a) The "well-known (and therefore bad?)" statement is a fallacy.
b) Well-known doesn't equal good.
c) Not well-known doesn't equal bad.
d) Also, not well-known doesn't equal good.
e) Well-known doesn't equal bad.
f) The amount unknown/bad music is greater than unknown/good music.
g) Some people have an irrational dislike for known/good music.
h) Some people have an irrational preference for unknown/bad music.
i) There is a century of recorded music to appreciate.
j) No artist exists in a vacuum. There are always outside influences: musical, visual or otherwise.
k) To deny this (H) is irrational.
l) It is educational (and fun!) to research and learn the influences of the artists you consider important.
m) No artist is perfect. Even The Beatles made a few clunky songs.
n) Making a few clunkers doesn't make an artist less great.
o) Some artists are only good for a song or two.
p) Some artists are only good for an album or two.
q) Sometimes, good production and arrangements are more important than the lyrics and melody.
r) Good songs can sometimes but not always outshine bad production and/or arrangements.
s) Some songs are more important than the person(s) that wrote them.
t) Passion can sometimes be more important than precision. Especially in concert.
u) Having a lot of ideas in a song can be self-indulgent and irritating.
v) Not a lot of people have the patience to listen to songs that are longer than 7 minutes, so if you record such a song, make sure its worth it.
w) Sometimes, the hook is best used sparingly.
x) Exceptional music can sometimes, but not always, overcome mediocre lyrics.
y) Exceptional lyrics can sometimes, but not always, overcome mediocre lyrics.
z) Sometimes, songs are better at evoking a feeling or mood rather than a relating concrete idea.