It's not age. It's not education.
It's that sniffly posturing that makes 97% of Ivy liberal artsies want to give that 3% of our fellow alumni a razorblade-tipped enema.
The problem is the Times, the New Yorker, and the Atlantic are composed entirely of that 3%. They're all wealthy / wealth-adjacent smugshits and they have been perpetuating themselves as a nepotistic American critical class since the Algonquin Round Table, with less and less talent every generation.
Billy Joel doesn't suck because he's a one-trick pony or because he didn't make any impactful change on popular music. Billy Joel sucks because Billy Joel sucks. You can just say that. We don't need the pseudo-analytic, pseudo-intellectual trimmings, and you sure as shit don't need CRT to understand it. Dude gets up there and from the third note you want to drag him into an alley and have the Ramones curb stomp him. Or better, the MC5. It's a healthy reaction of the human psyche to pablum.
The Beach Boys were hit makers and they were brilliant composers, but their lyrics suck. They don't make the songwriter list.
The Beatles, for all their overhyped consumerist marketing slop, had great talent in songwriting, albeit not in musicianship. Despite the Microsoft Corporation install base of their users, John Lennon belongs on the list.
Nirvana wrote great lyrics. The Replacements wrote great lyrics. Rush wrote politically dimwitted but outstanding lyrics.
NOFX and the Dead Kennedys and Dolly Patron and Springsteen and the Pretenders and Biggie and Digital Underground and poor, fucked up, old Marshall Mathers should all be there too. Aside from the rest of their merits, they are all brilliant lyricists.
Finally, any list of greatest songwriters that does not put Carole King #1 is ipso facto disqualified.