Some music is objectively good because I said so

>>128150027
No, end of story. There is 0 objective way to gauge quality in music
>But music theory
All songs use music theory in some form (rejecting conventional music theory is music theory). If your only gauge for how good a song is the difficulty or complexity you have no soul
>popular opinion
Is Taylor Swift your favorite artist right now?
>Critic opinion
Rolling stone and p4k rated the new Taylor swift album higher than whatever I assume your favorites are.

>>128150089
how can you be so sure tho?

>>128150089
so you're saying there is no way to gauge the difference in quality between something like mozart's requiem and whatever imbred recently shat out

as far as 'quality' in the sense of absolute excellence (or lack thereof), yes music is subjective. to a degree we can objectively/scientifically talk about a piece of music, the notes, their pitch, chord progressions, even (to an extent) things like originality - but there is no absolute criteria for why originality, say, should be valued at all or why it should be weighed as much or differently from another criterion: it's always going to be relative to the individual; any determination that this person or that person is a better judge of quality will always be arbitrary (e.g. "he's listened to more music than others").

obviously not
https://youtu.be/SPkScJszPBc?list=RDSPkScJszPBc
old time/traditional music was all just by ear,
this album is interesting because he just plays tunings and says "this is how this is tuned" and you just need to know it by ear, music was basically regional and local and you just learned from people you knew.

Fretted instruments like we have now are fairly recent and to the extent music theory has an objective quality, fretted instruments are out of tune. There are inherent harmonics that in equal temperament are always out of tune. Historically they used mean tuning and movable frets and would adjust it for what they were playing so it was more in tune. With things like the fiddle with no fret obviously everything is more just by gut

Chord progressions are also fairly novel and new, tonal harmony is in some sense a simplification of polyphony where you have basically pre-established voice leading in chords rather than managing each melodic line independently. Rennaisance/earlier polyphony broke many "rules" in later counterpoint because they just didn't have tonal harmony as a thing.

Counterpoint itself and harmony developed out of improvisation traditions that were also oral and not written down. Many older forms of notated music aren't actually how they are meant to be played, they are the foundation which you are expected to have the skills to adapt and improvise on top of for more complex harmonies.

We are actually historically in a really odd situation where we don't really have any oral/traditional music practice we have access to, for nearly all of history music would have primarily been the folk/traditional practice and a part of festivals and dances and a thing people played together where people were expected to alter it at will basically not according to any rules except what was acceptable for that group of people.

Listen to some old recordings
https://youtu.be/CWS6fXU79wc

File: images.jpg (10 KB, 448x260)

10 KB JPG

>>128150027
If I think too much about theory in music, it gets boring.

I just vibe to whatever my spirit is calling.

>>128150267
As a specific note on this as a part of public education basically throughout the world but particularly w/ this tradition int he appalachians the rockefellers and other people intentionally oppressed the musical practices and would confiscate fiddles because the music wasn't good and was just "noise" (this was largely done to make the national population more unified so they could be managed easier and not revolt, would also receive advertising easier)
I think the idea of some absolute metric is kind of insane and comes from that sort of technocratic imperial domination instinct which is just someone asserting themselves as the dominator. I think you could say certain music is contrary to certain communities or traditions, but we basically don't have either of those anymore so we have kind of lost the place to stand for even a somewhat "objective" perspective.
If you are playing for a particular folk dance and you play in a way that disrupts the dance I can say you are playing it badly, you could apply this to some more organized forms like jazz or bluegrass meets we have now as well, I think it's fair to say that's objectively bad within that context. (i dont like the subject/object distinction it's all just relational) If you had a more concrete culture/community what's contrary to it would be much clearer.

Personally I think the idea of perfect music is just a consequence of like recording/radio/notation and is an insane standard, the norm of music should just be people playing together and coming up wtih stuff.
One of my favorite artists (multiple actually do this) tori kudo intentionally gets unskilled musicians so that the music isn't perfect.
I love it and this is one of my favorite songs of all time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRk_k03ads
https://youtu.be/sSydHMYarxE
I love it even when the musicians are not the best

>>128150056
literally this unironically. If YOU don't like the music that I LIKE you are WRONG AND FUCKING GAY

>>128150134
IQ is an objective scientific measure. Survey people on what music they like and simultaneously survey their IQ. You can get other data too if you like. Age, income, height, gender, anything you want. Then correlate what music people like with these data points. Now you have an objective measure of what kind of music people like depending what kind of person they are. It won't tell you what music is "good" but it will be objective at least. Also if you believe in IQ as a measure of human worth then there you go, whatever music high IQ people like is objectively "good music." If you don't believe that then it's harder to answer.

Discussion info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

>>128151462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty

>>128151155
>f you believe in IQ as a measure of human worth
that might show us trends about people with high IQ, but, as you alluded to, that still wouldn't in itself tell us that they have some superiority in judging what "good" music is (the belief of which would still need to be argued). but that would only get us trends. there are bound to be instances where most people with an IQ of 150+, say, on the whole like a certain classical piece, but in the upper-end, who in general likes classical, doesn't like that piece. is that individual "wrong"? why? they have a higher IQ than most in that group, so why should we care what the majority says?

>>128151577
>but in the upper-end
*but someone

>>128151577
>why should we care what the majority says?
It's data. A true (hypothetical) 9999 IQ galaxy brain would be like a vacuum sucking up any and all data, crunching it, noticing patterns no one else noticed, solving problems long thought impossible, etc. A fact is a fact, it never hurts to know something factual, even if it seems trivial in the grand scheme of things. This thread is about objectivity, these kinds of facts are where you would focus your efforts if your interest was studying music from an angle of objectivity.

Another angle would be taking the most popular songs and scrutinizing the songs themselves for commonalities, repeating motifs and patterns. There are many ways you could apply the scientific method to music. Hell, you could even scan people's brains as they listen to music and gather data that way.

>>128151832
>This thread is about objectivity, these kinds of facts are where you would focus your efforts if your interest was studying music from an angle of objectivity
the thread is about the potential objective *quality* of music, not music in general. any data point gained is moot if your underlying premise(s) is/are flawed.

>>128151891
Asking if there is such a thing as objective music quality is like asking if it's objectively better to be tall or not. It's an inherently unscientific question. Science can answer the question of whether taller people live longer or shorter lives on average. It can answer questions like whether taller men are more popular with women on average. But "is it better to be tall?" That's an opinion, not a fact. So yeah, to answer the question in OP and not dance around it, quality in music is subjective.

This whole "quality is subjective" argument is just wrong. If that were true, then Yoko Ono's Toilet Piece would be as good as Beethoven's late quartets, and me farting into a microphone would be as valid as your favorite album. Nobody ACTUALLY believes that when pressed. It's a lazy, self-defeating position people parrot to avoid having to articulate standards.

The problem starts when people misunderstand the words OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE. They imagine the former means something like "quantifiable by physics," and the latter as "anything goes, pure opinion." But that's not how philosophy uses those terms. Objective doesn't have to mean measurable. It can mean intersubjectively valid, i.e. based on reasons, criteria and standards that can be shared, tested and debated even if they aren't reducible to numbers. Subjective doesn't mean random either; it means rooted in perception, which itself can be educated and refined. A trained musician or critic doesn't just have a "different opinion" than a tone-deaf listener; they have a BETTER INFORMED one. So even subjectivity comes in degrees.

Even science isn't objective in the cartoon sense people assume. Hume's problem of induction showed long ago that we can't PROVE the sun will rise tomorrow. Science relies on consensus, repeatability and justified belief, not metaphysical certainty. In the same way, music criticism isn't objective like physics, but it's also not subjective like "I like chocolate more than vanilla." It lives in the middle ground of reasoned, intersubjective judgment; what Kant called SUBJECTIVE UNIVERSALITY: aesthetic judgments that aren't mathematical truths but still make a valid claim to the agreement of (informed) others.

>>128151035
whats the scientific evidence behind this, huh?

>>128153627
What makes this discussion even funnier is that the obsession with "scientifically proving" artistic quality is itself a relic of 19th century positivism, i.e. the belief that everything, from art to human behavior, could be reduced to data and biology. (I mean, it probably could, in a purely descriptive sense, but drawing any conclusions about meaning or what ought to be done from that becomes an incredibly slippery slope.) It was the same mindset that early social scientists and utopian materialists had: the idea that the world could be run by scientific formulas, that you could quantify beauty, virtue or genius. But it's an outdated illusion. Human meaning, creativity, symbolism, and emotion can't be modeled like lab experiments in a controlled environment. People don't function as predictable mechanical systems.

So no, you can't "scientifically determine" musical quality, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary or purely subjective. You can discuss coherence (how ideas develop), craft (form, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration), originality and historical significance, emotional range, expressive depth, etc. All of that can be evaluated, compared and defended with reason. That's what criticism, aesthetics and art history are built on. These standards aren't absolute laws, but they're not meaningless either. It's the kind of thing that allows you to say with confidence that Beethoven's Op. 131 quartet IS better than Yoko Ono's Toilet Piece, all without pretending that this judgment is "scientific."

tl;dr
>Objective doesn't only mean quantifiable
>Subjective doesn't mean arbitrary
>Music involves qualities that can be evaluated using shared, reasoned standards
>Quality in music isn't objective in the scientific sense, but not subjective in the arbitrary sense; it's intersubjective, grounded in rational, debatable criteria

>>128150089
There is dissonance and minor/major chords and whatever I cbf arguing about this. There is objectively good music as in well made both written and performed and it’s subjective whether you like it or not, conversely there’s bad music that people enjoy. It’s both

>>128150027
Solution is simple. Good music = Jew Music
Shalom

File: 23411.jpg (66 KB, 736x993)

66 KB JPG

>>128153627
>>128153636
wow, you seem to know what you're talking about
check out smarty pants over here

>>128153636
Don’t forget the Greeks had the golden ratio

>>128153814
shut up zionist

>>128150027
>Is quality in music all subjective?
Yes.
>Is 'music theory' scientific
Somewhat. It recognizes what kind of sounds and sound combinations people tend to like. So there's some research component to it.
>and does it establish objectivity on music?
Not really. Public consensus doesn't mean that something is objective. That's still subjective. Someone could disagree with the consensus.
>Is there even a scientific way to determine quality in music?
No. Objective means independent of the beholder. You could maybe hypothesize that something could be objective if literally everybody agreed on it, but then it still doesn't prove that it's objective, as it might just be a case of a wide-spread consensus and it could be possible for someone to come along and disagree.

>>128154153
Retroactively refuted by >>128153627 >>128153636

>>128154165
Not really, because that whole argument is essentially just begging the question. It assumes the conclusion in the premises of the argument.

>>128150027
>Is quality in music all subjective
no
>Is 'music theory' scientific
no
>does it establish objectivity on music
no
>Is there even a scientific way to determine quality in music
yes, but it's far beyond the current understanding of psychology, don't hold your breath.
>We should have a discussion about this and reach into a conclusion.
there isn't anything to discuss, you either know or you don't

There is no objectivity in music, or any art, only subtly different kinds of subjectivity which just use fancy language to pussy-foot around the fact that they all ultimately rely on consensus.

>>128153635
The evidence is that I said so, again, my word is law

>>128154277
That's not begging the question. I didn't assume that musical quality is intersubjective; I argued why the objective/subjective binary is too narrow and why intersubjectivity makes more sense. If anyone's begging the question, it's the view that defines "objective" as "independent of perception" and then concludes that perception-dependent fields like art can't be objective.
>>128154468
If all shared reasoning is dismissed as "consensus," then science, law, etc. logic are all just subjectivity too.

>>128154305
>>Is there even a scientific way to determine quality in music
>yes, but it's far beyond the current understanding of psychology, don't hold your breath.
That's indistinguishable from saying nothing at all.
>trust me bro, there's definitely a formula

>>128154964
if you saw the state of research on psychology and compared it to how other sciences used to look, you'd understand what i mean. it's one of the least developed fields, especially when talking about music.

>>128154971
Your claim collapses into nonsense. You can't coherently assert that there's a scientific way to measure quality while also admitting that the science in question not only lacks that method but is too undeveloped to even conceptualize it.
>there's a cure for aging, it's just far beyond current biology, which is one of the least developed sciences

>>128154893
>That's not begging the question.
That's literally what you do in the first paragraph of your diatribe. Get real, dude. Plus intersubjective doesn't mean objective, so whatever you're getting at is at best irrelevant to the prompt. But I don't want to be an asshole, so I'll say that it's still potentially useful for the purposes of the discussion to suggest a different way of looking at the problem that's different from the one presented in the prompt, but doing so via making definitive statements on either side of the prompt without actual justification is still wrong.
>it's the view that defines "objective" as "independent of perception" and then concludes that perception-dependent fields like art can't be objective.
That's application of a definition. I don't assume that art isn't objective, I lay out premises and then make a conclusion on their basis. I don't know who told you that that's begging the question, but they were wrong. That's just basic inference.

>>128155006
are you denying that music has quality?

>>128155025
No, I'm denying that you've made a coherent argument. Saying "music has quality" isn't the same as saying "there's a scientific way to measure it." You claimed the latter, then admitted the science can't do it and isn't developed enough to even imagine how.

>>128155063
>No
then why wouldn't it be measurable? even if it's subjective, which it probably is, that just means you need to take both the music and the listener as input. no one knows what to look for in "the listener", but considering that people like things more than others, that means they assign a certain level of quality to it somehow, whatever that ends up looking like.
it has to be true because the alternative, quality not existing, would mean that people don't like things more than others, they like everything equally, or that the very concept of liking and disliking things doesn't exist, which is clearly not the case.
we don't live in a world where the phenomenon doesn't exist, why assume that it's impossible to discover?

we don't live in a world where ,

>>128155073
last bit was a rogue paste that i didn't see

>>128155024
That's not begging the question. The first paragraph is a reductio, not a circular argument: it tests the "everything is subjective" claim by taking it to its absurd conclusion, not by assuming my position in advance. I argued that in human domains like art, objectivity isn't about measurement but about intersubjective validity, meaning judgments grounded in shared reasoning, criteria and contestability. As for your "application of a definition," that's exactly what begging the question is. You're defining objectivity as independence from perception and then concluding that perception-dependent fields can't be objective. That isn't inference; it's assuming the disputed definition from the start. The whole debate is whether objectivity must mean total independence from perception, so building that into your premise already decides the issue before you've argued it.

>>128153627
>If that were true, then Yoko Ono's Toilet Piece would be as good as Beethoven's late quartets, and me farting into a microphone would be as valid as your favorite album. Nobody ACTUALLY believes that when pressed
trends in taste doesnt' prove quality in the medium isn't ultimately subjective, but there are people who, even if pressed, with earnestly maintain that no one piece of music is necessarily more valid than another
>But that's not how philosophy uses those terms
that's an inappropriately generic statement, but also 'objective' normally - even in philosophy - means absolute, unbound by opinion or emotion. even if that wasn't the common meaning, what matters is what OP means - otherwise your whole argument rests on an equivocation.
>SUBJECTIVE UNIVERSALITY: aesthetic judgments that aren't mathematical truths but still make a valid claim to the agreement of (informed) others.
'valid' meaning what? 'informed' meaning what? when *exactly* does someone become informed about about music? where are you getting that criteria from?

>>128155073
What you're describing is exactly the 19th-century positivist fallacy I mentioned here >>128153636. The fact that people experience quality doesn't mean it must be scientifically measurable. That's like saying love or meaning must one day be reducible to data. Science can describe preferences and correlations, but it can't turn value judgments into empirical facts without erasing what makes them value judgments in the first place.

>>128155108
Trends in taste aren't what I appealed to. The point was that if all quality were purely subjective, then no coherent distinction between trivial noise and a masterwork would hold, which clearly doesn't reflect how anyone actually evaluates art in practice. As for "objective," that's precisely the term under scrutiny; defining it as "absolute, unbound by perception" simply assumes the conclusion that aesthetic judgment can't be objective, which is circular. Most philosophers of art use a broader sense of objectivity grounded in intersubjective validity, i.e. judgments justified by reasons others can grasp, contest and potentially agree with. "Valid" here means logically or experientially defensible within a mutual frame of reference, not mathematically provable. "Informed" refers to cultivated perception, i.e. the kind developed through exposure, comparative understanding and awareness of musical form, history and technique. These aren't arbitrary.

>>128150027
>Is quality in music all subjective? Is 'music theory' scientific and does it establish objectivity on music? Is there even a scientific way to determine quality in music?
It is both objective and subjective. A lot of qualities are objective. And you don't have to scientifically measure those qualities to determine that.
>Is there even a scientific way to determine quality in music?
In theory, probably yes to, some degree. In practice, it's totally useless and a waste of time.
>>128153627
>>128153636
This absolutely true. We don't have to deduce music to numbers. We already have:
>coherence (how ideas develop), craft (form, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration), originality and historical significance, emotional range, expressive depth, etc.
Which are objective enough.

>>128155110
well at least we know where we disagree. how do you tell apart things that we can't model from things we don't know how to model?
why is your argument only about human emotions, creativity etc., but probably not animals or, a couple decades from now, AI? is there a magical level of complexity where science becomes impossible? where to draw the line?

>>128155108
>>128155133
Oh and someone becomes informed about music when they can hear structure, coherence, expressive intent, etc. beyond surface pleasure; when they can recognize what a composer or performer is doing and why it's effective or not. It can come from formal training or sustained attentive listening and understanding. It's not invented by me, it comes from centuries of musical pedagogy and criticism, the same language that allows musicians, theorists, listeners across generations to discuss phrasing, texture, balance, innovation, etc. in ways that others can follow and debate.

>>128155147
That's a fair question, but the distinction isn't about a magical level of complexity, but about the kind of knowledge at stake. Modeling describes and predicts behavior, but it doesn't capture meaning or value from the inside. You can model how neurons fire when someone listens to Bach or how a bird learns a song, but that doesn't tell you why a piece of music feels tragic or whatever or what the music means to a listener. Those are interpretive, not causal questions. Science deals with efficient causes (what happens and why) but not with normative or semantic content. That's why even if AI or neuroscience can perfectly simulate musical behavior, it still wouldn't make aesthetic judgment a scientific problem; it would just give you better data about the conditions under which humans make those judgments. The line isn't complexity but category, between causal causal explanation and lived interpretation.

The best musicians in history didn’t use or know any music theory at all: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms

>>128155146
>This absolutely true. We don't have to deduce music to numbers. We already have:
>>coherence (how ideas develop), craft (form, harmony, counterpoint, orchestration), originality and historical significance, emotional range, expressive depth, etc.
>Which are objective enough.
Exactly. That's as close to objectivity as we can get in music.

>>128155181
They all knew theory better than anyone else in history of music. There is direct evidence that Beethoven was totally obsessed with counterpoint exercises (to mega autism levels) and had Gradus ad Parnassum (perhaps the most famous theory book of his time) from which he learned most of it.

>>128155197
Wrong

>>128155181
>The best musicians in history didn’t use or know any music theory at all
>proceeds to name three guys who probably knew more theory than anyone of their time
Lol. On a more serious note, the problem isn't theory vs. no theory; it's that in their time, theory was just one of many tools (alongside composition and improvisation) while today it's become a detached, analytical discipline studied in isolation.

>>128155169
i feel like the first step would be to look for an actual definition of "tragic". again using the same reasoning, there probably is one considering how universal of a feeling it is. modeling the neurons directly is not only approach, you can first figure out the things that cause the feeling and the ones that don't, and try to see what they have in common, and how the test subjects compare. it won't say much at the start but you have to start somewhere.

>>128155202
Yes of course he did.
>Beethoven did exercises from Gradus ad Parnassum with both Joseph Haydn and Johann Georg Albrechtsberger. He worked on exercises based on Johann Joseph Fux's seminal textbook on counterpoint, and some of these exercises, with corrections from his teachers, still exist today. These exercises were crucial to his musical education, helping to shape his understanding of fugal form and counterpoint.

https://unheardbeethoven.org/search.php?Identifier=hess233
>Hess 233 (Counterpoint Exercises with Haydn, 1793): This 54-page autograph manuscript (cataloged as Hess 233) contains Beethoven's two-, three-, and four-voice exercises, explicitly based on Fux's models. Haydn's teaching method, as described in historical accounts, followed Gradus ad Parnassum by starting with rules (e.g., avoiding parallel fifths/octaves) before progressing through species in increasing voices, totaling around 300 exercises—about 245 of which survive. The manuscript shows Beethoven's initial attempts, with errors marked (e.g., crosses or "NB" notes for verbal corrections), demonstrating active engagement rather than rote copying. This bundle was analyzed by Gustav Nottebohm in Beethoven-Studien (1873) and later transcribed in the G. Henle Verlag's Beethoven Complete Edition (Abteilung 13, 2019), which digitized and published the full set for the first time.

Other sources:
https://ludwig0van0beethoven.tripod.com/beethstudy.html
https://www.completebeethoven.com/day036.html

>>128154893
>If all shared reasoning is dismissed as "consensus," then science, law, etc. logic are all just subjectivity too.
its not dismissal, its identification.this whole argument is stemming from your insistence that intersubjectivity either IS objectivity or is functionally equivalent to objectivity but neither is true, hence the need for the concept of intersubjectivity in the first place.
I don’t know why you have a problem with subjectivity in art anyway, we're inherently subjective organisms.

>>128155102
>The first paragraph is a reductio, not a circular argument: it tests the "everything is subjective" claim by taking it to its absurd conclusion
I don't view what you presented as an absurd conclusion. In fact whether such statements are absurd is what the prompt is about. So you asserting that it is absurd is begging the question. You haven't justified it, you just appealed to incredulity.
>I argued that in human domains like art, objectivity isn't about measurement but about intersubjective validity
But that's not what the word means. Objective doesn't mean intersubjective. You're using private language.
>As for your "application of a definition," that's exactly what begging the question is. You're defining objectivity as independence from perception and then concluding that perception-dependent fields can't be objective.
Let's lay it out:
1. Objective means not dependent on the beholder
2. The quality of music is dependent on the beholder
3. Therefore the quality of music is not objective
That's not begging the question. You disagree with my definition of "objective", but it still doesn't make it begging the question. That's just rejecting a premise of my argument. And my counterargument to you is that I'm appealing to what the word is generally understood as, while you're trying to appeal to a private definition.

>>128155133
>Trends in taste aren't what I appealed to
yes it was:
>the agreement of (informed) others

>The point was that if all quality were purely subjective, then no coherent distinction between trivial noise and a masterwork would hold, which clearly doesn't reflect how anyone actually evaluates art in practice
the sense of 'subjective' here, given that you're denying it as regards the judgement of music/art, seems to be the anonym of 'objective' as I defined it earlier. which, if so, then your conclusion is wrong - because again all you're appealing to is trends: just because most people (not everyone, by the way) think there's some standard which is more valid than another doesn't mean it actually is; you have to go outside of that trend to verify that assumption; otherwise it's a circular argument.
>As for "objective," that's precisely the term under scrutiny; defining it as "absolute, unbound by perception" simply assumes the conclusion that aesthetic judgment can't be objective, which is circular
based on a particular definition, certain concepts will be right or wrong - but that's true of anything. your definition of objective/subjective "assumes" aesthetic judgement *can* be subjective - how would that be any less "circular"?
>Most philosophers of art use a broader sense of objectivity grounded in intersubjective validity, i.e. judgments justified by reasons others can grasp, contest and potentially agree with.
again, if OP isn't using these terms like most other people, you're starting from an eqivocation: it wouldn't matter how most philosophers used these terms.
>"Valid" here means logically or experientially defensible within a mutual frame of reference
>mutual frame of reference
so a trend? is there any "valid" musical aesthetic judgement which isn't "experientially defensible"? any that isn't "logically defensible"? examples?
(1/2)

>>128155352
>"Informed" refers to cultivated perception, i.e. the kind developed through exposure, comparative understanding and awareness of musical form, history and technique
even agreeing to that definition, what is the criteria for exactly when someone's perception becomes "cultivated"? and where are you getting this criteria from?
>someone becomes informed about music when they can hear structure, coherence, expressive intent, etc. beyond surface pleasure; when they can recognize what a composer or performer is doing and why it's effective or not
how would you verify what you're hearing is structure, coherence, or expressive intent, as opposed to a post-hoc rationalization?
>It's not invented by me, it comes from centuries of musical pedagogy and criticism, the same language that allows musicians, theorists, listeners across generations to discuss phrasing, texture, balance, innovation, etc. in ways that others can follow and debate.
but the idea that they have ultimate authority here is itself arbitrary.
(2/2)

>>128155352
>your definition of objective/subjective "assumes" aesthetic judgement *can* be subjective
meant "*can* be objective"

>>128155203
It's kind of cheating using music theory and results in soulless music

File: 27248d8e22.gif (1.64 MB, 600x383)

1.64 MB GIF

>>128155422
music theory doesn't make soulless music, is the music artist who don't know how to use it with soul