Giving thanks for your explication.

But my friend, only one sentence:
Objectivity is like trunk of a tree and subjectivity its branches. By pushing people more towards the subjectivity, you undeliberately deprive them of having a strong body.

You have a knack for making deductions and writing logical sentences, but attempt to use this remarkable capacity in a way that leads people around you to learn more.

 

Different emotions at different times? Well, there aren't many (mainstream songs) who are having that, I quess? It's more common and important in film music.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2021

Key elements in movies

Lower key sounds sound darker, higher key sounds sound happier.

 

Well, it seems to me that your score is a merge of different (orchestral) parts, isn't it?
This because when I tried to play it on piano I found that I needed extra fingers and a hand span of at least a thirteenth.
Example see the first Gm chord, even rearranging hand parts (left 5,1 right 1,2,3,5) highest G and Bb would be out of reach, better to cut out replicated notes, easier to read and play.

However, I'm pretty new to modes different than the traditional major and 3 minor scales.
So seeing my app for scales database, I found that there are at least 100 different modes, pretty scaring.

My personal target is just to play pieces by ear, and so far I found sufficient the knowledge of the traditional scales, with of course the acknowledgment of variations, that before I just considered "modified scales" with "anomalies" easily spot by ear, and after (thanks to @Ad Heesive , who introduced me to the bunch), identified as dorian, etc.

For example, listening to the theme (that is NOT the Beato excerpt) in my oversimplification :

up to 1:58 is D, with the chorus (theme) changed at last with the "anomaly" of C natural, that now I identify as part of D mixolydian.
After the whole is modulated to Bb, repeating the same with at the end Bb mixolydian.

Edit: playing around I found it could be even an avoided resolution to G (Csus2).

Of course for a composer I guess things are more complicated and a deep knowledge of harmony including all possible modes relationship may be necessary.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2021

That's a charming poetic metaphor but I'm not sure what can be usefully derived from it.

The idea of "pushing anyone towards objectivity or subjectivity" doesn't make sense to me.
I am simply asserting that some things in our world 'simply are' objective brute facts and by contrast some other things in our world are personal/social facts that depend solely on human subjectivity.
I am not suggesting (ever) that you can 'choose to see everything any way you want'.
I am saying that objective or subjective is dictated by nature (by reality) and it's a fool's game to not notice which is which.

Examples...
If we discuss whether gravity works on Sundays or not then our opinions mean nothing because there simply is an (objective) absolutely right answer which we have to comply with or be deluded. Gravity does not depend on human existence at all, yet alone human opinions. Stuff like that is called 'brute fact reality'. You don't negotiate with it, you comply with whatever it is or live in Harry Potter land.

But if we discuss (and argue about) whether strawberry tastes better than chocolate or chocolate tastes better than strawberry, then this is entirely personal/social reality and our subjective opinions are the only thing that matters. Reality cannot arbitrate and tell us who is right about stuff like that because we're both right.
All concepts like good, bad, nice, better, worse, sad, happy, etc, ad infinitum, are 100% human constructs (social reality). If humanity disappears then all those concepts disappear too (along with money, marriage, politics, etc, etc). The universe does not care about any of that. All of that stuff is malleable and is dealt with solely by subjective opinions.

No one is pushing anyone to be subjective or be objective, because it's not really a choice. All I am claiming is that it is worth your while knowing clearly when objective or subjective is rationally mandated, and it is reality that should be guiding you in seeing that.

In music (for example) you could make objective observations like "music from Bach is structurally more complex than music from Bieber". You could probably define some mathematical criteria to measure that and establish how it is objectively true or false.

But if you then try to say that "Bach is better than Bieber" then you have just expressed merely a subjective opinion.
Words like "True and False" no longer apply. They get replaced by "Agree or Disagree'.
Even if the entire planet agrees with the statement it is still only a subjective opinion, and that sole teenager that wildy disagrees is just as entitled to her opinion. That's because 'better' is just a human invention and is malleable.
Even if you try to say something trickier like "Bach's music is better because it's objectively more complex" then that too is still just a subjective opinion. Some people may say 'simpler is better' instead - and that is an equally valid subjective opinion.

-- Philosophy rant ends.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2021

Everything in the world (even the subjectivity itself) is objective. Because we don't have time, desire and ability, we usually run away from knowing more about things. One of the tools that prevents deep understanding and discovering the relations is the use of subjectivity.

 

But you may be biased to seeing only half the problem there. You only expressed one side.

IF you mean the following (both kinds of fault) then I would agree...

When something is a brute fact objective issue (like whether gravity works on Sundays) then it is a silly mistake to pretend that this is just a matter of subjective opinion. Pretending that 'agree to disagree' is a virtue would be just a pathetic cop-out.
In case like this there is an objectively right answer to be found somewhere.

But the opposite is just as crazy.
If it is a social reality issue like 'which music sounds better', then trying to 'win' an argument by pretending that a universally correct objective answer is available is totally deluded. Trying to appeal to objective facts to back up our personal-only opinions is nonsense.

So, two kinds of mistake - that we all make far too often.

 

C------------------F------------G----------C
My dog she died of a broken heart

In the happy key of Cmaj.

 

Do you know what you are doing now?

You are examining subjectivity in terms of objectivity, and it's interesting.

But my advice to you is to focus on the music itself, instead of zooming in on social preferences and the opinions of different people that are changing.

Too bad your talent is spent on the others' iffy experimentations instead of music.