As far as I can tell, it seems to me that there is a 100% disconnect between the academics and the general public.
Anyone who is interested and is a fan of 20th century music will judge music via a different standard than I judge it. Therefore any recommendation by 20th century music fans will have zero relevance to whether I like the work or not.
therefore I suspect in the Top 150 Modern works list and Top 200 Post 1950's list. I would hate 95% of it especially since googling the composer of people in those list, the general description of their music is "avantgarde". Whenever a work is described as avantgarde post 1900, I will hate it and I so far there has never been an exception to that. Maybe there will be an exception in the future but I doubt it.
I'm not saying that every work in those eras are bad just that people who follow those era and determine what the consensus are at completely different wavelengths than me.
Really the main difference is the concept, is originality in of itself a good thing? People who answer yes tend to be the people who love 20th century music but my answer is no. It was incredibly frustrating listening to Robert Greenberg lectures where he will go to elaborate detail on the evolution of music and detailed certain innovations and justify in great detail why those innovations happen and how those innovation fulfil an unmet need and desire from music. However when he reached the 20th century, the only thing he did was described the innovation of the 20th century without justifying it at all and without explaining the rationale behind the innovation. Originally for the sake of originality = cheap gimmicks and sensationalism. In every other field outside the artistic sphere, whenever something original pops up, it could be a success that fulfil an unmet need or it could be a failed experiment. The artistic sphere is the only place where people believe in originality is a good thing in of itself.
I sometimes wonder whether music would have been better back in the day where the only thing that matters was the artist and the audience and the patrons that fund the work. The work is good whether it satisfy the people who paid for it.
Nowadays there is the artist and the audience plus the middlemen, the academics that are the gatekeeper/filters of music. who determine what work is important and what is not and are completely disconnected to the audience.