1. Except I’m only mentioning some aspects that might be used in an analysis, but not all of them. Also, i’m trying to reasonably explain, why such aspects should be taken into consideration

2. Really, there’s no need to be agressive or mean

3. You chose the car fuel analogy. And what I’ve said was not limited to car fuel, but to the planet and life itself. So actually what I’ve said has a broader meaning and sensie than just the fuel analogy.
Furthermore if we continue with what’s better between water and petrol, you can actually come into a conclusion that water is better not only by it’s own merit, but also by petrol’s faults, like being something that can make a car or a plane running, which in the future will make all of life on Earth dissapear.

Now apply the car analogy to music: if you limit your musical analysis to the pop sphere, all music and life itself on earth will eventually disappear.

Agree to disagree on what objectivity means. Words are subjective too after all.

1. I thought of that analogy in a different manner. If „life” is „taste”, then music/art/literature that is of „high quality”, would be the water, and music/art/literature of low quality would be the petrol. Sure, it gives you a big boost at first, but then after a while will completely obliterate all of life. But if you take water, oh, Man, what could nature accomplish in the future?

2. We’re actually agreeing on what objectivity means. The diffrerence between us is that you believe no one can cłami that something is objective. And I agree with that statement, but I also believe that through dialogue and parameters we can come close to what that objectivity is.

Kewl misinterpretation, but do you at least recognize my point that restricting the conversation to popular music traditions that are on the decline will lead you to faulty determinations about what music is capable of as a whole?

That would be an understanding or consensus, not objectivity. Objectivity is based in fact and removed from bias. Any attempt at objective dialogue and parameters is virtually always derived backwards from the subjective interpretation of art. It's rooted in bias, thus it's inherently subjective.

Why can't we just talk about those components within a general discussion about the music as opposed to framing them as Objectively Good Music? I really see no use in it apart from exclusion of Objectively Bad Music. It's probably better in terms of avoiding the collapse of mankind to try to engage with the so called Objectively Bad Music to determine what parameters it might be trying to achieve instead of imposing your parameters onto it.

Asking you twice what your parameters are is not arguing or being offended. Also, I find it interesting that after you finally gave an answer, you then asked what the point was of asking. It was to get an answer. Simple.

Questioning the meaning of parameters is arguing.
And as when reading on the internet it’s harder to know what was the intention/emotion of the person you’re Talking to, I assumed (purely out of your words) that you might feel offended of some sorts. And I wanted to point that out in order to make clear, that that was not my intention

Simple.

:beer:

?

Can you jerk off with water?

Astroglide > water

I didn’t question the meaning of parameters. You really are reading too much into this. I just simply asked you to define your parameters.