People here can discuss this question for hours - and they have! While some people here might encourage you to search for old threads discussing the topic, I think you will enjoy it more by looking for current threads where people are discussing fragrances. You will see that many of us share a certain respect for certain aspects of fragrances, and I believe that the exact nature of that respect leads to the answer to your question. Indeed, while I respect all fragrances as being able to capture *somebody's* love, there are fragrances which capture the love of many people (somewhat like pop music), and others which capture the love and respect of the connoisseurs and aesthetes (perhaps more like critically acclaimed music). There are fragrances which cater to those who love the avant garde (perhaps like very abstract composers and cutting-edge musical artists), there are older fragrances which appeal to those that are known as "vintage lovers" (classical music), and there are modern fragrances in older styles, that cater to people we have amusingly called "retroscentuals" (neoclassical, perhaps?).
The fact that fragrance finds analogy in music extends well beyond terminology (notes, accords, compositions), and is surely evidenced by the number of musicians we have here. There are threads in "Off Topic" where our musicians have discussed this. You simply must meet another friendly new member, Lionheart, who is actually a professor of vocal music. I hope he finds this thread.
I know that your question deals more with the objective standards of critics and aesthetes, but you will find that there is even some disagreement there. But I must *highly* recommend that you start with the guidebook by Turin and Sanchez, formerly known as "Perfumes: The Guide", and now called "Perfumes: The A-Z Guide". There is a book which condenses most of the greats out of that one, with minor updates, called "The Little Book of Perfumes: The Hundred Classics". Turin's standards of criticism are apparent after reading him, and are actively discussed here. The relative objectivity or subjectivity of them is something you will have to decide, because we love to disagree even about that.
I could try to give you an answer about objective standards, but I'm a bit of a fragrance relativist, and thus I would say that there are common and shared standards, that many people perceive in common and agree upon to varying extents. Words like complexity, balance, linearity or dynamism, and others are used for many agreed-upon abstractions, and the fact that these are valid is simply evidenced by how useful they are to communicate and be understood. On the other hand, many other words are used - generally with more personal meaning for the individual - and they translate to greater or lesser degrees. Often we find that we need to understand how an individual has commented about other fragrances, to understand precisely what they are saying about the one in question. But the very fact that this works, demonstrates that communication about abstractions of fragrance is both possible and useful.
I hope that you will join the discussion. Perhaps you can help us to extend the analogy of music to fragrance by your own thoughts on this!
Again - welcome to Basenotes!