The vast majority of classical/jazz/art music/whatever you believe isn't "popular music" is soulless, technical wank.
The irony of all these anti-pop attitudes on /mu/ is that the majority of music's masterpieces (as an art form in general) would be considered pop by these same people, but they are unwilling to acknowledge that pop can be good.
People equate the idea of pop to mass consumption and being watered down and shallow, which isn't always wrong, but the problem is, the distinction that artfags are trying to create--art versus folk versus popular, or art/classical/jazz versus popular--is just as shortminded of an attempt at categorization for an enormous medium as they perceive pop to be in general.
Sometimes a masterpiece is the result of a "pop" artist taking some of the better ideas of a "art music" and applying pop techniques to them in order to make them as brilliant as they are trying to be.
Sometimes the most well-renowned, artsy-fartsy artists in music fail to ever produce something of great value because they are trying so hard to PUSH the boundaries that in the end what they come up with is less interesting than if they had never tried to push it at all.
It takes a certain level of both bold experimentation and refinement to create a masterpiece.