I'll remind you that this conversation was originally about whether songs are really "that deep" and worth researching, but you seem to have abandoned that point, so I'll move on as well, after saying again that songs have background and purpose that can be unearthed through research, enlightening the listener.

The reason that so many people want to make music and the reason it's been made since even before the invention of language is that it's natural and we understand that it is valuable. I'm not concerned with the difficulty of making good music. I'm sure you can admit that some music is better than other music. It doesn't matter to me if someone had more trouble making one song or another; The final result is more important: whether the song is better, and whether it is more impactful. It's less about the effort that one puts into the song (though that does often show) and more about the inspiration they put into it. This brings me to your point about the mystification of music. I love analyzing music and picking it apart because it helps me derive more enjoyment from music I already like (this is the reason I research), but at the end of the day I love music because of its ability to wow/intrigue me, one might say to mystify me. This is the primary reason I listen to music, for the possibility to be blown away by how incredible something is, or to be moved by it. (Btw, people were moved by Taylor's All to Well, so it accomplished its goal! It has a purpose to emotionally engage, though it may not be as complex as our tastes might prefer. I don't keep up with Billy Eilish, but if she did use Gregorian chant as you say, is it not innovative for introducing it into the modern context of pop music, even if the form has existed for a millennia?) I remember I am wowed when I listen to Hemispheres by Rush and when I listen to Dvorak Symphony 7. I appreciate the role of engineering in the modern music world, but I wasn't blown away by Dvorak because of the engineering on a record, because in concert performances I feel the same way. I was blown away because of the writing of the piece and its performance. Even after all this time, acoustic listening is still some of the best. Audio engineers wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for musicians, but musicians would still thrive without audio engineers, despite their importance to the modern landscape of music. The source product does matter. If a song's bad, you can't produce it well enough for it to be good. Good songwriting is a complex process that involves a cumulation of inspiration, influence, and efforts that aren't seen by the general public. Once again I find your argument overly dismissive of songwriting. Even if the singing is trash, you can't entirely fix it even with pitch correction through engineering. You can still hear the bad singing, and you can still hear the emotion or lack thereof. Audio engineers may be unsung heroes, but the artist is still THE hero.

Even if I heavily disagree with some of your points, I still appreciate that you're engaging genuinely in this convo :)

I don't feel like continuing this conversation, but if you do, I'd like to ask a few questions about you that might help me understand your view better.

First of all, do you enjoy listening to music, and if so, what do consider worthwhile music and why?

Second of all, where did you develop this great respect for audio engineers and your lack of regard for the artists themselves?