I hate to say this, but I do sometimes feel like Hec's thing is liking stuff very few people listen to anymore, or have heard at all. Which I respect, since I have my own tendencies to adore the obscure. But Archies love is not mainstream in 2004. If he wrote a book about 3-11, that might make your case :-).
First of all, not offended. Second, the whole second book is based on Joe's assertion that it's SO FUCKING VAST it's hard to get a handle on it. Lots of stuff gets lost.
Now my taste is really incredibly sweet toothed, riff happy and funky monkey. In short, almost everything I listen to is accessible. I may refer to some obscure things, but it's not because they're obscure. It's more because I've got a lot of music and have been listening to it for a long time, so my newer discoveries are going to be less obvious.
As Joe also noted, when you've been following music for a long time you wind up having to make choices to deal with the vastness. As a practical matter, it's simply easier for me to discover music that interests me by going back historically. There are trails to follow, and writing and reviews. Whereas new releases haven't been vetted by time, and right-now reviews are too bound up with marketing and career expectations (for that particular band) to be as useful to me.
But like Joe, I value this thread precisely because people are listening to new stuff and I get exposed to genres outside my usual range.
And as much as I ragged on Stone Temple Pilots, I know some day I'm going to pick Vatican Gift Shop out of a discount bin because I suspect the guitarist had a knack for power pop hooks disguised as grunge. I'm always willing to revisit my opinions.
Blur crushes Pulp like a teeeeny tiny little champagne grape.
Best Bowie: I think I like Aladdin Sane best right now, though I'm also very fond of Hunky Dory.