I do not think that conjunction means what you think it means
rather than the less intrusive (but arguably more subtle)
Yes. Because normally subtletly is very intrusive. I guess a case can be made.
Comments
on 2005-06-22 16:44:56.0, rone commented:
pitchforkmedia does for indie music what Wired did for the Internet.
and, further, on 2005-06-22 18:03:11.0, text commented:
both intrusive and subtle modify the musical method the author is talking about in the sentence, i.e.: less A, but arguably more B. A and B do not have to have any special relationship for the sentence to work. Like so:
Cats are less pointy but arguably hairer than pencils. It doesn't have to be the case that all pointy things aren't hairy for the sentence to work.
and, further, on 2005-06-22 18:21:04.0, ben wolfson commented:
I'm not sure that's really what's operative here. Your case would be stronger were "intrusive" and "subtle" not already related, and were "but arguably more subtle" not a parenthesis after "less intrusive".
and, further, on 2005-06-22 18:42:13.0, dave zacuto commented:
Wait, so are you taking issue with the "but" or the "rather"?
and, further, on 2005-06-22 18:50:15.0, ben wolfson commented:
But.
and, further, on 2005-06-23 8:53:10.0, Matt Weiner commented:
Well, you could say something like "This presentation of the argument is briefer but arguably less in-depth than that one." The implicit contrast is something like: brevity is good, but so is depth.
If the writer is saying that intrusiveness is good, and so is subtlety, then the 'but' makes sense in that way. Since I don't normally think of intrusiveness as good, it does sound a bit funny to me.