>>79228741You *are* ESL, and apparently not half as learned as you seem to think you are - even after I went through the trouble of spoonfeeding you the meaning of the "objective/subjective" distinction.
Read back through this post
>>79222866, nice and slow, and maybe you'll start to see what I'm getting at.
>Music follows music theory>Therefore music is inherently rationalHilariously false, pathetically transparent Vienna Circle brainrot. This is the equivalent of arguing that because human biology and anatomy exists in the physical world, the entirety of the human experience is just Le Chemical Reaction, when anybody with noumenon and qualia can immediately understand why that is completely fucking idiotic.
Structuring musical composition according to the traditions, methods and organic practices of a particular culture, in a way that CAN be analyzed on a theoretical and abstract rationalistic level, doesn't magically change the fact that music is inherently, at the most fundamental level, sentimental, and therefore, necessarily, NOT rational. Understanding the physical mechanism, in theory, does not in any way negate the metaphysical experience which humans actually have, in REALITY.
>Your argument is SUBJECTIVETHAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, you, insipid, unbearably fucking braindead Reddit tourist MORON. That you continue to obsess over "objectivity" demonstrates just how doxastically strangulated and irredeemably brainwashed you are by post-enlightenment ideology, to the point that you are apparently totally incapable of grasping the fact that NOT EVERYTHING IS *SUPPOSED* TO BE OBJECTIVE. If the only objective way to compare singers is INSUFFICIENT TO LEAD YOU TO AN ACTUAL MEANINGFUL CONCLUSION beyond merely measuring the characteristics of the singers' voices, then maybe you should put two and two together and come to the obvious conclusion that you are need to, and SHOULD, compare these things SUBJECTIVELY. The fact that sentimental value is "vague" and not a "comparable theory" is completely fucking irrelevant, because they are still undeniably, factually real and still factually matter over all other considerations, seeing as technical ability's significance, in and of itself, is a function of HOW IT ULTIMATELY AFFECTS THE SENTIMENT OF THE LISTENER.
Only a fucking retarded, uncultured, underaged moron who has next to zero life experience would think that technical singing ability matters more than being a good singer itself, JUST because it is objectively measurable. That's like arguing that having high-quality construction materials matters more than having a good house. YES, ultimately subjective metrics are the only ones that matter, and to deny this fact is to fundamentally misunderstand what music even IS, let alone its FUNCTION.
>You are le... HUMAN BEING, WOOOooooOOOooo spookyImagine LARPing as a brainless automaton to argue that experiential human cultural practices like singing should only be discussed objectively... for some inexplicable reason
