You sure did imply that I was silly, when you stated that
when I clearly stated in my referenced post that I believed this to be true.
The thing is that, in order to be able to speak with some degree of knowledge about what the prevailing opinion is, overall (ie, in a general sense) within a fan base, rather than, ya know...talking out your ass, you DO have to live in that universe. And by 'living in that universe', I mean spending a significant amount of time not only listening to studio recordings of bands in that genre on the radio...but discussing the music with other fans, listening to live recordings/bootlegs, keeping up on news and reviews from the tours, and generally engaging other fans, world-wide.
Now, I do that with hard rock and the 'lighter' end of metal. So I do feel that I have done the homework required to state as I did that Gaga is not regarded with anywhere near the respect commanded by the Beatles in those circles. In other words, I was not talking out my ass, but providing the prevailing opinion. Both on the Beatles and on Gaga. And I also clearly stated that I do not have the expertise to speak about what the prevailing opinion might be among other groups of music fans - I believe Country was specifically addressed with regard to this.
And by the way, I am by no means alone, when it comes to focusing on depth of knowledge within a genre, as opposed to knowing a little bit about a whole lot of stuff. In fact, there are lots of people I have met along the way who are pretty much experts in the work and history of only one or two bands...or maybe a smaller sized sub-genre. I would say that I know more about the sub-genre known as 'Seattle Grunge' than most people on this board - origins & influences, band histories, discographies, side projects & supergroups, etc...but I know people in the Pearl Jam community who put my knowledge of Pearl Jam to shame, they are such wizards. I mean, I can give you the band history and tell you why the album Ten was...well...named Ten. But I know people who can recite set lists of individual shows going back over 20 years to the origins of Pearl Jam, can tell you how many times a particular song has been performed live, have been to over 100 Pearl Jam shows, etc.
And I have met fans in other individual band communities of long-standing, legendary bands, who could do the same - particularly in the Springsteen community...and of course the granddaddy of them all, the Grateful Dead community. I'm not a particular fan of Rush, but I am aware of the same thing happening there as well.And the thing is, while you say that you 'don't care about in-depth knowledge about musical artists'....the people who DO care? THOSE are the very kinds of fans who separate 'fad' from 'legend' in the end! The Dead are not legends because a shitload of people bought their first 3 albums when the media machine was in high gear, cranking out the buzz (not that it did that, in the 60's, when The Dead released their first albums).
The Dead are legends because they made good enough music to keep a very strong base of devoted fans, long after their initial popularity wore off. The Deadheads who followed the Dead around the world for months on end....THOSE are the people whose devotion propelled The Dead into legend. Not the fans who 'don't care about in-depth knowledge about musical artists'. 
Bands do not become legends in a vacuum, you know - look at any band of legendary or potentially legendary status...and I'll show you a band who has made very good music for a very long time, whose live shows are known for being BETTER than their studio albums, and who have a very strong and devoted fan base who have hung around and kept coming to concerts, buying records, and collecting paraphernalia, long after that band has relinquished their permanent spot on the Top 40 list.
How do you think a band becomes a legend, anyway? By selling a shitload of records in the first 3 years, when the PR machine is working at peak capacity?
Because that is what some of you guys seem to be saying. Indeed, that seems to be the premise of this entire thread, and the bit some of us are so surprised and dismayed by. I mean, to even make the comparison between 3 year-old Gaga and her publicity machine and the Beatles...who have survived as a legend, 50 years and two deaths after they actually broke up, is nothing short of alarming. Alarming because it reveals a very wide gulf between what 'legend' used to mean...and what it is apparently coming to mean now.Put it this way...you'd be hard pressed to find a much bigger Pearl Jam fan than myself on this board (although I know at least two guys who might qualify). And I became a fan at the very beginning - in other words, I have been a fan of this band for over 20 years, 9 studio albums and an album of B sides, a bazillion live albums (the official bootleg collection is well over 100 now), several world tours playing to massive arenas, and the tenure of a drummer who is still considered to be 'the new guy' after 13 years with the band. And if you remember the early 90's at all, you know that grunge changed the face of music in some major ways, set off changes in a number of areas of popular culture, and...wait for it....sold shitloads of records - Pearl Jam's being at the front of those sales, along with Nirvana.
And even after all that...and a long-time devoted fan base who follow PJ around the world, Dead-style and who collect concert posters on ebay with Ninja-level skillz of acquisition...I am only now getting comfortable with idea of thinking of this band as a potential 'legend' AT ALL...let alone anywhere approaching the legendary status of The Beatles or The Grateful Dead.
So forgive me if I don't rush Gaga to the front of the line.
I'm sure she is a good pop musician...but get back to me in 10 or 20 years after the hype machine has folded tents and gone home. Then we'll talk about legend. If anyone can still remember her name.
