Ditto. Pop in any language is easily consumable entertainment with little artistic quality.
Ha! It's funny how we perceive things differently. To me, the true mark of an artist is, in fact, the ability to make something that is either beautiful or provocative (or both) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME making it easily consumable.
The brilliance of Huckleberry Finn is the fact that a smart 12 year old can read it and just get a fantastic adventure story. But a political science major could write his/her doctoral thesis on the issues discussed in the book.
Impressionist paintings are studied in depth by art students everywhere. But, at the end of the day, an average Joe can get lost in their beauty.
Duran Duran had some of the most catchy, easily-digested tunes ever. But many of their songs are musically somewhat complex and have great bass lines that don't pedal on the root. The same can be said for Prince, Level 42, Michael Jackson, Hall & Oats, Talking Heads, Tears for Fears and countless others. (I'm a child of the 80s so that's where my mind gravtitates.)
Meanwhile, a lot of jazz (to me) is musical masterbation. Sure, you've got 7 PHDs from various music theory and composition schools. But if you can't evoke emotion from the average non music major who happens to walk into the room, what's the point? To get others musicians to drop their jaws and say "Oh snap! Did you hear how that sax player went all mixalydian in 7/13 time over top of the keys guy getn all Dorian in 4/4????" Yes, I'm just being g goofy. And I'm actually a big fan of several melodic jazz groups. But my point is simply that more complexity, in and of itself, does not make any art "better". And appealing to the masses doesn't, in and of itself, make any art "worse".