Bernard Chasan writes, addressing Denis Fodor:

>...you are confusing structure with objective meaning.  Or at least you
>are rather stretching the meaning of objective meaning.  The notion that
>sonata form "demands that you react predictably to the message of a change
>in key, a change in tempo, a change in volume" is quite simply without
>foundation.  Even experienced and accomplished PERFORMERS don't agree on
>these things, as is clearly evidenced by comparing their interpretations.

Even accomplished experimetnal physicists don't always agree on theories
that lay claim to objectivity.  A sonata is an object; what a person thinks
of it is subjective.  The sonata's structural form is objective; it's
only the apperception of that form that is subjective.  What is perhaps
more important, au fond, music as a form of communication has its own
objectivity while experimental physics has a significantly different one.
Thus music may take the form of a sonata, or an opera, or a ballet, while
physics may be about the solid state, about radiation or, say, about fields
of force.  There is objectivity to both of them and it may be tested by
the largely separate rules governing them.  Music's objectivity may be
apperceived via the rules that pertain to music, while physics by those
of physics.

Denis Fodor