Jazz music is better than classical music

At the start of his rebuttal my opponent notes that Gregorian Chanting and co. are close to being obsolete. I disagree with the notion seeing how GC is practised in catholic churches and monasteries and is still, thousands of years later, still “the most optimal way of worshipping” according to said Church. Chants are still composed, as shown in the pieces of Arvo Part, Maurice Durufle, Peter Maxwell and more. All of which were born in the last 100 years. GC is highly situational which is the cause of its appearance of being obsolete. It's hallow nature and holy content require it to be within a holy place. Outside the church you do not hear much of it without search. As is with Aboriginal music which has survived the cultural changes of millennia and is still appreciated despite an entirely different race, culture and age. It's a remainder of what used to be and is deeply integrated in the culture and history of the area it resides in. Classical music is no different. It is situational and is rarely heard in the culture of today outside specific situations. Classical music is as situational and lasting as Jazz. The average human will be exposed to those genres either by actively looking for them or by accident while consuming other media. The difference is that Jazz is slightly less situational as the influence of jazz is more often seen in modern day pop and rock music, genres that are heard on their own media almost everywhere one could look. To state that Classical music is longer lasting when Jazz has not been around for as long is a fallacy. My opponent has no ground to assume that the highly influential genre of Jazz won't last as long as classical music has when the Genre is only a good century old, which already is a great deal of length for a genre that has spread out and has infused itself into so many other genres, just as with Classical. The issue my opponent has is to form an argument on knowledge that does not exist and thus is invalid. Next my opponent attempts to state that Classical music has a more diverse range of instruments. Again, this is false. Jazz has the same range of instruments and then some as many jazz numbers rely exclusively on the melody of a single instrument, f. i a Piano; while others use string instruments as backing vocals; when brass and woodwind instruments dominate the front end and when jazz has a vocal superiority of using actual singers and interprets itself through lyrics. When Classical music usually does not rely on the string instruments of the guitar, bass, the rock instruments so called, synths or big room drums. You see; the difference of range of the genres instrumentally is not as big as my opponent wishes it to be. You can go to solo artists with just his guitar, as is the case with Martin Taylor[0] and all the way to orchestra levels (Which in fact is a thing in 'regular' jazz) the Manhattan Jazz-orchestra. This is a relatively small band but just the [1] in my sources shows us the Metropole orchestra delivering a fantastic jazz performance. So, the range is either the same or marginal for the genres only differing in few instruments. You don't often see jazz organs but you at the same time don't often see vocals or electric instruments in classical music. My opponent next moves on to attempt to say that the backbone of classical music is its diversity. That it emphasizes the little changes, changes in mood or tempo or dynamics. I find this incredibly ironic to say seeing that jazz is incredibly diverse, sneaks up on you in many forms, shapes or sizes, and the fact that it is inferior to classical music on the account of dynamic changes is just hilarious seeing that one of the defining features of Jazz is conflicting tempos, sudden key changes and altering the rhythm and structure of the song at given segments and intentionally play certain parts off the main Key. It is this distinct behaviour (especially the last one and the polyrhythms) that give Jazz it's identifiable and well known trademark sound. I thus drop this argument. On the subject of finding different sounds within Jazz I hereby challenge my opponent to do his research. Jazz is and will be diverse and span a broad range of songs, sub-gernes and situations. From the calm and begging Concerto for cootie[2], to fast,regular and blues-like Jumpin' The Blues[3], to the more harmonious sounding Esprit de Four[4] and here is where we get diverse: to the famous melody from Careless whispers[5] and to the even greater still driving sax from Baker Street [6] (both of which are Jazz or Jazz-like songs)to the heartbreaking Piano piece Let Go [7]which takes a bit of time to notice the Jazz characteristics which don't really become too clear until around the 2 minute mark with the conflicting key signature of the bass and the piano; and then to the romantic saxophone which is grabbed here telling it's heart warming stories[8]. You can just listen to the CD in that source, just listen how much variation comes from that lone instrument and the backup band in each track, how much each differs from the last one. How much variation comes from it. Here is the key:My opponent is trying to remove attributes from Jazz to create some difference In the two genres. I disagree and find that to be a dishonest tactic to use. I've shown 8 songs that all are classified under the Jazz genre and anyone with a decently musical ear can hear how different they are from each other. Some might share a similar sounding structure, that is to be expected with Jazz, but we can also hear a distinct structure with many classical pieces. However, Jazz has influenced modern music no less than classical and in fact the entire genre of Rock and Roll spawned from Jazz. From Rock and Roll we have Metal, and maybe more recent, we have the entire Pop scene. Jazz has the influence background. Innovating from Classical music it went on and set the entire groundwork and frame for everything that came afterwards, including hip Hop and what is playing on your Spotify playlist now (unless you're listening to Classical)[9-13] My opponent cannot use that to his advantage for Jazz is as diverse despite being more rigid, and if we were to accept the opposite my opponent must prove the notion that a diverse genre is a good genre; for if a genre is good there must be something to identify it as good. Diversity cannot be identified as good for it is not an attribute connected to quality. I'd say that the versatility of humankind does not make humankind good by default; for the diversity leads to conflict. If all humans would have a similar soul humans would no longer conflict over differences. If there was no deviations there would either be no bad nor good humans. The evils of humankind, of which are many, might all be erased for if all is average none is more evil than it. Same must apply to music, for a diverse genre means that some of it are horrid and detrimental to the genre as whole. Thus end the rebuttals. Now, I have but few chars left: so let me be brief. I find it to be so that not only has Con failed to uphold his own arguments but in addition he has not been able to refute mine. He has neither refuted, nor even answered the subjective stance that there will always be a debate on what good is and there is always someone in the set that prefers Jazz, and I feel he needs to properly support and prove his points in an objective manner. Range and age are not by default a quality sign, and he must objectively prove they are before using them as arguments. I leave it at those note and challenge my opponent to substantiate all his claims. 0]goo. gl/7v5Uwt 1]goo. gl/ZDdYvC 2]goo. gl/45kY19 3]goo. gl/IH7wqs 4]goo. gl/0lQRLj 5]www. youtube. com/watch? v=izGwDsrQ1eQ 6]goo. gl/QYpH4A 7]www. youtube. com/watch? v=56Zt8Rbup1A 8]goo. gl/beAHJ5 9]goo. gl/LL2LJi 10]. http://goo.gl... 11]goo. gl/vKe9qM 12]. http://goo.gl... 13]. http://goo.gl...