Instigator / Pro
4
1421
rating
127
debates
31.89%
won
Topic

Overall, music is getting worse over the last 50 years

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

MisterChris
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Music
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1723
rating
38
debates
88.16%
won
Description
~ 184 / 5,000

The goodness of music depends on: Critical/audience reception, timbre/quality of the sound, the lyrical message, the success of the songs, the melodies and rhythms, so on and so forth.

Round 1
Pro
The premise
The premise is that the 2010~2020 decade of music is generally worse than 1970~1980 trends (and that the drop of quality occurred over time). If con proves 90's better than 80's and 00's better than 90's this means nothing, despite seeming to win "half the debate". That is not the debate.

1. Science

Smithsonian Magazine's research is perhaps the most famous aspect of this. He notes that a) Timbre variety went down, b) pitch content decreased, and c) loudness increased. Con could try contesting the study itself, but these three ideas are pretty objective and near impossible to defeat. Now, what is the problem with these three? Well, with a) and b), music strongly encourages creativity. Consider that there are copyright laws about music and if you take someone else's music and claim it as your own, then it is bad music. Consider the following idea: food taste is subjective overall. But if a restaurant gave you all types of food and a big bowl full of every type of food, then it's a pretty good restaurant, right? On the other hand, the modern landscape of pop is basically if a restaurant served 80% pop songs and you had to go look in the corner for the five star fine meal or the more diverse food that you might enjoy. It would alienate everyone who didn't like the basic pop formula, and even those that do enjoy the 80% of the restaurant would eventually get tired of listening to the same type of music over and over again. Once again, humans like repetition, but there's been suggested that the monotony of music is a bad idea. Examine the following passage from why this lack of creativity is bad:

“There are two main reasons why music may become boring and fall out of favour,” he tells The Independent. “The first reason is overexposure to the song. Experiments have demonstrated that appreciation decreases once the novelty of a piece of music has worn off, and that we often become bored with a song that has become over familiar.”

As you can see, the novelty of music is crucial and it's important that songs sound different so that people don't get tired of it. These two link together. Look at how people observe songs getting shorter too to keep people's attention intact. Because the attempt to generate revenue, songs lose quality and focus more on how many people listen to it, which is not a good measurement of quality.

2. Lyrical message

Lyric is a crucial part of a song. Consider if I easily made a song using four chord progression, and the entire song was just "me, me, me, me" with a few "whoa whoas" in the background, and then after three minutes it was over. Sure, some people are going to enjoy it, but is it really as meaningful as something like "mama, just killed a man?" Of course not. Colin Moris made a double-check on Donald Knuth's research on song complexity, and he admits that the repetitiveness has grown to become a problem. As above, consider the idea that repeating the same thing too many times may result in overexposure much easier, and less talent in creating the song lyrics themselves. Remember, story has been long since a crucial component of a song. It's important that it speaks of some kind of message to resonate with the listeners. But with only a few words repeating with each other, it becomes hard for the person to truly understand a deep story and results in worse songs overall. Max Leech for the Odyssey notes the domination of hip hop and how rap where you can barely even hear the lyrics is dominating the charts. The genre is already very simplistic on the melody and depending on backing beats supporting lyrics, but if even the lyrics cannot be understood, is there even a song any more?

This is especially stressed by the idea that a vast proportion of pop songs known to mainstream are written only by two people. Now this might not seem like a big problem, Queen writes their own songs, Beatles writes their own, etc. But the problem is that the writers *do not sing*, and the singers hardly write their songs. It's two different levels of interpretation and makes a difference. When I write my song, I know what I want to convey, and I can have my lyrics match my melody well and sing it with passion. But for Ariana Grande to do the same, she would first have to communicate and understand exactly what her writer wanted, and then try to convey it in her singing. And so it gets tricky, a telephone game of difficulty where a lot of songs' "true meaning" have been lost in "translation".

Con might be thinking back to classical music, but that is completely different. Consider the massive orchestra required and the old standard of music. It still requires far more creativity than a simple chord progression an repetitive lyrics. And if he mentions 4'33", consider just how experimental this insane "music" was (not to mention one out of a million) and how John Cage ruins his own point by releasing "recorded silence", which is absurd and out of 250+ ratings got a very low hated 1/5 on Rateyourmusic. 

3. Too available

Music seems to be a wide industry with millions, if not billions of songs. Con might say "hey, people can choose if they listen to good songs right?" Well, not really. You see, now that music is available with a single click, people would be paralyzed with choice. While before, people had to go sift through albums in a store and music had to be truly appreciated, now you can listen to 1 second, or 30 seconds, or even judge a song merely by its artist or title before going to the next one. A psychological research demonstrates this: "But when it comes to actually making a decision from all of these options, people can become paralyzed—and avoid making choices altogether.
Even worse, when they finally do come to a decision, they’re more dissatisfied and regretful about whatever choice they make." The reasoning is that they feel like they gave up the choices that they could have made. Yeah, they can listen to more songs. But there's always going to be another song they haven't listened to. There's simply too much to get around to. I could supply more studies but I'm sure con and voters are satisfied with just this source.

Conclusion: Music has clearly gotten worse over time. It has gotten less creative, which leads to overexposure, its lyrics is getting more repetitive, which lessens the story and the message, and there is too much music, making people regret their choices due to missing out on millions of other songs. Consider the fact that RateYourMusic, a website where users freely rate songs, out of the top singles, only three of top 40 are from 2010's decade, a similar pattern in 40~80,  and merely Sufjan Stevens on 80th~120th place. In other words, only 7 songs from 2010's out of 120 ranking of best singles of all time. And none of them are that big mainstream billboard hits, with David Bowie helping boost the 2010's (but even he originally started making music from 50 years ago!). That's clearly bad audience reception. 
Con
Thanks, Seldiora

Resolved: Overall, music is getting worse over the last 50 years

OBSERVATIONS:

  • PRO forgets that “Pop” music only scratches the surface of the modern music industry. All artist’s music is geared towards a target audience. That is why genres exist. “Dubstep” music is geared towards “Dubstep” listeners, and so on and so forth. 
  • The resolution does not specify a genre, therefore PRO must prove that most genres of music have been getting worse over the last 50 years.
  • CON believes that in order to say a music genre is worse, PRO must prove that it fulfills the wants and needs of its target audience less than music has in the past. 
CONSTRUCTIVE:

CONTENTION 1: DIVERSITY & ACCESSIBILITY

CON believes there are two extremely important areas where the music industry has gotten even better than in the past: diversity & accessibility. 

DIVERSITY:

In the past (1970s-early 2000s), the quality and sound of the music industry was almost entirely based on whatever was going on in the pop music world. Anyone who lived at the time can attest that everyone used to listen to the same music: whatever had radio time. 

Now, if you do not find pop music favorable, you are completely free to find any obscure genre you like… All thanks to the internet and the massive amount of innovation it brings. PRO evidently does not like modern pop/rap music. This is the perfect time for him, then. He can listen to rock n roll, indie music, dubstep, whatever floats his boat, for absolutely free. In the past, if you didn’t like pop music, you were out of luck. 

ACCESSIBILITY:

The industry is much more accessible for new, creative artists than before. In the past, if you did not conform, you were out of luck. 

Now, according to Ashraf El Gamal in his Senior Thesis:

“Musicians no longer need to go into a professional studio nor do they require a record label to initially help supplement these costs. Maybe more importantly, though, all costs associated with distribution and promotion have been largely removed through the free and open communication of the Internet and rise of social media. Control in these two areas was perhaps where the record companies initially drew their power. Today, an artist can create a song, upload to a third-party host and share it through social media all from the comfort of their bedroom using little more than a personal computer.”

CONTENTION 2: SUPPLY & DEMAND

Criticism abounds for modern pop and rap: “It all sounds the same, the lyrics suck, etc”

Critics do not seem to realize that modern pop and rap is only fulfilling the large public demand for songs that are simple and feel-good...stuff that makes you vibe without having a really “deep” message. If there were no demand for this type of music, then it would not be as prevalent. 

It follows then, that modern music is doing a fine job. RECALL: in order to say a music genre is worse, PRO must prove that it fulfills the wants and needs of its target audience less than music has in the past.”

If people wanted the industry to change, they would listen to other genres and choke artists from revenue, motivating the subsequent change. But as it stands, pop music fulfills the wants and needs of pop lovers just fine, as evidenced by consistently high amounts of pop listeners. 

TL;DR: PRO does not have a bone to pick with pop music, he has a bone to pick with pop listeners.

REFUTATIONS:

Smithsonian Magazine's research is perhaps the most famous aspect of this. He notes that a) Timbre variety went down, b) pitch content decreased, and c) loudness increased. Con could try contesting the study itself, but these three ideas are pretty objective and near impossible to defeat.”

The key phrase in the magazine’s article title is “pop music.” 

CON has already outlined in CONTENTION 1 how there are bountiful alternatives to pop now thanks to the internet, and in CONTENTION 2 how there is a solid market for this type of homogeneous music. It is what the target market wants, so why not have similar sounding music in a specific genre if that’s what the listeners want? 

“It would alienate everyone who didn't like the basic pop formula, and even those that do enjoy the 80% of the restaurant would eventually get tired of listening to the same type of music over and over again. “

If enough people were alienated the genre would change because the demand would change. As it stands though, pop is doing a perfect job supplying the demand for monotonous songs such that people are not alienated.

Let us also consider the problem with this analogy. It takes absolutely zero effort to search YouTube for new, interesting music. There is no “in your face, love it or else” aspect to pop nowadays. That was mostly a problem in the past, as ironic as that is. 

“Remember, story has been long since a crucial component of a song. It's important that it speaks of some kind of message to resonate with the listeners. But with only a few words repeating with each other, it becomes hard for the person to truly understand a deep story and results in worse songs overall. Max Leech for the Odyssey notes the domination of hip hop and how rap where you can barely even hear the lyrics is dominating the charts.”

RECALL the two responses above.

Further, “music” encompasses more than just songs with lyrics. Orchestra, EDM, instrumentals, etc. are all very valid forms of music that don’t use lyrics normally. 

Also, to say “every song must have meaningful lyrics that are remnant of Shakespeare” is to defy the whole point of art: being able to express yourself however the hell you want to. If the artist does not want to use complicated lyrics, then power to them. 

“a vast proportion of pop songs known to mainstream are written only by two people.

The article was a HUGE exaggeration. They said:

“Swedish hitmakers supplied one quarter of all the hits on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2014.”

There was no evidence that “Swedish hitmakers” meant only 2 people. Additionally, just about every song the article mentions was written by a combination of people including the artist themselves. 

“it gets tricky, a telephone game of difficulty where a lot of songs' "true meaning" have been lost in "translation".”

It is perfectly fine to have multiple people write a song, and PRO hasn’t provided any convincing evidence of otherwise. 

“ Con might say "hey, people can choose if they listen to good songs right?" Well, not really. You see, now that music is available with a single click, people would be paralyzed with choice.”

PRO is correct there is wide availability of choice. And if people are as fed up with pop as PRO says, then there is no reason to believe that a lot of choices means that people will refuse to listen to anything other than “bad” music. 

PRO tries to argue for “choice paralysis” based on a psychological article that comments on society at large. Examining the article more closely, it follows people making more stressful decisions than what to listen to. (I.e. trying to get a date on a dating app). 

Additionally, the subtle effects of “too many choices” is unweighable because it is so insignificant. It might as well not even be noted, much less purported to result in people being forced to choose pop music over non-pop music. 

Not only is this a complete misapplication of the article, but this is not reflected by the fact that people are listening to music more than ever before, at an average of 32 hours per week

“ Consider the fact that RateYourMusic, a website where users freely rate songs, out of the top singles, only three of top 40 are from 2010's decade, a similar pattern in 40~80,  and merely Sufjan Stevens on 80th~120th place. In other words, only 7 songs from 2010's out of 120 ranking of best singles of all time.”

The users on a music rating website are probably similar to PRO in that they are very insistent on music being unique and having a “deeper meaning.” This obviously does not reflect the market of music listeners at large.

Back to you, Seldiora
Round 2
Pro
Good point on multiple genre, but if people do not listen to any of those, are they not as good as nonexistent? Look at this graph that shows about 75% of people listen to the major genres: rock, pop, r&b/hip hop, and country. Even Statista confirms this up with America's stats alone. As my overall quality analysis applies to all of these genres, even if the other 25% of music listened to vastly improved (which is up to con to prove), the majority declining would still result in an overall drop in music quality! As such, Smithsonian's article still stands. Music must be listened to in order for people to judge for themselves if good or bad. But if nobody listens to, say, lo-fi Vaporwave, the amount of happiness received on a utilitarian scale is far lower than before, even if everyone only listened to the same MJ, Prince, Queen type of music. Remember that paralysis of choice can still come into effect and cause you to just listen to whatever is most accessible, rather than highest quality. It's far easier to find Despacito, than "what is the best songs in the last decades" and decide among many critic's lists. People have gotten used to being lazy and quickly clicking on any music, and hence 32 hours would not guarantee better music, only more music. Therefore, on a utilitarian basis, music quality would have lowered! Isn't music all about making you feel enjoying and able to listen to it? Con's argument does not work here.

Secondly, con argues that pop listeners will enjoy it just as much because of their frequency of listening. Ah ah ah, that is not quite the case. As a scholarly study reports for us, the prevalence of music videos and the way the production is ran, ruins the entire point of music. "Study 1 indicates that comprehension of rock music lyrics develops with age and that lyrics are often misunderstood, particularly by young children who lack relevant world knowledge and are at a concrete stage of cognitive development. Study 2 shows that music videos provide less stimulation to imagination and are enjoyed less than the songs alone. Study 3, using different methods, confirms the negative effect of music videos on the imagination. The results of this study also demonstrate that a rock song, without any visuals, evokes and elicits more feelings than when it is part of a music video." Now you begin to see just how powerful my argument about music production all for money is all about. You make a video to attract the market and gain attention. But you end up making your music ironically less enjoyable in the end. My point still solidly stands that due to the extra gimmicks within music, people may think they enjoy it, but they don't have the "no music video" for comparison! Consider how many millions and billions of people watch music videos, it's clear that the inference is that billions of people have lost potential enjoyment due to watching the visuals and not imagining for themselves. Case, defeated.

Finally, con says that people are listening to more music than ever, but quantity doesn't mean quality. Consider why I mentioned loudness, which has increased within the Smithsonian article. I anticipated con was going to make this point, but it is self-defeating. Ever since mp3 was invented in 1997, this has caused some controversy. One article states, "Since damage to hearing caused by high volume is determined by its duration, continuous listening to an MP3 player, even at a seemingly reasonable level, can damage the delicate hair cells in the inner ear that transmit sound impulses to the brain.
Increasing reports like this have caused U.S. lawmakers to step in. Earlier this year, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) asked the National Institutes of Health to research the potentially devastating effects posed by earbud headphones. The NIH recently responded by saying, "Any type of headphone has the potential to cause [noise-induced hearing loss] if used improperly in terms of absolute level of the sounds, the length of exposure time to sound, and the fit of the earphone or headphone.

"Studies have shown that people exposed to 85 decibels for eight hours tend to develop hearing loss," Brian Fligor, ScD, of Children's Hospital in Boston, tells WebMD. He found that all the CD players he examined produced sound levels well in excess of 85 decibels." Now, I don't know about you, but 32 hours... well, that's well, well beyond 8 hours. Now we have OBJECTIVE fact shown, that people listening to music due to the technology has caused them to develop *physical problems* now, which definitively shows that music has grown to have more negative effects as we develop more items to let people listen to music. 

Conclusion: Con has completely failed to negate the lyrical drop in quality, and the fact that majority of people are stuck not listening to obscure genres. The production effects reduce your enjoyment of the music videos, and the technology helps contradict con's idea that more listening is better. Through progress in technology, music has become a fast food for digestion that harms your ears and encourages people to stick to mainstream rather than trying to explore deeper albums. Once again, consider that music was far more rare. 50 years ago, I would have to have carefully sift through merely a dozen choices in a store, and purchase some album. I would have to sit down and truly appreciate the lyrics, the melody, everything. Because I would have wasted my money if I only listened to one second and quit after that. The availability of music has definitively caused less enjoyment of it. 


Con
Thanks, Seldiora

REFUTATIONS:

“if people do not listen to any of those, are they not as good as nonexistent? Look at this graph that shows about 75% of people listen to the major genres: rock, pop, r&b/hip hop, and country. Even Statista confirms this up with America's stats alone.”

PRO inadvertently proves CON’s argument that those who are not fond of Pop or Hip Hop can listen to alternative genres. In fact, Hip Hop and Pop are only 22% and 19% of listeners compared to 30% Rock compared to his own source.

“As my overall quality analysis applies to all of these genres, even if the other 25% of music listened to vastly improved (which is up to con to prove), the majority declining would still result in an overall drop in music quality!”

All of PRO’s evidence was only on Pop music which accounts for only 19% of listeners according to his own source.

“Remember that paralysis of choice can still come into effect and cause you to just listen to whatever is most accessible, rather than highest quality. It's far easier to find Despacito, than "what is the best songs in the last decades" and decide among many critic's lists.”

CON’s previous point that it is next to no effort to search any song or genre still stands. 

RECALL: if people are as fed up with pop as PRO says, then there is no reason to believe that a lot of choices means that people will refuse to listen to anything other than “bad” music.”

RECALL: Additionally, the subtle effects of “too many choices” is unweighable because it is so insignificant. It might as well not even be noted, much less purported to result in people being forced to choose pop music over non-pop music.”

“on a utilitarian basis, music quality would have lowered!”


Utilitarianism is a system of ethics. Music quality is irrelevant to ethics.

“con argues that pop listeners will enjoy it just as much because of their frequency of listening.”

PRO misrepresents CON’s argument in a strawman fallacy.

This is CON’s actual R1 argument that PRO is trying to refute: 
“If people wanted the industry to change, they would listen to other genres and choke artists from revenue, motivating the subsequent change. But as it stands, pop music fulfills the wants and needs of pop lovers just fine, as evidenced by consistently high amounts of pop listeners.”

“As a scholarly study reports for us, the prevalence of music videos and the way the production is ran, ruins the entire point of music.”

CON believes this study, and the entire argument that follows is out of the scope of the debate.

The debate is about music, which is defined as “vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.”

Furthermore, 
“"Study 1 indicates that comprehension of rock music lyrics develops with age and that lyrics are often misunderstood, particularly by young children who lack relevant world knowledge and are at a concrete stage of cognitive development.” 


PRO’s own source refutes the idea that most music has meaningless lyrics, as Rock has more listeners than both Pop and Hip Hop (also according to his own source) but has lyrics hard to understand without world knowledge.

“ Consider why I mentioned loudness, which has increased within the Smithsonian article. ”

Ear damage could be accrued with any form of music from any time period, this is because the volume at which music is played is up to the user. 

PRO has a complete misunderstanding of what his source is saying. In fact, by saying music is “Getting louder,” it is arguing that it has been getting more compressed mastering.

Mastering is when Mastering engineers apply equalization and dynamic range compression in order to optimize sound translation on all playback systems.”

PRO’s source is NOT saying that everyone has to listen to music louder because of this. The user has the end-say as to what the volume is... Every music device has volume controls. It is simply saying the mastering process has evolved.

“"Since damage to hearing caused by high volume is determined by its duration, continuous listening to an MP3 player, even at a seemingly reasonable level, can damage the delicate hair cells in the inner ear that transmit sound impulses to the brain.”


This is out of the scope of the debate, as this source and all of the arguments that follow are addressing headphone/earbud usage, not music. 

Additionally, even if it were within scope, the point would not stand because
RECALL: “The user has the end-say as to what the volume is... Every music device has volume controls.”

DROPPED ARGUMENTS:

  • Accessibility. The industry is much more accessible for new, creative artists than before. In the past, if you did not conform, you were out of luck.”
  • The entire 2nd Contention... Supply/Demand
  • To say “every song must have meaningful lyrics” is to defy the meaning of art
There are more, but these are the main dropped arguments by PRO.

Back to you, Seldiora.

Round 3
Pro
in the end, con asks pro to come up with endless evidence upon more evidence, saying it is constantly not enough, that even though 30% of people report listening to the declining rate of pop, the absurdity of rap, he has provided no counter-evidence to prove that rock and country has improved to the point that it is enough to counter-act pop and rap both of which he dropped. Consider that the graph I offered was "what is the MAIN genre you listen to", the power of pop has also gone down as an illusion. If we allow for mutual inclusiveness, we then see just how powerful pop actually is, with 70% now reporting cross countries to listening to pop. Con has failed to infer that rock has stayed the same or has gotten better, which is crucial to prove the point that I'm making. Do you know any band from 2010~2020 with as much influence as Queen? The Beatles? Pink Floyd? Led Zeppelin? Metallica? I don't think so. You can name far more world-famous rock bands from 1970's onwards than from the last 10 years, that revolutionized entire music genres and inspired countless people -- despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands more rock bands available to pick from. It seems obvious to me that the music quality has declined, especially as it grows harder to find the handful incredible rock bands still having decent stories and messages. (As more music genres are explored, it becomes harder to find new ways to push the limit, especially when being "mainstream" is key to commercial success)

Con says ear damage can be accrued from any time period, but this is the first time that the music is so constantly loud and close to your head. Do you really think most people from 50 years ago could listen to music on the go, at above 85 decibels, for 8 hours a day? Unless you were the member of a band, I'm pretty sure vast majority of people did not have to suffer under modern technology conditions. 

Finally, sorry about dropping accessibility, I glanced over con's poor refutation. This has been done many times, Vsauce himself tried a research using different bean flavors, tea cups, etc. and still had the same result, so it definitely isn't only a problem with dating, but can be very casual small choices. Therefore you can still be unsatisfied at your choice due to too much music being available for you.

Con says that it defies the meaning of art, but I disagree. If I spent zero effort using a random word generator to create a song, it is not good music, it is not art, it is random and anyone could do it. If everyone in the world made a variation on my idea, you now have 7 billion songs that are exactly the same, and hence, none of them can be good, as we just copied each other and produced the song easily, quickly, effortlessly. Consider that all the songs that are considered the "best" have some innovation and revolutionary impact, they tell a story and message deeply. There is no song that the artist took zero effort in, and has been able to be copied hundreds and thousands of time, and is still called one of the best. It would no longer be the best if all the songs in the world sounded the same as the supposedly "best song". 

Conclusion: The songs becoming the same overall applies to pop music in the study, but is clear as day with other genres, especially rap/hip-hop. Con has failed to prove that rock has gotten any better, and there are far fewer big name bands than the olden days (not to mention, not hitting the charts so not as popular as the previous graphs would make them out to be). The choice paralysis is still solid and the collection of songs from 2010~2020 are beginning to sound very homogenous and uncreative. Vote for pro.
Con
REFUTATIONS:

“in the end, con asks pro to come up with endless evidence upon more evidence, saying it is constantly not enough, that even though 30% of people report listening to the declining rate of pop, the absurdity of rap, he has provided no counter-evidence to prove that rock and country has improved to the point that it is enough to counter-act pop and rap both of which he dropped.”

PRO has not proven that Pop or Rap has declined in quality in the eyes of the target audience, therefore CON has no need to prove that any other genre has improved.

For the final time, RECALL CON’s r1 argument:“If people wanted the industry to change, they would listen to other genres and choke artists from revenue, motivating the subsequent change. But as it stands, pop music fulfills the wants and needs of pop lovers just fine, as evidenced by consistently high amounts of pop listeners.”

“Consider that the graph I offered was "what is the MAIN genre you listen to", the power of pop has also gone down as an illusion. If we allow for mutual inclusiveness, we then see just how powerful pop actually is, with 70% now reporting cross countries to listening to pop”

“Main” implies that most people listen to that genre more often. Even still, CON never argued that the power of Pop is insignificant. CON argued that PRO has proven that people will listen to alternative genres other than Pop using their own source, and that has been unrefuted.

“Con has failed to infer that rock has stayed the same or has gotten better, which is crucial to prove the point that I'm making. Do you know any band from 2010~2020 with as much influence as Queen? The Beatles? Pink Floyd? Led Zeppelin? Metallica? I don't think so.”

Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Radiohead, System of a Down, Three Days Great, Breaking Benjamin, etc.

PRO refutes himself by saying rock has stayed the same or gotten better, proving that the most liked genre (according to their own source) is high quality.

Now, it is true that rock has declined in influence. But this is simply due to shifts in popularity, where even though rock is still a dominant genre, it isn’t as overly dominant as it once was. Regardless, as a notable alternative to Pop, CON’s Contention 1 is supported once again. 

“Con says ear damage can be accrued from any time period, but this is the first time that the music is so constantly loud and close to your head. Do you really think most people from 50 years ago could listen to music on the go, at above 85 decibels, for 8 hours a day? Unless you were the member of a band, I'm pretty sure vast majority of people did not have to suffer under modern technology conditions.”

PRO does not refute the previous arguments:

  1. RECALL: “The user has the end-say as to what the volume is... Every music device has volume controls.”
And
  1. RECALL: “This is out of the scope of the debate, as this source and all of the arguments that follow are addressing headphone/earbud usage, not music.”

Also, PRO’s math is off. 32 hours per week/7 is 4.5 hours a day, not 8.

“Finally, sorry about dropping accessibility, I glanced over con's poor refutation. This has been done many times, Vsauce himself tried a research using different bean flavors, tea cups, etc. and still had the same result, so it definitely isn't only a problem with dating, but can be very casual small choices.”

PRO refutes the wrong argument. CON’s accessibility subpoint of Contention 1 stands unrefuted. 

Regarding his refutation, Vsauce is not a trained scientist and his results should be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, PRO continues to ignore CON’s previous response.

RECALL: Additionally, the subtle effects of “too many choices” is unweighable because it is so insignificant. It might as well not even be noted, much less purported to result in people being forced to choose pop music over non-pop music.”

“Con says that it defies the meaning of art, but I disagree. If I spent zero effort using a random word generator to create a song, it is not good music, it is not art, it is random and anyone could do it.”

PRO takes CON out of context. 

PRO said:
“story has been long since a crucial component of a song.”

In response, CON said:
the whole point of art is being able to express yourself however the hell you want to. If the artist does not want to use complicated lyrics, then power to them.”

CON agrees that some art is better than others, but to say “lyrics that have deep meaning is necessary to make a song good” defies the purpose of art. Other factors may or may not be more important than lyrics, depending on the listener. And for many, that is the overall sound. PRO is not in a place to define what is important for the listener.

SUMMARY:

The VOTER can flow through both of CON’s contentions, meaning the resolution is defeated. 

VOTE CON.