idk bruh, not sure i agree.
what is 'good' or 'bad' is determined by the person consuming it.
An artist who releases their art will always consider it 'good', because they released it. Does that make it 'good'? No. If people don't like it, it can't be considered 'good'. that's all i'm getting at. Yes, music is subjective, but the majority of people who've listened to it consider it 'bad'.
(I don't think you can apply that to politics and such, which is where i assume you're heading with that.)
Beethovens' work was considered bad at the time, it was only later it was deemed he was one of the major players of his time. When he was alive, his music was 'bad'. When he died, and the hundreds of years after, people started considering it as 'good'. Does that make his music good or bad? no. It was 'bad' at the time, and 'good' now.
At the end of the day how well a musical piece sells/does is determined by how many people consider it 'good'. which is what's then the final verdict.
Personal and public opinion do not always coincide and can both be right. You might think it's good, but in the grander scheme of things (aka: general population) it is deemed bad.
When rating something we should go off of those considerations: If 99.5% of people think it's bad, you'll probably think it's bad too as a new listener. There's only a slim chance you'll consider it good, so it would stand to reason that when judging a musical piece, it should reflec the opinion of the majority.
Just my 2 cents though, like I tried to state, listen to what you want, but public opinion of music should always consider the majority of the people who've judged it.