This comment is such a weird way to defend the patently absurd claim that he wrote some of the best songs in human history.

Even the first sentence makes no cogent sense, especially when read alongside your original comment:

> When it comes to cultural significance and catchiness the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t matter.

You've apparently changed your argument. "Best in human history" does not mean "most culturally significant and catchiest."

If "the fact that people have been doing it for a long time doesn't matter," then why did you mention all of human history?

If what you mean instead is that you care only about contemporary, present-day cultural impact, then, again, why did you mention all of human history? You've already decided that no time period other than the present matters.

It's an odd thing to even compare. Musical styles and genres come in and out of fashion. Instruments and timbres likewise. People clamour both for novelty and also familiarity. There's no "best" music, just music that has more or fewer fans.

Ideally, the measure of timelessness of a tune is how many people will still go to the effort to play it or reference it once all people who were alive at its release (the people who "liked it before it was cool") are dead. By that measure, the one-hit-wonder of Pachelbel's Canon in D is probably top of the list.