Music of the people in its beginnings was carried from place to place by minstrels of various skills and abilities. I'm sure that a Darwinian process worked itself out as to who was listened to and who wasn't. However, the advent of mass communication starting in the 1800s has grown so much in recent decades that local minstrels can be broadcast to the world, but unless the subject matter resonates with the listeners the minstrel will be ignored to a greater or lesser degree. I am reminded of Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451' movie in which people memorize books in order to preserve them, printed matter being a crime in the novel. The diminishment of people like Dylan does not obviate their popularity, and the fact is they became very popular with their respective audiences. As is obvious from this thread, there is no general agreement even among the scholars who post here, so some arguments are a hiding to nowt, because it seems we still struggle to say what we mean while concomitantly connecting with the reader. It's the same in many ways with the music itself I think.