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

Much of this was written in a back-up file on my computer while my Wi-Fi was down, so sorry if I don't quote my opponent word for word in certain areas where I meant to. ) I would like to thank my opponent for the complement in his opening statement in Round 4, and for joining me in this interesting debate. The fact that I brought him music that he might not have heard otherwise (and liked) gives me an extreme joy as someone who would like to go into music education, and I'm glad that he let me know. I would also like to compliment him on being able to agree with my statement that film music is essentially a type of classical music while still being able to maintain his stance that it is variant enough from it. I would like to quickly clear up two misunderstandings from the last round, which admittedly were mostly my fault: 1. When talking about the Copland piece, I didn't mean to say that the piece itself would tell you it's about Lincoln. I meant to say that if you yourself were to say to someone "This piece is about Lincoln," and then play the Copland piece, then from the style of the piece a person could deduce what Lincoln might have been like.2. Me saying that the Interstellar piece was divergent was to suggest that it was a slight exception to the rule, but not an extreme one and that my opponent seemed to make an error in pointing out more features in my favor by mentioning the theological and organ-based aspects of it. Furthermore, I didn't mean that it was as variant as classical music, just that it takes heavy influence from certain aspects of it. Much of my arguments and my opponent's arguments have been based in things that are slightly subjective, and are hard to prove beyond the realms of one's own opinion. Nevertheless, in my final argument, I will attempt to show the voter the reasons (s)he should vote for pro. To address the challenge, as good as the music was, I personally was not moved as much as by the Copland piece. 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. My opponent maintains an opinion that film music is inherently superior due to the fact that it is written for movies that have storylines, and the music helps you remember these storylines by being linked to them so well and by working so well with the story's events. Thus, I will expand on my argument that this has little to do with the quality of the music. As a composer myself, it's not very difficult to emotionally link a piece of music to a storyline or at least something physical. This is something that all genres of music have achieved time and time again. The fact that the rock song “Damned for All Time” from the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar (which, to be clear, was a concept album and staged show before it was a movie (and another movie)) reminds me of the scene very well and was stuck in my head for seven days straight (I'm serious) and reminds me of the time that I was screwing around and trying to sing all of the parts even though two of them are too high for me does not mean that the song is better than a piece that isn't linked to a storyline. This is because, to slightly rephrase and expand on a previous argument of mine, the fact that you are reminded of the movie when listening to film music, or any story with any music, has less to do with the skill of the music and more to do with the fact that music itself has been shown to be very strongly linked to memory. Music, regardless of genre, is used to treat memory-based diseases such as Alzheimer's. Music, regardless of genre, brings memories, thoughts, stories and ideas back in the same or a similar way. I find that I can hear any song that I might happen to know at least slightly and be able to link it to one of these things. My opponent made a point in saying that, when, hearing film score, you immediately think of the movie. An argument could be said as easily against this being a positive, in that music outside of movies could be grounded in many equally as powerful (or more powerful) non-theater-based experiences. I would also like to go back to my point that the music itself is independent from the story. My opponent points out that books and paintings and many art forms can have a lot of stories to tell or none at all. Very true, but if a book is written based on a piece of music or vice versa, this does not inherently make the book/the music better than something that is not based on a story (or has a story). Again, film score can accurately convey emotions and make memories out of the movies, but this isn't that hard to do. To push this point a little further, let me use a composer that has written both film music and contemporary classical music: Phillip Glass. 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. Compare this to his piano concertos, not centered around a story (that I'm aware of) and standing alone, and you have something much more impressive. Glass wrote them with a wonderful mix of more traditional musical themes and more contemporary ones, and it came out wonderfully. Koyaanisqatsi (the not-so-great movie one): A section of one of his concertos (the full recordings aren't free, unfortunately. .. ): 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. I stress even more to the voter that the story ≠ the music. Any genre has the ability to be associated with a story, and do it very well. Does that make the music better? Nope. I believe most people will agree that most music has a sort of story, and even the pieces that don't have one don't necessarily need to. 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. There is a clear difference between the baroque period and the classical period, and so on. Film music is essentially just as variant as one of these periods, not all of them. I'm keeping it short this argument on all the other issues. I'd just like to wrap up by saying that I do not think that film score has reached the diversity, complexity, influence or greatness that Western art music has, and I believe that to be evidenced by my previous arguments. A special thanks to Adam_Godzilla for joining in this debate and making it so interesting, and I hope he enjoyed it as much as I did.