Glad to see you agree with me that your original comment was out of place.

I don't agree with you, and it wasn't out of place. You're still distorting my arguments because you can't admit that you were wrong.

Also, extremely prejudiced of you to assume what I know or don't know. Peak internet bad faith arguing.

I'm not assuming anything. You made your ignorance clear with your statements.

It isn’t eurocentric to believe harmonious and rhythmic music sounds better than music that isn’t.

But it is. You just said so yourself. That's the whole point of dadaism and avant garde, as you so eloquently exposed.

No. Unless you're still trying to conflate music theory (including rhythm and harmony) with western musical notation. Which I've told you repeatedly are not the same thing.

Rhythm and harmony exist in musical systems outside of the west. And the fact that you can't seem to get that through your head is what's eurocentric.

I told you the philosophical underpinnings of avante-garde and dadaism. I also mentioned why it's erroneous to equate "harmonious" with "western". What part of that are you not getting?

personally I think it sounds like crap.

It is a matter of taste, you don't like it, fine. Shut up and let's move on.

My personal opinion, which I explicitly tagged as "personally I think"? Yeah, you're right, that is a matter of taste. I can express my tastes. And that can still be completely separate from the argument that "music theory is fundamentally mathematical and descriptive at its core, making it a science."

Two different statements, and only one of them has any bearing on my personal taste. And I made that separation pretty clear.

It has nothing to do with following or not following musical science, whatever it is that you personally conceive as such.

1. Someone's personal tastes may or may not have anything to do with the musicality of the music. I just happen to prefer music with fine degree of musicality.
2. The science underpinning musical theory has nothing to do with my personal tastes or conceptions. It's objective. And I'm getting sick of you not being able to get that through your thick skull.

As you pointed out, musical theory is just describing what musicians, artists, are doing.

I never said that. That sounds more like musical critique.

I said music theory is descriptive, but it doesn't describe individual musicians. It describes the basic components and building blocks of music (i.e., tonality, harmony, rhythm, tempo, meter, etc.). Inasmuch as those fundamental building blocks are inherently mathematical (which if you don't understand, it's your ignorance), music theory is a science.

Just because you keep trying to conflate the science of music theory with the art of musical expression, does not mean the science underpinning the art doesn't exist. It just means you don't understand it.

Just because you don't like it doesn't demerit its value.

It's not about what I like and don't like. What the fuck, we're arguing in circles. Are you a troll?

Bunch of great painters have come up with marvelous, brown only, paintings. that are not inferior just because you feel like they don't know anything about color theory.

Just because a painter can make a good painting that's entirely brown, doesn't disprove the fact that there's a science behind what colors mix to create what colors. You can't mix red and green to get orange just because you feel like it. If you want brown, you mix colors that make brown. If you want orange, you mix colors that make orange. And now matter how badly you torture my arguments to make them sound ludicrous, that only proves that the point is going way over your head.

I never said "an all-brown painting is inferior." That's more assumptions that you're projecting onto me. I said if you want to mix colors to get the colors that you want, you need to understand the color wheel. Because there's a science behind it.

I never made any statements whatsoever on what art has "value" and what doesn't. You keep loading up all these terms with meanings that I never implied. You're full of straw men and red herrings, and you're the one not arguing in good faith. You've never actually refuted a single point that I've made, only misrepresented them to try to score easy points.