a general architecture of musical structure as discussed in music theory becomes validated because scientific instrumentation helps confirm their perceptual validity “in general” for humanity BECAUSE each of the subjective judgements were slightly different and yet followed similar patterns.

Yes! I like this because it helps address each of those loci at once:
a general architecture of musical structure as discussed in music theory becomes validated because scientific instrumentation helps confirm their perceptual validity “in general” for humanity BECAUSE each of the subjective judgements were slightly different and yet followed similar patterns.
The slight differences are validating because people do have different musical abilities and these differences SHOULD show up in a well constructed testing regime.
So by being different from each other yet when overlapped show a general human capability, it validates the general architecture of musical structure.
An analogy, although odd, is how the slightly different accounts of the Gospel story in the Bible helps validate the accounts for Christians: It is normal for stories to be slightly different from one another; for slight details to be different, when multiple people tell a story from different perspectives. It is abnormal for everybody to see exactly the same thing in exactly the same way — which is why “let’s get our story straight” so often fails; it’s normal for stories to be slightly different in genuine perspective differences.
I’m not attesting to any validity or non-validity of biblical stories but rather attesting to why “similar but not identical” is can be more powerful than identical.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× three = 6

Leave a Reply