"hipster blood" was just kind of a joke. It's popularity is not why I hate it.

I can't possibly see how context effects the actual song itself. But for the purpose of discussion, you'd say that the beatles did suck if it were made by some random unknown kid? See, to me, that defeats the whole point of music. or art. or anything really.

I enjoyed Gangnam style on my first listen because it was an enjoyable beat. The same way I'd enjoy something by, say, pitbull on my first listen. However, after I've heard it once, the overall "catch" and reason to listen to the song is over. and I get no more enjoyment from it.

The beatles I don't like for an entirely different reason. I don't like the beatles because it's hardly music. I heard how "great" they are, and my folks love them, so I gave it a shot. Put on my headphones and had a thorough listen. Gave them a chance. Song after song I couldn't see what was so great. It didn't wow me. It didn't even sound that amazing. I'm not a big fan of classical music, but that shit is impressive. Mozart, Beethoven, etc. All great stuff (though I wouldn't listen due to various reasons). Beatles didn't evoke that same interest. To me, it just sounded like some random teenagers who picked up some instruments and decided to make "a band". Sounds like any other random teenager band.

I don't give a shit what they caused, or why they made the music. It sounds like shit. That's like enjoying citizen kane because it revolutionized film. I recognize that the beatles were a big part of history, no denying that. But to say they are a good band because of it? No. Citizen Kane was a bad film. Just like the beatles are a bad band. I'd rather go deaf than have to listen to them.

So no. The history and context do not change the quality of the music. Nor does it change it's entertainment value. It merely changes it's importance, which an entirely different point.