Yeah, you can't even read a political speech in a literal fashion, so why would I try to "prove" to you that Van Halen produced all the edge out of his music over time, leaving bland AOR? You just have to listen to it.
Now you're reducing the interest in long-lasting popular music ['lots of people out there want to hear songs by the Beatles, Floyd and Led Zep in high quality sound like you get from FM radio'] with EVH's personal dissolution as a musician. Which is fine, but at least admit that's what you're doing, your personal nut against Sammy which bleeds over into your conception of popular culture. But at least you're denying the validity of any viewpoint other than your own.
If you believe P is true, and someone else offers contradictory belief Q, then you can't believe Q valid while still believing P valid.
But Q doesn't detract from P, disproves P in many objective ways which you consistently ignore, and in fact makes P possible. Believing Q doesn't prevent you from believing P and people who believe Q can lead fully, happy lives without ever knowing people believe P. In theory, people who believe P could be the same way, but in practice they think they're special and cannot comprehend how anyone could think otherwise in good conscience.
You seem to think ICP has a flaw or two, so do they qualify as this "non-perfect rock" that, according to you, is when rock is best?
Hohum, you're equivocating on 'imperfection'. An aesthetic of imperfection isn't the same as an imperfect aesthetic.
Then what's the standard for perfection? Some people might say Robert Johnson's "Hellhound on my Trail" and others bang their heads to "Beelezebub has a devil put aside for me, for me, for meeeeeeeeee".
It doesn't mean theocracies and Kelly Clarkson become good because people voted for them, which is the logical conclusion to your position. Mao was popular, so's Castro, etc.. If a murdering tyrant had a mind control device that ensured his popularity, you'd have to conclude he was great leader.
No, I'd conclude that he had a mind control device ensuring his popularity. In real life, tyrannies have to maintain constant pressure on their subjects, and the best way is to monitor them for anything they might like, not permit them to have personal tastes, and remove anything that they might like. I don't think Obama is a good President, but the people chose him so he's "popular". It's your projection that what I'm saying is reduced to 'popularity = good'.
In the real world, technological advances lead to a successful New York Piano company branching out into phonographs, and started releasing discs in various formats during the day. The sound quality was higher than other releases of the era, although not the physical duration of the discs.
After being acquired in a corporate takeover, twenty years after the company was founded Vocalian released the only recordings of Robert Johnson in his lifetime. "Terraplane Blues" even sold 5,000 copies. ARC, Brunswick and Columbia Records would be essential in keeping that work available for a time when they might be able to make money off of it, thirty years later if that's what it takes for Eric Clapton [whose work I mostly can't stand] to think it's "good" and go on to inspire Brian May and the people who made "Abbey Road". Those guys only got work because recording equipment and musical instruments were available for sale to people who have their own idea of what makes good music and had access to a marketplace.
Maybe you want to reconsider popularity, say limit it to people who think, or have good taste, or are rational, etc..
I know what all those words mean, but that sentence makes no sense. How do you prevent people who don't have good taste from becoming popular, short of gulags? People collectively decide what they like and what they like is by definition popular.
When I was growing up, if you liked the Dead, you were a hippie, if you liked the Pistols, you were a punk, and if you liked the Stones, you were a faggot because of that time Mick Jagger kissed Ronnie Wood on SNL. So I was a hippie punk faggot.
"Your view amounts to saying anything produced on American Idol is just as culturally, intellectually, and aesthetically valuable as Wagner's The Ring of the Nibelung."
You've not contradicted this, only give further support to it.
You've not supported this, only re-asserted it as if saying "Shazam" again will turn you into a superior being with superior aesthetics. The atmospheric keyboard arpeggios opening "Right Now" are dramatic, undergirded by omnious bass chords until the band crashes in with a slow-burning riff that builds until Sammmy says he doesn't want any tomorrow doesn't show any detriment to EVH as musician/composer, except maybe to someone whose tastes are stuck in 1984.