Removing Subjective Tastes, the Beatles Were the Greatest Band/ Artist/ Musicians of All Time

Many thanks to my opponent for engaging with me in this debate. Pro begins by stating that while classical music contributed by "my musicians" may be of superior quality (higher art) to what the Beatles played, that "this does not affect the fact that the [Beatles] themselves were the greatest of all time." This would be true if and only if the Beatles were able to a) play the music that my musicians played, b) write the music that my musicians played, and c) demonstrate the same amount of creativity or innovation in their music. None of this is true, and throughout this debate Pro hasn't proven that any of the aforementioned standards apply. Because my musicians played music that is significantly more difficult to play - and the Beatles have never been known or witnessed to play anything of remotely similar difficulty - we must conclude that the Beatles did not have the technical musician skills to rival those of my musicians. Keep in mind that my musicians played multiple instruments each, and Beethoven for instance was a musical prodigy who could already substitute for his teacher by the time he was eleven years old [4]. My opponent could also not combat the fact that the numerous concertos and other symphonies orchestrated by my musicians (each wrote many) are infinitely more difficult than the songs written by the Beatles, which mainly consisted of a simple chord progression and did not contain anywhere near as many instruments, harmonies, melodies, etc. We have every reason to believe that the body of work (music) speaks to the quality of the musicians playing and writing it. As such, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Beatles were better musicians than my classical composers. Pro brings up a sports analogy, and suggests that my criticism of the Beatles is akin to saying Aaron Rodgers is a better athlete than Tiger Woods because football is a harder sport than golf. Of course this is a flawed comparison. In order to determine the better athlete, standards must be created in order to determine the qualities and criteria the superior athlete (not individual sport) would have. The same concept applies to music and musicians. Rather than comparing if football or golf is more difficult (or pop vs. classical music), we need to evaluate the qualities of the musicians themselves - not the genres. Pro is the one who set the standards for comparison: accomplishments, individuality and appeal. In regard to accomplishments, Pro makes a lot of untrue or useless claims. First he said that a band's marketability does not vary greatly. This couldn't be further from the truth. That is why the members of boy bands are expected to be good looking - to make their music easy to sell to particular audience demographics. A music group that wasn't attractive, stylish, or had less appeal for a plethora of other reasons would probably be less popular regardless of the quality of their music than a band that was easier to "sell." Regardless, my opponent missed the points I tried to make here. First, I noted that the standards Pro proposed in order to determine a musician's success could not be used for the purpose of this debate. For example, pop charts weren't around during Mozart's time, so we don't know how many number one singles he could have had. As such we can't use number one singles (or records sold) as the basis of comparison in terms of accomplishments. In response, I proposed other accomplishments that my musicians have achieved: writing in every major genre of music, creating new genres, advancing the technical sophistication of music that was out at the time, etc. I contend that these accomplishments (and others I have mentioned) were more significant and/or harder to achieve than what Pro suggested made the Beatles the greatest. As for individuality, Pro repeated that the Beatles inspired those who came after them. I have conceded as much in the last round; that was never relevant to my argument. In fact Pro pretty much dropped all of my points here. Originally, he argued that the Beatles were innovative and influential because they inspired those who came after, and experimented with new sounds and technology. In response, I noted that my musicians were equally if not FAR MORE influential than the Beatles. While the Beatles certainly dominated the pop-rock scene, each of my musicians were responsible for single-handedly creating entire new genres. Furthermore, everyone has heard of each of those musicians centuries after their death (we don't know if the Beatles will achieve the same notoriety). All of my musicians experimented with new sounds and technologies for the times. And again, the Beatles were becoming popular at a time with the significant help of television, radio and other media - all tools none of my artists had to facilitate their successful careers. Finally, my opponent mistakenly repeats that I've said a musician's appeal is based on image alone and not musical talent. I never said that (what I said is that factors other than musical talent contribute to a band's success). What I really said in the last round is that the Beatles have been glorified throughout the ages, and as such, their popularity (and accomplishments) may influence the way their music is valued by audiences today. In other words, I suggested that playing music that sounded similar or was of similar quality might not be as accepted by audiences if they didn't have the bias of it being a Beatles song. Furthermore, I pointed out that my musicians certainly have their own appeal; their music has been revered throughout the past few centuries and regarded as some of the "highest" music ever created. In conclusion, Pro says that my musician's music isn't objectively better. In fact it is considered objectively better if you use aesthetics as the standard criteria for quality rather than subjective preferences. Aesthetics specifically looks for tools other than subjectivity in order to determine an objective qualifier for beauty. My opponent not only specified that he didn't want to use subjective taste as the standard for quality, but ignores that my musicians are considered better even by his proposed standards. Pro says that in order to determine which athlete is superior, we must consider the impact each athlete had on their sport and how they succeeded at it. Likewise the same criteria applies to musicianship. Well, my musicians had a significant impact on music - both their particular genres, and music as a whole. Beethoven, Bach and Mozart are considered the highest (most talented) musicians of all time given their creativity, innovation and unmatched orchestration. No musician afterward has written anything as complex or harmonious. The musical techniques and sound progression they used and made popular remain the most influential methodology (chord progression) of songs today - and were the same ones the Beatles used. They were also infinitely successful. Not only were they the most popular musicians in the world during their lifetimes, but they remain recognizable by name to almost everyone older than age eight. My composers have exhibited just as much success as the Beatles in terms of popularity and appeal. People strive to rival the talents of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven. While people acknowledge the popularity of the Beatles and all of their musical accomplishments, my musicians have achieved higher (far more difficult) accomplishments that aren't based on popularity but skill and creativity. They are considered musical prodigy's, not just fun to listen to. They have impacted the world of music and set the standard for "amazing" for every artist who has come after them. Thank you. [4] http://www.funtrivia.com...