrom of social and cultural forces.
I do think a proper answer could be arrived at here, but it would take a wise and experienced critic to do so. Acknowledging my limited ability of discernment, I would guess that modern music is better. I think if classical music were really so great, then that's what I would listen to. But I don't, and that seems to hint that it ain't all that.
I thought about adding a note that even if many classical pieces were written with a profit motive in mind, the environment in which they were produced did not enforce mediocrity with nearly the same ferocity as the modern music industry.
But then I decided such a note wasn't necessary. Silly me.
I thought about adding a note that even if many classical pieces were written with a profit motive in mind, the environment in which they were produced did not enforce mediocrity
That's the pointless, baseless nostalgia we have come to expect from Americans. The music of the time was tailored to suit the tastes of the time, as it is now. We submit that an equal amount of rubbish (O Fortuna) was created then, as is now (Anything by Beiber).
I knew you were gonna say that, too. My anticipated response:
It's a figure of speech, dipshit. Meaning: I felt it was quite probable that some pedantic wanker (you being the prime candidate) would latch on to that statement like a starving hyena, desperate for the slightest opportunity to suggest foolishness on my part. However, producing my argument in the first place took more time than any rational person should expend -- sanding down every potential handhold for said wanker would not be a worthwhile use of my time. Surely he will recognize my plight and not start shit over some minor point in an argument which I explicitly withdrew.
Alas, I have underestimated the extent of your wankerishness.
That's the pointless, baseless nostalgia we have come to expect from Americans.
That's the kind of unthinking condescension you would expect out of a country with a massive inferiority complex.
The music of the time was tailored to suit the tastes of the time, as it is now.
Tailored, yes. If you'll examine my argument more closely you will observe that it regarded degree. Carl Orff was more than a mouthpiece for a multi-million dollar algorithm which maximized appeal to focus groups. And while O Fortuna may lack subtlety, it does a better job of creating an epic feel than any other piece I am aware of.
Perhaps I was simply being facetious? If my intent was to aggravate you, I have clearly succeeded.
Meaning: I felt it was quite probable that some pedantic wanker
Is this diatribe supposed to affect me in some way? Frankly, being insulted by somebody I do not like merely suggests that I am doing a good job.
would latch on to that statement like a starving hyena, desperate for the slightest opportunity to suggest foolishness on my part.
I have no need to suggest you are a fool; you are perfectly suited to the task yourself.
However, producing my argument in the first place took more time than any rational person should expend
I cannot do withal.
sanding down every potential handhold for said wanker would not be a worthwhile use of my time.
So I am to understand that the anticipated masturbatory habits of your audience are the reason for your professed lack of effort?
Surely he will recognize my plight and not start shit over some minor point in an argument which I explicitly withdrew.
Clearly you have underestimated the extent of my wankerishness.
Alas, I have underestimated the extent of your wankerishness.
Oh ho.
That's the kind of unthinking condescension you would expect out of a country with a massive inferiority complex.
To my knowledge, there is only one such nation, and it is not the United Kingdom.
Tailored, yes. If you'll examine my argument more closely you will observe that it regarded degree.
"Pop music, in general, is created mainly for commercial purposes -- this is the primary source of its flaws. It tends to be boring, derivative slop aimed at the lowest common denominator. There's little artistry involved. Classical music does not have a very high bar to clear, and it does so with ease." Before you amendment (which made no mention of tailoring), that was all I found regarding said. It does not mention classical music being tailored at all.
I submit that as pop music today is an amalgamation of various influences, it cannot be compared to another genre as one genre unto itself. Furthermore, as already I have already argued, one genre cannot be declared better than any other. The issue is not so much Giraffe versus Mona Lisa, as baroque verses Secularism (which are not the accurate styles of the two, but I cannot decide what to call La Gioconda).
I submit that as pop music today is an amalgamation of various influences
Surely the same can be said of every artistic work ever produced.
one genre cannot be declared better than any other
I don't think that's true. You may not be able to see the lighthouse through the deluge, but that doesn't mean the lighthouse isn't there. Every concievable aspect of a work could theoretically be considered and a range of satisfactory answers could then be produced.
Every conceivable aspect of a work could theoretically be considered and a range of satisfactory answers could then be produced.
Considered by whom? Satisfactory to whom? Music is abstract and valued based on personal tastes. There exists no objective quantitative method to evaluating music genres. Not to mention the fact that what music belongs to what genre, is also very subjective.
The human mind is a big bunch of neurons. A machine. Its processes, in their entirety, could theoretically be quantified and analyzed. Accept this and you can see that for any given person, a particular work of art is an input which produces a predictable output. Taking this further, one could compute the sum of every effect each work has upon every person and draw conclusions about which work produces the most desireable outcome overall, all things considered.
Yes, this notion remains science fiction for now, but such measurments could theoretically be taken. Lacking sophisticated neural scanning capabilities, we can instead rely on critics. Wise, empathic individuals who can bring to bear keen insight and a broad range of experiences in the evaluation of a given work. The consensus of several such critics, while perhaps far from the truth, is the best approximation of the truth we can hope to give as of yet.
This is what we generally mean we say X is better than Y.
Speculation of a theoretical future technology which could measure human neurological response to variable musical stimulus, and then evaluate the human response.
This is all a forgone conclusion. No two minds are the same. Different minds respond differently to the same stimuli. This would only go to demonstrate what we already know, Music is about personal taste.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is why art is subjective.
we can instead rely on critics. Wise, empathic individuals who can bring to bear keen insight and a broad range of experiences in the evaluation of a given work. The consensus of several such critics, while perhaps far from the truth, is the best approximation of the truth we can hope to give as of yet.
Critics can only evaluate how music sounds within the limits of their own personal taste. Even so they still must contend with their own bias, and social influences.
The consensus of several such critics, while perhaps far from the truth, is the best approximation of the truth we can hope to give as of yet.
Why would we rely on something which is admittedly "far from the truth"?
This is all a forgone conclusion. No two minds are the same. Different minds respond differently to the same stimuli. This would only go to demonstrate what we already know, Music is about personal taste.
Personal taste is only one aspect of appreciation. There's also the effectiveness with which the work accomplishes its goals, originality, sense of timing, etc, etc.
There are some ways where most minds differ, but there are also ways where most minds are the same. Most prefer something fresh over a rehash of the same old thing, to give one example.
What do we mean when we say something is "better"? Well, we could simply pick some dimension, like the amount of joy a song brings to the listener. If we could measure people's brains then we could figure out which song conveys the most joy on average and declare that song to be the best. Of course not all art is meant to convey joy, so we could use some other dimension like overall neural activity, or some combination of many factors. But the key point is that different works of art have different effects on people and these effects could be aggregated and analyzed.
I mean, do you think there's no such thing as bad music? If I fart into a microphone and think it's the greatest music ever written, would you say, "Well, that's a matter of personal taste" or would you say, "I think you must be misunderstanding music." I hope you would go with the latter. And if you accept that, then you must accept that there's more at work than personal taste.
Why would we rely on something which is admittedly "far from the truth"?
Because it's the best we can do. We want to give the best answer we can to the question posed in this debate, but the answer is too hard to find. So we just employ whatever techniques we can to get us as close to the truth as possible.
What do we mean when we say something is "better"? Well, we could simply pick some dimension, like the amount of joy a song brings to the listener. If we could measure people's brains then we could figure out which song conveys the most joy on average and declare that song to be the best. Of course not all art is meant to convey joy, so we could use some other dimension like overall neural activity, or some combination of many factors.
And who is picking these "dimensions"?
But the key point is that different works of art have different effects on people and these effects could be aggregated and analyzed.
And I wouldn't disagree with that point.
I mean, do you think there's no such thing as bad music?
Of course I do, but I recognize that this is entirely subjective. You're trying to make concrete conclusions based on abstract art.
If I fart into a microphone and think it's the greatest music ever written, would you say, "Well, that's a matter of personal taste" or would you say, "I think you must be misunderstanding music."
No, I'd say that Farting into a microphone doesn't constitute music.
Because it's the best we can do. We want to give the best answer we can to the question posed in this debate, but the answer is too hard to find. So we just employ whatever techniques we can to get us as close to the truth as possible.
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition". ~Carl Sagan.
That's beside the point. The word "best" implies that a set of dimensions are assumed. When people say X is the best, what do they generally mean? Something like, "in my estimation, most people would agree that X is more desirable than its alternatives."
Of course I do, but I recognize that this is entirely subjective.
Everything is objective. What you're calling "subjective" is just the internal experience of neurons firing. Neural firings can be measured. They are objective.
Bad music is music which tends to result in an undesirable pattern of neural firings by whichever metric we are using.
No, I'd say that Farting into a microphone doesn't constitute music.
Well what if I vary the pitch over time? What if I get a guitar and flail wildly on it for a few minutes? What if learn three chords and do nothing but alternate between them? At what point does it change from "not music" to "music"?
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition". ~Carl Sagan.
What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is it's possible to declare X better than Y based on some implied metric. I don't think this is very controversial.
Surely the same can be said of every artistic work ever produced.
You lost this: "?".
I should have been more specific. Pop is very hard to define as a single genre, as it displays aspects of many, if not all others. Perhaps this was a redundant statement, but if that is the case, so was yours.
I don't think that's true.
I shall hear you ratify this position before indulging you further.
You may not be able to see the lighthouse through the deluge, but that doesn't mean the lighthouse isn't there.
This metaphor seems to serve as more of an insult than an argument. If you were being accurate, you would have presented a scenario where there were multiple lighthouses on one shore.
Every concievable aspect of a work could theoretically be considered and a range of satisfactory answers could then be produced.
This claim does not help your position at all, merely exemplifying the impossibility of the premise. You failed to mention even one aspect of a genre, and to explain how they might be compared to one another.
That's a pretty good approach, and not a bad argument for modern music. Bear in mind, though, that pop music is built to hook in your head, and to appeal more to a general audience. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I base my judgement on the intent behind the music. The majority of current pop stars are not in any way required to be talented, or even to have a nice voice. They have to look good, and present an image that the record companies like. Many of them have their songs written for them, which usually consist of little more than a repetetive four-chord progression and an electronic beat. My own bias aside, I feel bad supporting pop music, because it is just what the public wants. And currently, what the public wants is a catch phrase or two and a steady beat. I really enjoy some older pop, and there is even an occasional modern pop song that I tolerate. But in general, today's pop music isn't treated as an art form. It's just a moneymaker.
We cannot conceive how something so subjectively appreciated as a music genre could be thus compared to another. Music is a form of art, the conveyance of emotion and sentiment. Pop music does so, arguably in a more lucid fashion than classical. We tend to listen to both, and never prefer Bad Romance to Canon in D based solely upon the genre.
We submit that any contrary position is a pointlessly conservative one, and that such a stance has never been conducive to the progression of Art. As a case example, some of today's most highly valued paintings were created by a group of writers whose unconventional styles saw them branded by the critics of the time as Les Fauves (A French term meaning "wildcats" - or tan/tawny).
Pop music is merely the most commercially successful music of its time. Swing and Jazz were pop during its time. The Beatles and Elvis were pop.
And Classical music was popular at its time.
Considering that it was also the only music of its time, it's kind of lame to suggest that it's more superior to music of our time. Music is music, and as soon as people understand that the shit they're listening to is nothing special, the more we will all be able to get along and not sweat over bullshit.
I feel this is an odd argument to make; while both are music, pop and classical music are very different.
Besides, there is no real definition here of 'classical'. Do the avant-garde pieces from the 20th century and such like count as classical music? What constitutes 'pop' music anyway?
There are many differences, too, in the structure of these two different genres. While classical relies on scales and octaves, most pop music is built around chord progressions.
I cannot see how pop could be compared to classical music, and so I shall say that pop is not inferior simply because of this.
The only reason I have to say that pop music is to inferior is that personally, I happen to prefer pop music. It has an effect on me; songs with upbeat instruments and melodies put me in a good mood, whereas classical music just goes in one ear and out the other. I've tried to have a good attitude about it before, but I just can't find anything interesting about it, for me anyway. Maybe the composers worked harder than modern artists do, and I totally respect that...but it doesn't really impress me, exactly. I guess it's just that I don't personally want to spend all my time creating something magnificent, and I'm not saying that in a bad way--it's just how I am. But yeah, everything's subjective, you know?
Pop music has soulful, meaningful lyrics (depending on the type. There's Ed Sheeran and then there's Lady Gaga). They can be inspiring and make you happy. Classical music makes me want to sleep and there are no words!
You really are delusional aren't you ? As I Christian I'm embarrassed to see that your name is christjesus. Could you please keep your mouth shut and not make the rest of us look bad.
