Well no, Feyerabend let himself be called an "anarchist" but clearly there is a "more scientific" and "less scientific" - they cannot give you a lecturing appointment at the LSE or elsewhere to just shrug.
> the listener ... as justification
As justification to what? A producer makes products for different markets: people may sell bars of sugar with appetizers and synthetic flavours, that does not make the product remotely similar to healthy food.
If you're generating the entire thing at once rather than stems or note data, you just have an elevator music generator which inexorably tends toward the lowest common denominator.
No one argued that one isn't of higher or lower quality. They're both music, as is evident by your choice of words. Processed foods are foods, not great for you, but they're still foods.
> Who are we to discern what is or isn't music?
Hopefully, people with good judgement, potentially capable of evaluating products.
The poster is clearly meaning "good music".
> Do you have the same opinion of text or code generated by or with the assistance of
There you go: the same way we note that some NN generated text is missing crucial qualities (e.g. intelligence), or that some NN generated images are missing crucial qualities (e.g. direction), you can surely admit the possibility that some NN generated sound may be missing relevant crucial qualities to the vetting of a good critic.