I didn’t want to comment until I’d seen the video — I’ve seen it now and I think it’s really interesting, and brings in a lot of relevant points. Personally, I

I didn’t want to comment until I’d seen the video — I’ve seen it now and I think it’s really interesting, and brings in a lot of relevant points. Personally, I would be quite adamant that the reason the word “chord” is chosen there — is for a much simpler reason: it rhymes perfectly with “Lord”. (At first I wrote, a more “prosaic reason” — then realised that while it is a simple reason it is the opposite of “prosaic” - it is literally “poetic”). But the nature of this video — searching for meaning within a work of art - I think this is a great way to engage with art, and a special kind of joy all its own. Such interpretations are meaningful and can be “true” regardless of whether the author literally meant it the way you take it. If a physics paper interpreted results of an experiment in this way, or if a jury interpreted evidence in this way, I don’t think it would be good science or justice, as the case may be. But for enjoying and experiencing art in a “meaningful” way, this kind of approach is well worth it.