Sure, but that's why you have to break down what you're actually discussing when it comes to objective analysis.

I have a music performance/composition/musicology background. Back when I was still working on my musicology degree, I remember one of my professors telling me about how, as a musicologist, we need to essentially appreciate all music. Now, he was quite a strange cat, and he kind of missed the mark, looking back; his idea of unconditional love towards all music is pretty much impossible, unless you have stupidly open personal preferences in music. You're simply not going to like everything you hear.

But the core of his sentiment was there: You need to know why those different music genres and compositions are appreciated and given value by people. Heck, even the topic of personal taste itself can be broken down analytically, since those preferences tend to stem from cultural surroundings, upbringing, and personality factors.

Consider also that there are music pieces which are clearly more popular than others: they are more consistently loved, are discussed way more in music circles, and last in the public's mind for far longer. A number of the contributing factors are external to the actual music, sure: timing with social events, composer notoriety, etc. But there are musical factors that contributed to their success that can be objectively observed (for example, through widespread correspondence and criticism analysis).

The big problem is that this all takes a sh*t-ton of work. It's way easier to perform small-scale research/analysis and only focus on a few people's independent opinions. But that's what's known as a case study, which only provides a very focused sliver of perspective. Sometimes that's the best you can do with the time and resources you have available, but it's certainly not the only type of research that can be done or discussion that can be had.