You're arguing one of the most subjective topics known to man with personal opinion! This is futile!
If you REALLY want to get into the arguments about who's better than who, then start analysing key artists' hit songs, quoting the musical techniques used in composing the song.
The only way you can effectively argue this topic of who's more musically talented than whom is by looking at it from a musicological point of view.
People who manage to make millions - not only relying on their vocal and/or instrumental talents, but using marketing and their image as a tool may not be one of the best musical artists out there, but what they are doing... That in itself is genius. This is the point that ZOJ is making.
Proven: The "average" Joe Average and Jane Doe will only listen to a good beat, vocal lines or a single catchy riff, and this is what current 'pop' and 'R'n'B' artists are catering to. They don't care about techniques. They don't care who made it. They don't care if it's simple. A lot of them (nay, MOST) like it simple, and this is why ultra-super-mega-uber-shit songs like Snoop Dogg's "Drop it like it's hot" made it into the top charts around the world. They like it 'cause they like it.
Not everyone is privileged enough to have the musicological insight that few of us actually TRULY hold.
Basically, give the sheep what they like and let them do as they do with it. Don't complain.
Thing is, you can argue about artists 'destroying' the genre you hold dearest to your heart but truthfully, you cannot 'hurt' a musical genre! As long as there are fans, one song is not going to turn people off rock at the tip of a hat!
People like what they like, and attacks on their taste of music is often considered as a personal threat. Tread wisely when insulting someone's musical taste or favourite artist as they may take it as a personal attack (... so is the mentality of the human race).
Ps. Lady Gaga is secretly illuminati (making myself out to look like a loony XD but...)
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3423. Lol...