coolcat said:

Long story, but as I need to work now, I'll try my best to make it short.

One needs to distinguish between the personal taste and a general relevance a piece of art has. Everyone is welcome to like whatever they like, but what you or I think about a certain piece of music might be important to us, but it is completely irrelevant in the overall picture.

Whenever a composer starts to give a whole era of music its trademark or to influence generations of musicians to follow, then this should be an acceptable standard for artistic value. This is certainly the case for Mozart, for instance, so if his music is to anyone's personal like or dislike doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things.

Accepting standards even in the wonderful world of music is something which also helps to protect the valuable from being flooded with crap. Without standards, Britney is as good as Prince, it just comes down to taste. Do we really want that?

EmancipationLover said:

So the artistic merit of a piece of music depends on how much influence it has?

coolcat said:

Not only, but also. Influence is a result of quality. And influence often is a result of an accumulation of quality work, not of a single one.

I don't know enough about Mozart to comment. I'd like 2.

Both are genius and share many personal and professional similarities.

Thing about history--depends on who's writing it, what story they're telling and why.

In context! Yes.