(When reading this, keep in mind that at one point I was a person that believed I would never find anything to match classic rock, until I started really listening to alternative rock bands, and then I believed that I could not like anything but classic and alt. rock, until I started really listening to indie rock, then I believed that I could not like anything but classic, indie and alt. rock until I started listening to soul and started noticing a pattern.)
"Pop music is mass produced .'. its crap" - So was the Motown scene and Brill Building Pop, they had team of resident song writers (Holland-Dozier-Holland), session musicians, producers (Phil Spector), fashion designers and makeup artists, voice coaches and dance instructors. If you judge modern day pop music on being mass produced, then you could say similar things about The Jackson 5, Marvin Gaye, the Ronnettes and the Shangri-La's.
"Pop music is unimaginative and uninteresting" - Not really true either. Take Say My Name by Destiny's Child, the musical backing involves: fingerpicked acoustic guitar, funky wah-wah guitar, string section, a triangle, sleigh bells (a la the Stooges "I wanna be your dog") and synths. Ok, you may argue that this is an exception to the rule, but there are plenty more examples of mainstream pop being musically interesting. The opera singers at the beggining of Cry Me a River, the bombastic horns on Beyonce's Crazy in Love, the wierd harpsicord beggining to Bad Romance that breaks into synthpop and crazy chanting, the breakdown at about 2.15 in Toxic, the near alt. rock of Since U Been Gone,. On top of this, they are all fronted by immensely talented singers and melodies that you could probably recall after only one listening.
I can't recall getting the memo that said that good singing, clean production and memorable singalong melodies stopped counted for judging the quality of a song.
Anyway, there is a large proportion of crap in whatever genre you listen to. If you are sitting there thinking "Hang on what about metal/indie/jazz/classical?*", as yourself, are 90% of the performers of that genre doing something that hasn't been done better by someone else? No genre is inherantly better than any other genre, each one with a small percentage of noteworthy acts, either rising above or buried within the unimaginative, derrivative, poorly conceived acts that is the rest of the genre.
*jazz and classical may be a bit misleading, mainly because they are so old as a genre that pretty much all the bad and average musicians have fell from any noteworthyness, meaning only the genuinely good ones are remembered.