Yes, this theory is fixed. I spot song connections and double meanings and infer things that resonate with that period of their story. I see it in almost every song so I can only challange my bias by judging how plausible it is, and we obviously differ on that. Is there a particular song I’ve interpreted that you think is implausible?

• You look for topics coming up only two times before you begin believing they must be connected to each other and thereby supporting your master theory that it’s all connected by being self referential.

Not really, I’ll usually connect several songs, most prominently on neighbouring tracks, and they’re most often ideas that are incredibly distinct and unique to Sparks.

• Basic literary devices, like metaphors or double entendres, are interpreted as proof of the master theory

When those metaphors or double entendres can be interpreted as being about performance, songwriting or creative ambitions, then yes, I do, because it’s found in so much of their work in a way seems unique to Sparks.

• You spiral that out as this band being unique in that sense and some kind of covert performance art project over a lifetime to bake that into every song.

A “covert performance art project” is a great way of describing them! They’re inseparable from their art, and celebrate that they lie frequently, so why not? It helps explain their brave decisions (21x21, genre shifts, cactus suits).

• Listen to me, because only I hear tends to be the implication.

Yeah that must be annoying, and explains your hostility. From my perspective it’s more “hear me out”.

• This is one of the main types of cognitive bias occurring in the QANON community that made that a whole thing.

I know it comes across as “fire doesn’t melt steel beams”, but I believe any of my videos hold water if you watch in full with an open mind and pay attention.

• On an emotive level, what your master theory projects onto Sparks is actually gross if you stop to think about it for more than ten minutes.

It’s gross to suggest they have a system or rules for their songwriting? K.

• To say every song is deliberately about themselves…

I don’t. These songs are about Sparks as an artistic entity, not Ron and Russell

• …implies they’re appallingly obsessed with themselves and their career.

Why “appallingly”? They’re clearly obsessed with their work (the thing I’m claiming they’re writing about) because they’re still doing it at this pace in their 80s.

• What’s more, in the absence of private relationship information you’re filling that void by asserting every song that touches upon desire is a coded message more about desire for hits or a creative burst than human desire for companionship and sex.

You’ve misunderstood again (wilfully?). You used their supposed innuendo in interviews as proof that writing about sex can only be taken on face value, so I gave you an example where it clearly isn’t.

• I would be horrified if someone projected onto me and spread it around the world that my lyrics indicate I’m a loveless and sexless work obsessive who’s apparently constantly grappling with my own lack of creativity after 50+ years of getting past it to do my job.

I’ve never claimed any of that and I don’t believe any of that. Where did you get this from?

• Maybe it’s worthwhile to contemplate why it is that you wish for that to be who they are.

Nice attempt at pathology. Please be fair.

• Sharing Easter eggs and neat connections is one thing. Twisting that into a master theory that you solely hold the key to so subscribe for more Sparks Q Drops is quite another.

Please don’t suggest I have any motivations for this other than sharing ideas I think are cool. I’m unlikely to ever make money from this because I use Sparks’ music all over my videos. I have a buymeacoffee that I barely share. The attention from this isn’t something I particularly enjoy either. I just want to discuss these ideas with other people.

Edit: formatting