So you can't judge the truth or validity of a statement without knowing the author's name! Like that's how you determine how you ought to think. ("If G. W. Bush says it's raining, obviously it's a lie....")

First-year university classes call this arguing ad hominem, and it's bogus.

A statement finally stands or falls on its own without regard to who said it.

The original quote, as annoying as it may be, is of little significance. It's partly factual (for example, English tradition really was about done by about 1900), but mostly it's just an expression of taste ("I don't like English music; so don't try to revive it").

And there's no factual arguing about taste. (Not that you can't try to influence somebody else's taste, but doing so still isn't establishing a fact.)