@stuartk: I’m uncomfortable admitting this now (it sounds pretty elitist ;-), but in the 1970’s---when my peers and I considered most Pop music (non-Classical, non-Jazz, non-Blues, non-Country) to be getting really bad (except for the stuff we liked, of course ;-), I and those I was involved with were of the opinion that a band/group/artists’ level of popularity was most often the inverse of it’s quality. That was a direct result of us liking music that was ignored and/or not liked by a mass audience, that audience liking stuff we didn’t. I didn’t then consider that to be somewhat influenced by a feeling of smug superiority, but I now fear it was.
What I above meant by saying you can’t argue with success, is not that "popularity is proof of artistic merit", or even that there aren’t examples of garbage that sells well, but rather that anything that is popular and does sell well is providing something of value to the people who like it, even if I myself don’t. In other words, popularity is also not proof of a lack of artistic merit, at least to those who find such merit in the music. That it is wrong for me to apply my standards and/or tastes to those who have dissimilar standards and/or tastes is what I was implying.
What I above meant by saying you can’t argue with success, is not that "popularity is proof of artistic merit", or even that there aren’t examples of garbage that sells well, but rather that anything that is popular and does sell well is providing something of value to the people who like it, even if I myself don’t. In other words, popularity is also not proof of a lack of artistic merit, at least to those who find such merit in the music. That it is wrong for me to apply my standards and/or tastes to those who have dissimilar standards and/or tastes is what I was implying.