I don't care about what artist can "sing". A lot of these artist that can "sing" end up making up the most boring music. I'll choose my "generic pop girls" anyday over some basic r&b artist that nobody uses.

I mean, obviously some are more talented than other. Some are more hard-working and dedicated than others. Some are of high quality, some not so much. Some take a lot of thought, some do not.

But trust that being of a very high quality does not automatically mean that the artist is going to have success or even be remembered. The It-Factor is important. There are plenty of great artists out there that none of us have ever heard about.

I don't understand the thread title though. I mean, music taste has to be subjective, otherwise it wouldn't be your taste/opinion. It should be: Is the quality of music subjective?

duh

You did not

Yes

Of course it is.

This is a common misconception. You can say "it is objective fact that 70% of people think song X is good" but you still can't say "therefore song X is objectively good"

Of course there is such thing as bad music
You can like whatever music you want, and no one should be harassed for it, but don't try to convince me that Bieber is good, quality music.

Taste is subjective, but there's such a thing as having a good palate honed through exposure and training.

Thats a pretty complex question.
It's objective if we talk about good and bad music. Lyrics aren't lying.
But it's subjective if we talk about genre. If you don't like metal, you simply won't like any metal song even if it has good lyrics.