orly? nah, i haven't heard it yet. Thanks for the heads up.
but it doesn't. The universal truths aren't simple, and i never claimed them to be. But there are very, VERY strong indicators of a sum of events and experiences which result in an interpretation of music; events that may not be impossible to measure. In that sense, music is "subjective", certainly. Overall, music is a "subjective" field, i don't disagree. What i do disagree with is that it's not "ordered". It's not random by ANY means, and i believe certain variations in key parameters are what cause our interpretations.
I'm extremely confident, for example, that when persons from any part of the world in any walk of life, in any sociological environment are given two pieces of music, that (assuming the pieces are significantly different from one another) there will be an insurmountable agreement on which one is "sadder". How could this possibly be a coincidence? How does that not indicate some level of objectivity of interpretation? It's lazy and simple minded to ignore these kinds of phenomenon and attribute any discrepancy of musical interpetation to "music is subjective". There are patterns. I don't think there will ever be 100% agreement on anything, but that's because the truths lie in very very small, yet extremely numerous parameters which yield the apparent result. It's a complex function, and simply seeing the result does not provide any information on what the process was.
I don't think i'm presenting any new ideas here. I think what i'm defining here IS what some people refer to as "subjectivity", but in my own case i prefer to refer to it as a sum of an arrangement of objective truths. Calling it "subjective" implies to me that nothing is measurable and there aren't patterns, which i do NOT believe.
