The more basic problem is that their methodology would conclude Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey, etc etc. It is completely fine to enjoy "dumb" art - I like Marvel comics and a lot of the Disney-era Star Wars novels have been pretty fun. But using easiness and fun as a metric of quality is simply celebrating ignorance and laziness.
Why is AC/DC “dumber” than, I assume, a fantastic classic musician? I used to think that these artists are riff-riff, but they all turned out to be masters of their art and, ignoring the pop/rock/etc flavor and type, they may actually surpass the genius of a violin virtuoso. Quite a claim you’re making here, assuming that AC/DC popularity was due to “dumbness” overall and that it’s “fine”. It’s not fine, it’s the same step on the ladder. I find this facet of a deep-shallow distinction completely synthetic and (imo) coming from a limited technical-ish view on music. Vivaldi, AC/DC, Blackpink — it’s all an art of a genius level, just differently flavored.
I'm a bit confused about this AC/DC vs "Carla Frey" comparison. For starters, I can't find any musicians by the name of Carla Frey. There is however a free jazz pianist named Carla Bley. It feels like OP has maybe selected a niche artist that they're personally fond of. I had a listen and it's the sort of stuff you'd get in hotel lobbies. It's nice, and it probably means a lot to people who are really into jazz, but I suspect that few people will ever hear of this artist. Conversely, Angus Young of AC/DC is extremely musically gifted and I suspect that songs like Thunderstruck will have a large social impact for years to come. There's nothing dumb about their songs. Though I don't put much stock in Spotify listens, it has 1.6 billion vs Bley's most popular "Lawns" having around 2 million.
Sure, there are cases where great artists are not well known in their own time - from Mozart to Nick Drake - but recognition generally follows in the subsequent decades. If Carla Bley is who they inteded to refer to, they've had over 50 years to become recognised.
Apples are better than oranges. "An orange a day keeps the doctor away?" I don't think so. Newton's orange? Nope. Orange may be the surprisingly successful remains of a former telecom monopoly, but Apple is the most valuable company on the planet.
You are assuming that it is objectively true that "Harry Potter is better than Ulysses, AC/DC is better than Carla Frey". What is your basis for that? And what is your definition of "better"?
I get the point you're trying to make, and in some philosophical sense you're right. In reality though, people into a field are able to rank quality extremely well and it doesn't end up being the puzzle you're implying it is
