TTp69-70.culture

I wouldn't go as far to say that if something becomes popular that it's value or meaning is diminished because meaning is so contextual. If meaning changes from person to person, then we can't generally say that ALL meanings to ALL people have dimished all of something's value to all of those people. And then there are those people who claim that certain music or people mean more to them, simply because they know more about the subject or person, but why can't the lyrics of a song be just as meaningful to a person who's just heard it? The "ownership" of meaning would be another interesting topic to discuss.
As far as artists and whether or not they ever do have control of the context in which people use or recieve their art- they don't, at least not ever completely. They may be able to limit the number of types of contexts in which it is recieved, but it still can't be guaranteed that their art will forever be recieved solely in that context. For example, Shakira primarily became famous as a Latin American artists- only having albums produced in Spanish. But that does not mean that just because she didn't sing songs in English that english-only-speaking people didn't listen to her records or have interpretations of her music (even without knowing the translations).
And in terms of "aunthenticity" and "inauthenticity"- what, if anything, these days is authentic? As far as art goes, who was the first artist? Can any art today really be defined as "original"? The art and music and film and literature produced today, was produced by people who were raised with the knowlledge of previous artists and musicians and authors and no matter how much we try to be original there is always a trace of the contributions of other's ideas- whether they are improved or deconstructed or expanded, etc.
I don't know if this made sense, but it's the first thing that came out.