I haven't made a topic today

[Ravecat]

Yes, that's true. It's not up to you whether something is (objectively) bad or good, it's likely up to either the masses or the experts. However, the difference between saying it's objectively good or bad, is that most of the arguments here are about succesful bands, and that likely puts them at a stage of objectively good (as can be seen by their success, mass appeal, etc.) and regardless of whether or not one person claims they are bad.
There are of course exceptions, when bad things become popular, but even those can probably be argued.
'Twilight', for example. Objectively BADLY written, however subjectively the story is good and appeals to a lot of people.

I'm referring to conversations that go as such:
Participant 1: I like *band*.
Participant 2: *band* is bad.
Participant 1: That's your opinion.
Participant 2: No, I have come to the conclusion that *band* is bad, as I have used my knowledge of music to determine such.
Participant 1: But I have come to the conclusion that *band* is good, as I have used my knowledge of music to determine such.

It goes in circles, and ultimately ends up just as SUBJECTIVE as it was before you brang the whole objective bullshit into it.
At the end of the day, you not having a taste for something does not make it bad, if it appeals to other people.

If it doesn't appeal to anyone, well then you can probably safely say it's objectively bad.