I think the best way to make a band suck is to make the motivating/controlling factor of the music money. The record labels will produce whatever will sell, and if that means that they can pick up some random person and dress them up and give them an image, then they will. The bottom line for them is money, not music.

iapologize from straying off topic one last time but ijuste wanted to say this:

yure a fookin tit, Equinox. if yure ina band, then yure whats makin it bad.

Now you're assuming, shitdisturber I am not in a band, who needs a band when you can make your own music

...and if i'm a "fookin tit", you're a pretentious cunt.

( . ) ( .) rub me

Bad band = Bad music, shallow lyrics, hollow/empty vision of music style.

just being silly

It would be pretty difficult to get a unanimous decision on any one band being "bad", but (for me) a poor rhythm section makes something unlistenable. There's nothing worse than a crap drummer..........

By the way, what do you mean by "hollow/empty vision of music style", sic?

To me it comes down to lack of skill combined with lack of creativity. If you don't have skill, but you are creative, then at least some people will enjoy your music. (Pussy Galore, for example.) If you have skill but no creativity, you've also got a target audience. (Hootie & the Blowfish, for example.) But if you have neither, then there's just nothing redeeming about your band at all; you are categorically bad.