system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I beleive that quality of music completely depends on the taste of the listener and holds no real artistic value. CMV

Tu put it shortly I get tired when music snobs talks about how people are stupid for liking today's pop artists and I have never seen anyone provide real proof for what makes Beatles better than One Direction. All the great musicians in history have aspired for nothing more than to make someting "good". Without the lyrics it's just a melody and beat. It may sound great, but it can't put your view of something into another perspective like other art does. I also don't think you can argue that one melody is better than another. I like music and I like Beatles more than One Direction, but I'm uncertain of how much is culture/group pressure, how much is my individual taste and how much is actually real quality of music. To be honest I think that the musicians most worthy of appreciation are the makers of "modern" music (you know the one without real melody or beat). I may hate how it sounds but at least they try to push music forward as an artistic medium instead of just creating a catchy song. I really want my view changed on this because I want to really see what it is in a song that makes it good.
gpt
Music, like most art has as least three (probably more, but we'll do three for now) different ways of being "good".

Of course there's the visceral, physical impact, you listen/read/look/taste and enjoy. Let's call that the first way.

Beyond that, we can look at virtuosity. A lot of music, both in the performing and in the composing can be looked at as an exercise in skill, just like watching an Olympic gymnastic performance. When we hear, for instance, a classical singer hit every note perfectly in a complex piece with a huge range, there is a technical mastery there that objectively can be compared to crappy singing that needs autotune. This doesn't by itself determine the ultimate artistic value of a piece, but it contributes, and it's an element beyond taste. Of two musicians playing the same piece, one can be objectively better at it.

And we can extend this to composition as well. Great symphonies are often great technical feats in the same way that detailed sculptures are. 

And beyond that, we can value innovation. If a song feels nice to sing along to and is well played but still sounds pretty much like every other pop song, there is a distinct value it is lacking. As individuals we can decide how important that value is to us, but we can't deny its existence. Frank Zappa created music that didn't sound like the music before it, that broke ground.

Even if you happen to prefer One Direction over Zappa on that first, visceral level, you would have to admit that it was a better work on those two other levels. You'd still be free not to enjoy him, or find other reasons to think the work was bad, but it has objective value as innovation and performing and compositional virtuosity.