Music performance assessment continues to face persistent challenges in achieving objectivity and reliability, particularly in accountability-driven educational contexts. Unlike subjects that utilize standardized evaluation methods, music education assessment has been criticized for subjectivity, which can undermine its instructional value and academic legitimacy. This empirical study addresses these challenges by implementing a criterion- and standard-based assessment framework grounded in Bloom's taxonomy for piano performance evaluation in tertiary education. This study is based on Hauenstein's extensive use of Bloom's taxonomy, which integrates the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains through observable behavioral outcomes. It operationalizes three key principles behind effective assessment: validity (alignment with educational intentions), reliability (consistency among assessors as well as over time), and fairness (reasonable standards applying to all learners). By using rubrics containing outlined criteria and standards, this assessment framework transforms tacit musical knowledge into explicit, communicable assessment language. Fifteen piano instructors from three Chinese normal universities were involved in the development and execution of assessment rubrics for piano recitals. Utilizing purposive sampling, educators possessing professional qualifications and at least five years of experience were chosen. The research utilized a tripartite methodology: preparation (development of rubrics alongside participating teachers), application trials (evaluation of thirty undergraduate students), and semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis conducted with MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2024 revealed 717 codes distributed across 11 nodes, resulting in three central themes pertaining to the importance of assessment, limitations of current practices, and the efficacy of the framework employed. The results suggested significant flaws in existing assessment practices, including inadequate transparent criteria, assessments that were largely based on subjective intuition, insufficient mechanisms for feedback, and inconsistency in scores attributed to evaluator bias rather than aesthetic differences. These aspects invalidated the tests and reduced their instructionally supportive value. Conversely, the criterion-based framework demonstrated multiple advantages, including clearly defined standards, transparent procedures, extensive feedback, and enhanced objectivity. Participants praised the framework for successfully addressing the evaluation of technical criteria (such as completeness, accuracy, and technical control) while permitting suitable flexibility with regard to artistic interpretation. The research demonstrates that theory-grounded, criterion-based music performance assessment can significantly enhance the objectivity of evaluation and instruction. It aligns instruction, curriculum, and assessment, informs students about specific goals of learning, provides instructors with research-based mechanisms for offering constructive feedback, and upholds institutional standards. The framework's successful implementation suggests broader applicability across performance disciplines and international contexts.