Hi Zensen:) Really enjoyed your post. My own belief is that simplicity is its own beauty and and piece (or song) doesnt require all the complex rhythms, not-so-commonly-used chords etc etc. I seem to prefer a clear, "pure", and accessible melodic line and accompaniment rather than one with complex devices. I think that a perfect example of "simple yet beautiful" music is Mozart's music. The melodic lines of his works are clear and accessible (for sure) but yet this is something alluring in his music to the point it almost mysterious! Allow me to quote pianost Artur Schnabel who once explaimed:" Mozart's sonatas are too easy for children, too difficult for (serious) artists"

Hi Zhi Yuan, I'm glad to hear your viewpoints on this! Proponents of your school of thought also cite traditional folk music which are so simple and yet so beautiful! For example, who doesn't like Home on the Range?

Pardon me; as I've been reminded by my Master Trainers and potential investors about this; it is better that I run through all the various schools of thoughts in determining aesthetic quality via my talk.

But in order not to whet your appetite too much, I will share the 4th school here, which is easier, reserving the 2nd school (quantitative method) at the talk, since it is rather sophisticated, requiring graphs and diagrams, etc.

The 4th school of thought hinges on the notion of nostalgia. There has been extensive research done on this field: Generally, people tend to like music that they listen to a lot during their late teens to young adulthood (20s), thereby finding these songs highly aesthetic. For example, my mum would feel pop songs in the 50s and 60s very appealing and beautiful, while those in my generation (80s and 90s) are no good. Interestingly, by the same token, I will have the tendency to find pop music in the 80s and 90s to be superior, and current hits are degenerating. Teens will feel otherwise!

The researchers attribute this to the phenomenon that during teenage and young adulthood period, we are most impressionistic about the music media we expose to, attaching lots of sentimental values to them, etc. However, as we grow older, many of us will be focusing more on developing our career, starting a family, etc. leading to the situation whereby we listen less to popular music thus feeling less receptive to the "new culture" or style.

There are several implications for this school of thought. For example, if we are organising a concert meant to let our audience indulge and enjoy the pieces, and if we know our audience are all around the age group of 70s and 80s, then probably we will choose our repertoire of oldies in the 50s and 60s (instead of say in the 80s).

So Corrine is right at the micro-level sense. But once we extend it to the macro-level, it will be a case of being beyond Person's A subjectivity vs Person B's subjectivity. Case in point: I am about to go overseas (together with a team of others) for an exchange programme at their music fraternity. And I am supposed to select a few pieces of Singaporean works that are aesthetic to perform there, so that it will well represent the cultural superiority of Singapore.

What should govern my choices? If I simply go by my personal subjectivity, that's it. It will ruin everything. Why? For example, I personally don't like the melody of Home, but this will probably go into my repertoire because of several reasons (taking into consideration on other schools of thoughts in determining aesthetics beyond my personal subjectivity).

Thus the discipline or study of Music Aesthetics has widespread practical applications. It doesn't stop at personal subjectivity differences. It goes into factors that shape mankind's individual subjectivity (one of which is nostalgia).