A Different Perspective on a Classic Negative Consumption Externality

I am sure that everyone is familiar with the classic externality example in which a house party's loud music reduces the wellbeing of a neighbor, who may be trying to sleep.  This would be an example of a negative consumption externality.  Surely if you walk down Rugby Road on a Thursday-Saturday night, you will hear fraternities playing loud EDM music, too.  While this may be disturbing to some, I am on the other end of the spectrum.  I enjoy hearing the loud late night music, so for me, it is a positive consumption externality.  I benefit from the fraternities' consumption, but I do not pay for the benefit.  When I hear the late night music, I am reminded (fondly) that UVA is a work-hard play-hard school, and that I fit in with the school's culture and made a good decision when choosing my college.  Furthermore, I am a deep sleeper, so the loud music is not costly in any way as it relates to my sleep.

But what about those that do not like the music?  After some online reading, it seems that often a noise complaint can lead to a party's music being shut down and, in some cases, the host being fined.  I am somewhat conflicted on this matter because I can see both sides.  I think in this example, though, we see one of the major problems with The Coase Theorem.  The transaction costs and negotiating problems that would arise between party-goers and neighbors are far too great.  However, when a house party is fined by a local authority for loud music I have doubts that those who are harmed (the neighbors) are the ones who receive the compensation.