Some things are subjective, others are objective. I will forever stand by my stance that stories are rhetorical arguments about reality and therefore can be objectively judged based upon both the story itself and the argument it is making. This same thing can be extended further towards other mediums as well, but some work better than others.
Music, for example, is not something that I would claim is 100% objective. I can say that works like the operas of Wagner do an objectively better job at incorporating music in a narrative than both his contemporaries and plenty of composers today, and that utilizing music as a vehicle to help communicate the central argument within a narrative through having the music's structure be entirely dictated by the story is objectively a more effective way to utilize music than having it be a series of disconnected miniatures, only really tied by mood.
What I cannot really say is that one form of music is objectively better than the other, and that has more to do with the fact that music purely on it's own does not have a clear teleology the same way stories do (Stories have since the dawn of time been a way to communicate value and important information both for survival and to discourage bad behavior that can damage society, you can look towards basically any bit of folklore from any nation in human history for that). Music is a lot more difficult on that front, especially when you look at music without a program. How do I know Brahms is better than Schoenberg? I mean I can use my ears and know the latter sounds like total dogshit, but I can't really formally state why this is the case. And there is likely some dipshit who thinks the opposite and I wouldn't be able to prove him wrong either way and neither could he me. I can point out objective things about music but I can't really objectively grade it. Only subjectively through my objective observations, based upon principles which I have set for myself but are not universal.
