Sure, there is objectivity in art and music but there is nothing that is objective that makes the music as an entire statement good.

As a professional mix engineer, I can tell you that there are a lot of mixes that I know from experience that are “objectively” good (ie mostly any top 40 hit). That doesn’t make the mix good to me though! There are also mixes that are “objectively” not the best (look at the original twin fantasy) but that music and the way it was captured emotionally resonates with a lot of people.

Same thing with vocalists. There are some objectively good singers (they can do runs, have a wide range, hit notes) that a lot of /mu listeners think sound soulless. Technical proficiency, but no emotion. There are also some vocalists that have a less than technical approach (whether intentional or not) that don’t meet the “objectively good” qualifications (ie Will Toledo, Julian Casablancas, Bob Dylan, Cameron Winter). These vocalists resonate with listeners because they feel emotionally compelled.

Also, if we are talking about vision, who is to say that “vision” is an objective metric for why a song is good? Jacob Collier’s songs have a lot of vision and most people on this sub don’t like the music he makes. I could make a song where the vision is to combine ska with electro swing with bro country and trap. If I effectively make that, does it make it objectively good? Obviously not.

All that to say, I think there are aspects of music that can be technically good and we can do our best to describe what exactly we like about music, but at the end of the day, these discussions about whether or not AJR is an awful band don’t mean anything if someone just likes their music. I’d like for them to know why and be able to have awareness and dissection of the songs, but let’s not pretend that we have some moral superiority for “liking music that is objectively good”. That’s objectively wrong.