I think this is a matter that comes up in a lot of old-vs-new music and good-vs-bad music threads, which is whether there's any such thing as "objectivity" in assessing music.
What's objective is measurable and the perspective of the person evaluating doesn't matter. For example, a song is more difficult to play, faster, uses a greater variety of chords or tonalities, etc.
What's subjective is a matter of personal perspective (which @LBS-bass was emphasizing). It isn't necessarily untrue, but its truth or falsehood can only be perceived from a person's individual point of view.
The thing is, that a song can be good or bad (subjectively) regardless of its objective characteristics. In an earlier post, I contrasted Cold War Kids' "Hang Me Up to Dry" with their more recent "Love is Mystical." OBjectively, "Hang Me Up to Dry" is a very simple song. There's not a whole lot there. You could definitely make a case that "Love is Mystical" is objectively a more sophisticated piece.
And yet.
SUBjectively, I (and I think most listeners) can hear that "Hang Me Up to Dry" is a better song. In all its simplicity, it's more vivid, more compelling, more lively, more memorable. You can pour all kinds of sophisticated voodoo into a song and still come out with something dull and rote and uninteresting. There are lots of prog bands who have made pieces with enough sophisticated chord changes and key changes and time changes to spin your head, but none of them are as good as Yes' "Roundabout."
I think the other thing about @LBS-bass ' point is what I call the "classic dynamic." I could sit down and write a song about women's empowerment that, by any objective standard, is just as "good" a song as Aretha's "Respect." But no matter how good it is, it will never outweigh "Respect" as a great song, simply because "Respect" is the original, the classic, the one that already shaped the culture. No matter how good mine is, it will still just be an imitation of what Aretha already did, and people will never respond to it the way they respond to hers. No playwright in the English language, no matter how good, will ever be better than Shakespeare, simply because Shakespeare already exists and already has had the influence he has had.
The Dua Lipa song (I have already forgotten the title) is a pretty good song, but I think she's right, it's a deliberate evocation of an earlier era of classics. Objectively it may be quite good, but there's nothing distinctive about it, subjectively, to make it memorable and a new classic.
I appreciate the response, but again, I have to keep stopping to correct the strawmanning. I NEVER said something needs to be sophisticated to be good. Rather, I never said something has to be COMPLEX to be good. Sophistication, depending on your usage, can either mean "complex" or it can mean "intricate." I do think any fine piece of music, even simple three chord songs, have a kind of intricacy. A kind of elegance.
"they say that there's a sacred chord." Two ideas. "they say"=A "sacred chords"=B
line 1: A A B
-asymmetry in phrase structure
line 1.5: A A B
Repeat. Creates familiarity. The listener is now highly confident they know what comes next.
line 2: A A A A C
-fragmentation of the phrase. Creating a big SKEW with the multiple A's in a row. The listener has suddenly been driven off a cliff. They are rescued by "doooo ya" which is a "C idea(technically C is not "new." It's the REVERSE of A + a note. instead of "they say," it's "say they"+"ya")
-this is the first "cold water in the face." The listener was lulled into a false sense of security by a repeating phrase. They are now alerted to whatever might come next, defenses up, but fatally curious.
Line 3: A A A A B B
Notice it's ANOTHER string of 4 "a's". "it goes+like this+the fourth+the fifth+" This is where the first major payoff happens. You both have a high degree of confidence that you're going to get another "dooo ya" right here. Further, you THINK that's what you want. But what a master songwriter does is, have his WAY with you. You are putty in the writer's hands. Instead of another "doo ya." You get a DOUBLE B "minor falls, the major lifts," which is the "sacred chord" idea. Notice this balances the equation. We missed out on "sacred chord" when we were introduced to "dooo ya." Now we have an "A heavy" problem that needs to be balanced out. He both reintroduces B and doubles it.
Line 4:A A A A C
-this is a development of line 2 but using other composition techniques that are too technical to get into here. But this is of course the "landing" of the phrase. "leu-jia" is the payoff of "do-ya" finally gratifying you. It took waht you thought you wanted and gave you something MUCH better. Surprising, yet inevitable. "I can't believe that just happened, but it couldn't have happened any other way." THAT is songwriting.
Refrain: C C C D
again technically this is more detailed. the C's are "primaed" and the D is more of a mutated C, but again for simplicity's sake, he brings it home with a lot of "doo yas" restful, relatively predictable. This is the cigarette after the coitus. This is the "anti-climax." It's one of the many choices you have in terms of form when you get outside of "8 bar verse. 8 bar prechorus. 8 bar chorus. 8 bar post chorus."
But is "halleleujia" COMPLEX? no. However, depending on your usage, it is highly sophisticated, but not with the sort of "fancy/complex" baggage that word usually carries. By sophisticated, I mean it is a finely tuned little miracle of clockwork. Not an ounce of fat. Every note, and I mean EVERY note, has its purpose to support and elevate all other notes. Change one thing, the whole song falls apart. This is what I mean when I say FINE writing. And this level of craft doesn't just HAPPEN.
So please. Everyone. Don't strawman what I'm trying to say. The modern singer songwriter, for the MOST part, with some exceptions, doesn't write. they do what I call "channeling." They play a loop of chords and "sing stuff" over the chords. They kind of feel around in the dark and use their instincts and intuition to sort of cobble together these songs that are just "a loop of chords with stuff being sung over the top." We're all musicians here. I CANT be the only one who sees this. This, by the way is NOT subjective. Someone may subjectively dislike Halleleujia for a number of reasons. Might not like the performance or the genre, it might just not be applicable to their truth, just doesn't speak to them, but its sheer brilliance as a song is NOT subjective. It's provable and demonstrable.
If you tried this kind of analysis on "hello" by Adele(which I have for my songwriting students), you get like, basically a random number generator. White noise. Some strong ideas here and there but they are abandoned for other random, unrelated ideas and the song crumbles under its own weight. I know I know it was a huge hit.
As you pointed out, being a successful pop songwriter is not just the song. It's a combination of fashion, personality, luck, technology, culture, timing, and of course the X factor. Personally, *I* listen to songs because I love songs. The modern pop world is fine for what it is. it serves its function. But when was the last time a popular song BROKE your heart. Made you as an adult CRY or explode with joy? And no it doesn't have to be some epic art song. It's my Party makes me cry. The theme to Jurassic Park makes me cry. Embarrassing as it is, the theme to Tiny Toon Adventures, composed by Bruce Broughton, moved me to tears once because I was sitting with it analyzing it and it really is just a masterwork in terms of melodic construction. I am moved by great tunes, wherever they may be, whenever they may be from. So yes. "the perfect pop song" has probably been recorded and fallen into obscurity hundreds of times in the last 20 years. I'm talking to you all as a song lover, NOT someone who's trying to say "modern pop sucks and old music was better" so can we please drop that?
Thanks everyone for following me down this crazy 2 day tangent.
Boys were ready to stop trying to prime for school and jumped on that band wagon so they could jump around in fields not making any sense. I was there. I played festivals where the grunge kids would stand in back with their flannel shirts tied around their camo shorts until a monkey banging song started. Then they rushed to the front and started banging into each other. Once the band started playing a classic or radio rock song, they went back to the back to cross their arms and glare at anyone who dared like the next song. The monkey bangers simply got on the "sellout" bandwagon and (oddly enough) took that wagon straight to the bank. 
