I have to admit I don’t often react to messages on this forum but this take makes so little sense to me.
Most people have never cared about Michaelangelo and never will. They have heard his name once or twice and are not too sure if he was a painter… or a sculptor maybe? Or both? Most people don’t care that much about artists or the intricacies of their works. People react to art in different ways depending on their mood, their personal life context, the album art, the weather and what they had for lunch. For some people, music is a part of their life that they don’t glorify. They just bask in it once in a while, for different reasons, hence with various expectations.
To think that music must be some kind of competition to be in the top 5% of “high quality art” is close-minded technique worship at best and “contentification” of art at worst. If that’s how you like to enjoy music, by any means, have fun. But I think it’s also important to share the opposite take :
The 95% of music you think “has always sucked” may be meaningful to other people who see value in it. Judge them for it all you want. However, I suggest you don’t make the mistake of thinking that the fact you see no value in said music makes you somehow a better person than others*.
*Unless you have an objective method of determining what is inspiring and emotionally evocative music for all humans, no exception. In which case you can make claims with % in them, and probably a bit of cash as well for cracking the code to inspiration
ps: if your message was satire, it’s really good