What bothers me is that you put yourself in this position of authority where you decide what's quality music and what's not. Accomplished musicians, OK, but Lemmy Kilmister says in his book that there were a lot of bands who could perform on that level. It also sounds to me like you're having double standards when it comes to originality. You say that the simple pop songs are not the one that endured through decades but in a lot of cases they are. She Loves You, Yellow Submarine, Let It Be, Hey Jude...these chord progressions came with the original version of Gutenberg's bible and they were not fresh even then. Their sound was fresh but it's not the sound they invented.
We are also not talking about the fact that the Beatles had a huge media push before coming to the states (https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/...imed-the-u-s-for-the-beatles-and-beatlemania/) and that their manager played a pivotal role in the band and was sometimes called the fifth Beatle. Their image was a big part of their success. They are the prototype of a modern superstar that you're disliking so hard. Although probably this title goes to Franz Liszt.
I want to say also that simplicity doesn't necessarily means bad quality. Music of romantic composers is/was considered dumbed down in comparison with complex polyphonic baroque music. Which doesn't make Mozart and Beethoven low quality, it just makes them...different.
You're just implying that these people don't have writing talent but the reality is that the major labels force artists to record music written by writers with more recognition because it improves their chance of having a hit even if the artist shows promise when it comes to writing.
