Your issue isn't with popism, it's with post-modernism. You've pretty much rephrased Theodor Adorno's arguments on culture, except that you seem to think that rock isn't just as bad as pop (whereas Adorno would have disagreed). What's so great about the rock canon anyway?
I mean yes, the Destiny's Child compilation is stupid, not least of which is because the album is named #1s despite not actually all topping the charts. However, compilations getting good scores in pop makes sense. Pop is a form that lends itself not to albums but to singles. Look at it this way: would you rather own Destiny's Child's #1s or one of the LPs from which the songs were gathered?
All internet music criticism is overdone because the dynamics lend themselves to extremes. If everyone is buzzing about, say, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, and one reviewer think's it's okay, he's going to score it much lower than "okay" because there's this sense of necessary balance. "Pitchfork hegemony" may even pop up in his review if he has read any Marxism.
I think now would be a good time to quote the essay you wrote about this on your website. I've mentioned Adorno and Marxism, because I think both inform your work, and nothing shows it better than this claim about music:
"it has to be judged on whether or not it's music that the person or persons responsible have created regardless of its money-making potential. Yes, this does discredit Amerie, but no, this doesn't discredit Annie; it discredits Dr. Dre, but not Kanye West."
Your belief in music existing outside the world of commodity is idealistic at best. Even so, let's pretend that there is such a distinction in general. I don't know enough about Annie to analyze your first contrast, so I'll leave that out of my discussion.
But in terms of art vs. commodity, Dr. Dre and Kanye West are identical. Both recognize the extent to which they can improve their lives by means of money earned from music. In fact, if you look at Kanye West's body of work you will see just as many nods to making money and moving up in the world thanks to his music as exist in Dr. Dre's music. Given that they both clearly view music as a business, what exactly is the basis of your hierarchy? What makes The College Dropout better than The Chronic? Arguably, Dre was the greater innovator: the instrumentals of the Chronic are more divorced from their sources than Kanye's beats. Frankly, a lot of Kanye's tracks, as excellent as they are, simply rap over the instrumentals of one of the artists he has Jamie Foxx namecheck in "Slow Jamz," with minimal manipulation.
But I'm not trying to convince you Dre is better. I'm trying to point out that your reasoning doesn't make sense. But do I expect to be able to convince you? Of course not. We have different perspectives. That is inherent. And this is where the main cntradiction of your argument is laid bare. here are two quotes from your essay, juxtaposed:
These points are legitimate in the sense that valuing music due to artificial constructs of "authenticity" creates nothing but problems and winds up starting more unnecessary debates than it prevents.
...
If you want to judge music by other criteria, that's fine; it's your opinion. However, if the field of music criticism is going to change, then eliminating rockism is only the first step, and eliminating genre distinctions second; finding instant classics and recoginzing them as such will be second last.
The last step, of course, is a world full of music that needs no critics.
How could this world possibly exist without universal standards of music and music criticism, and therefore, the same authenticity you insist is an "artificial construct" earlier? You seem well-equipped to spot others' biases, but ill-equipped to spot your own. And you are also operating on an unspoken assumption of the PURPOSE of music as art.
One last example and then I'll wrap up. Suppose i think that the purpose of music is to inspire emotional resonance and create communities and help people understand their own lives. Does that sound reasonable? if so, then you had better not say anything bad about Simple Plan anymore, because that is EXACTLY what they do for their young fans. They weave common narratives with emotion and musical intensity and they mean a lot to their fans. Is it their fault that their music sells?
if that's not the purpose of music, what is? If you think it's experimentation, or at least innovation, then you had better stop listening to Sleater-Kinney's The Woods. I love that record, but the only thing innovative is Corrin Tucker's warble.
Or do you like their intelligent and provocative lyrics? In that case you're discriminating against those who are less willing to listen closely and interpret the music; you're also discriminating against instrumental artists. And you're creating an elitism of intelligence, because the album is only good to those who "can understand it."
i don't mean to belabor my point too too much. But do you see what I mean?
