> You know what, sometimes the initial critics are correct and the latter historians who shape music history and create the modern consensus/canon are incorrect :)

That seems pretty common to me actually. If you read the wiki page for any random writer or composer, no matter how awful, it always has a section: "this artist has recently been reevaluated as an early example of neo-postdidacticism[35][36] and has been lauded by critics such as Murray Fieldgood[37] for their contributions to anti-objective realism[38]".

Cultural historians often rate purely by degree of novelty. And once an artist is established as canonical, even their slightest works start to deserve attention from whomever gets paid to turn them into their personal project.