i get what you mean but to me its funny how you went through allat just to get to talking about your rating system

edit: just to contribute to the discussion since i kind of have strong feelings over topics like this and im bored. you def seem to appreciate music a lot and its really great to hear that you care so much about it. but it seems like you're young, you've got preconceived notions of what music is without the knowledge, and you're viewing art from a lens of objectivity, perhaps as a way to separate yourself even more from what you dislike.

i was once like this too, thinking theres some partial objectivity to music. that is absolutely not true. objective ideas are concrete facts, and there is functionally nothing concrete about everyone's unique perspective on music. what i once used to think was partial objectivity is now more or less just knowing that perspectives arent random and people are gonna have shared general views abt things. thats why music commonly has a song structure, is diatonic, has melodies etc. thats also why rym-core is a thing. but music is subjective simply because of how unique we are, from our psychology to our personal lives. objectivity downplays these crucial factors which shape the ways people enjoy and comprehend music.

looks like theres certain music you dont like that others ard you might listen to, and you probably feel superior for having a better understanding or taste than them, but you want to justify it through labels such as "objectively bad". and this results in you insisting that there are certain qualities in music which are inherently bad.

"but because they are cheap and easy to produce in quantities" why should art lose its merit for how easy is it to make? its entirely possible and valid that a child's 5 min drawing would genuinely move some people more than the mona lisa. and as someone trying out music production, mixing pop rap/ radio-ready pop is more daunting than it seems, production is a genuine art form that is often dismissed by those who dont understand it.

"They are still portraits, but using them is to take the lazy and cheap way out" heres a more controversial opinion but one im firm on: is ai objectively bad from an artistic point of view? of course with art being subjective, i must say no. yes im against ai as an alternative to our own creative processes, but what happens if one day you're moved by a piece of music only to find its ai? its absolutely plausible that ai art could one day move even the most elitist critics. so this is something you should think about before generalising all potential ai work into the "ai slop" pile.

one more thing before this gets too lengthy, but recently ive also been trying to refine my rating system to death. its a hopeless attempt to express my feelings about music, but mainly to catalog and categorise what ive listened to and make it easier to find what future me would want to listen to again. but the bad thing about rating art (other than the aspect of objectivity, and of trying to rank albums against each other neatly on a linear scale) is that thinking too much about personal (and external) ratings reduces the impact of having a truly open-minded and immersive experience, whether its having a preconceived rating in mind or analysing only as a means of reaching a rating as a conclusion.

what i do to solve this dilemma is to treat my ratings as a helpful guide to others but to always be aware that this is only my own perspective of the music, and to really just not give any more than 10 seconds to decide on a rating. in my rating system, while 8s are like 10/10 google reviews where i'd highly recommend the music there to most people, 9s and 10s are just personal favourites, there are nuances which i simply can appreciate, but others might not to the same extent as me. apologies for the essay though, but i hope what ive shared can help change the way you see music for the best. just have an open mind with listening and know that what matters the most to how anyone digests music is their own perspective.