>He thinks music is subjective

>>72578892
List the objective qualities then.

>>72578899
Instrumentation, timbres, key signature (or lack of), structure

>>72578928
People mean that music taste is subjective, not the mechanics of music. Two people can have opposite opinions on a given timbre and they would both be correct (e.g. some people love noise music and many hate it)

File: T6RXEue.jpg (10KB, 299x299px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 299x299px

>he THINKS music

File: download (2).jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>he thinks is

File: bruce.jpg (6KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 225x225px

>he thinks

>>72578928
but that is subjective. there is no objective meaning to ANY of the things you listed.

Instrumentation doesn't just mean "instruments used", otherwise every single symphony would be pretty much the same in this aspect.
obviously timbre isn't objective.
key signature is, perhaps surprisingly, not well defined. yes, you can say that a song is in a key, but there are many ways to interpret the same set of notes. What key is this in? (hint: if you say it's in C you're an idiot) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFIGoB7rK70

structure, again, is obviously not well defined.

File: 1492318126748.jpg (8KB, 177x223px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 177x223px

>he

File: imageedit_1_9141887694.png (183KB, 510x468px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 510x468px

>

>>72578928
What about those factors though?

>>72578892
Ofcourse it's subjective you literal brainlet, appreciation of art in general is subjective.

Someone might enjoy a raw aesthetic of a not mixed distorted track while for others it's unlistenable utter dogshit.
Someone might enjoy a 8 min track of the same repetitive loop with some progression while others can't stand that kind of arrangement in a song.

Same with any other artform really.