O you RLY don't know what I'm talkin' about?What's your point?
"Pachelbel's canon has moved so many people in the world, but that says nothing about its profundity."
"Certain pieces of Bach is almost as popular as Pachelbel's canon because they're profound."
"The music of Strauss is popular because it's kitschy."
"Many people haven't grasped the true meaning of Wagner operas in their full length, hence they're not as much appreciated as the favorite excerpts."
They're all rules you made up yourselves, just like
Who made up the rules that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven must be considered as "musical equivalents" of the David, the Mona Lisa, and the Sistine Chapel, and not just some popular "music-makers" (popular today for a variety of reasons described in #383). You.
Who made up the rules that people must still respect Bach for his counterpoint even if they aren't "moved" by his music, whereas Zelenka with his double counterpoint in the Crucfixus of his ZWV21 TQ1BFI1Tahg&t=32m32s doesn't need to be treated with the same level of respect. You.
Who made up the rules that the things Bach did were aesthetically "correct" objectively in all times and places (even with, for example, all the length, or the prominent brass in the Quoniam, Gloria, Sanctus, etc, and all the dance movements in BWV232, which would have been considered "undesirable" by, not only his predecessors such as Kuhnau, but also some of his contemporaries such as Fux). You.