Classical Music (Pro) vs. [Insert Genre of Music Here]

It has been a pleasure to debate this topic and yes, I enjoyed it very much as well and learnt a lot about music since my opponent is very musically knowledgeable and I thank him for that. Now on to my final rebuttals. Again, I must note, that all these arguments made by Pro and I are ultimately subjective, nevertheless who made the better argument is totally up to you and I won't hold it against you should you vote for Pro and not me. It seems my opponent's main rebuttal or argument is that it does not matter how well film music can embody a story, since it has little to do with the quality of the music. I do not think this is so, again, an example in art is how well art is regarded when it can tell a story or has deep symbolic meaning. True, classical music has the same capability, however, I argue that film music on its own (unassociated with a movie) is just as symbolic and capable of meaning as classical music. As I have argued before, quoting Jesper Hope, film music's musical quality at least equal to that of classical music. But when added to a film, it becomes that much more symbolic than classical music and it embodies the story very efficiently as I have shown in my dark knight soundtrack example. Consider that in Interstellar, Christopher Nolan had told Hans Zimmer only the theme of the movie; that a father is yearning to get back to his child. And from this story theme, Zimmer was able to produce something so beautiful, majestic and utterly brilliant to accompany the film. That's the difference between classical music and film music. Their purposes are wholly different as film music is geared towards the story and adds so much more depth, meaning and emotion to it. Consider this piece from the movie that captures the raw emotion of lost passage of time: Con also did not address refute my claim that he was being secular. Con himself purports that film music is essentially classical music, which therefore implies that's it's musical quality should be equal to that of classical music. However, Con then claims that film music is less varied than classical music. This would have made sense had Con stated that film music was different to classical music, but in so far, I believe I have been the only one to say so. I do agree that film music is a kind of classical music (contemporary classical music) but, like Pro stated, I was still firm on my belief that it was different to classical music. Other than this secularism, Pro refutes my claim about how well film music embodies story by stating that he was not moved by the Lincoln piece I gave as an example, compared to his example of Copland's piece. This is an argument I cannot refute since it is entirely subjective, I cannot say for the majority of people which moved them more, Copland's or William's piece. My opponent states, "An even stronger argument exists that is almost ironic: as one commenter put it, "This seems like John Williams is channeling Aaron Copland. " Not just for the sake of the debate, but I completely agree. It seems very inspired by the work of Copland, and I honestly believe that Copland's piece takes a step forward when it comes to emotion and musical quality/complexity. Williams' piece to me sounds like something that has been done before time and time again. This is all very well, but, as I see it, not as interesting. " The only refutal I can give here is the opposite of my opponent"s opinion. William, having channelling Aaron Copland, was able to make a more resonant piece that fitted the movie Lincoln much better. I believe just as firmly as Pro, that William"s piece is more emotional resonant than Copland"s piece, despite perhaps not being as musically complex, but being more effective by making the music simple and having a more powerful effect by being straight to the point. My opponent then attempts to show that even if film music can embody story very well, this does not contribute to the quality of the music. This is something I strongly disagree with. Film music's ability to embody a story, to capture the emotions and the raw atmosphere is profoundly significant. What is music but the 'art' of vibrations? And what is art, but the ability to express, embody or symbolise. Yes, there are lots of other variants, and yes, classical music has its own strengths. But, given that as I have attempted to show before, film music is as strong as classical music and it evolves from it, learns from it and becomes something more. The example my opponent gives I would say backfires his claim that it is of 'little use' musically. The film music of Koyaanisqatsi is brilliant and captures the emotions brilliantly, including the theme of human and technological imbalance. My opponent says, "Glass wrote the music for a controversial film known as Koyaanisqatsi (Hopi for "unbalanced life" or "life out of balance"), which is basically a film that shows the unbalance of humans, nature, and technology. To be blunt, as well as I think Glass' music fits the ideas portrayed in Koyaanisqatsi and helps the moviegoer remember it, I have very little use for it musically. It's nothing special. Most of the ideas in it have either been heard before or are so simple that they might as well have been. " Again, the music is powerful because it is simple. It is powerful because it is focused and specific. Yes, the full concerto was good, I found it a very good cover by Maki Namekawa (who played the music in Pro's video), but I do not believe it does the movie more service. It is a more generalised version of the film music. When listening to it, I don't feel as if it as good as the original or even unique or variant. To me, the original piece for the film of Koyaanisqatsi will always be the memorable and the unique one out of the two versions. Consider that in the original, there are more instruments used and much more of a techno atmosphere, which contradicts my opponent's claim that is 'nothing special'. This techno atmosphere further depicts and embodies the essence of the film. Just compare the two again to see what I mean. Original: Part of the full: "I shall also bring attention to my opponent's focus on storyline, more specifically focus on it as opposed to music, instead of along with. In his example of Iron Man vs. Alternative Energy, notice how he brings the main focus to the topics of each piece as opposed to the actual music. Again, as I've stressed throughout this argument, this is most assuredly not the key contributor to the quality of the music, and my opponent almost makes it out to be the only one. " My opponent has no rounds left, however, I still would have wished he outlined the 'actual' key contributor to the quality of the music. I admit, I was focusing on one aspect, but only to prove a point. And I did not make it out to be the only key aspect. I do admit that I argued it is one of the key aspects. But there are surely other key aspects I either forgot to mention. However, Pro has not said what these other key aspects are. "As for the Jesper Hope quote, even if one was to agree with this, it still doesn't argue for variance. This is because classical music has many very different periods, which is why it's so variant. " Just because film music did not have enough time to evolve like classical, does not mean it less variant. As I've said, it evolves from the knowledge and evolution of classical music. Film composers did not just pull film music from the air I would argue. It evolved from it. Carefully adopting the skills and then applying it, modifying it to the film and embodying the film. Thank you again for the wonderful debate and I wish my opponent good luck in his further studies and in this debate. It has been a true pleasure. Sincerely, Adam Godzilla