None of that matters.
A good piece of music is a good piece of music. A bad piece of music is a bad piece of music. So goes for good props, and costumes and sets and lines of dialog and performances - and bad props, and costumes and sets and lines of dialog and performances. The whole is irrelevant. They hold up on their own or they don't.
And, usually, if something fails to hold up on its own, it's never going to mesh with the stuff around it. The exactly the problem with Discovery's production. Everything is so 'meh" and generic that, when it's all put together, it all comes to being an unforgettable blob blue. It's all links in a chain. But when all the links are the weak, then you've got a pretty big problem.
It's no different from a credits sequence. Like I was saying about the Bond films. There are films where the credit animation are excellent and the music left something to be desired -- and vise versa. Everyone knows "Live or Let Die," but I wonder how many people could actually pick out the credits from any of the other weaker Moore stuff. OTOH TSWLM is instantly recognizable for both things. Or Goldfinger or Skyfall.
And, as far as the music, the great Bond songs stand on their own. The bad ones don't. And, even if a bad one "fits the movie" doesn't change the fact it's an unremarkable song. And to argue otherwise, it's pretty ridiculous.
It's no different from soundtracks. People by great sound tracks because it's great music. Not on how well it "fits into the movie" Every single cue on the original Star Wars OST has become timeless. From the main theme, to the Jawa woods. They all stand on their own. And yes, the all fit their respective scenes well - if not perfectly - but that's not how they're meant to be judged as pieces of music.
And arguing that a unremarkable score is "okay" because it fits what's on screen doesn't change the fact it's unremarkable. Nor does it exclude any potential higher quality piece fitting equally well. It's just false justification.
