In This thread the Doors are dissed because they aren’t a “good” band. Their music has been played for more than thirty years. Does longevity make a band good?
Just what does make a band good?
Or is music to subjective to be able to point to one or two things that makes one good.
Passion
A point of view
A clear recognition of their skills or limitations – the Sex Pistols and the Allman Brothers are/were good bands.
Definitely helps to have a compelling front man (or woman).
Good ear for their instruments/right equipment.
Range. I consider U2 a good example here.
Attitude. audient mentions U2, who have great range now, but when they started they had little musical ability, just a good rock attitude.
IMO, the best rock bands are not the ones who are the best musically, but the ones who just ooze with a combination of sexual energy, anger and rebellion. This is why I tend to like any rock bands earlier stuff more than their later stuff. Its hard to be pissed off and rebelious when your a millionare traveling by private jet.
This is probably why you commonly hear people say “I liked (such and such band), before they sold out!” Sort of defies that do-it-yourself, rebellious spirit of rock and roll.
I was one of the people who said the Doors were good, but not great. To have a good band, I think all you need is a group of skilled musicians who listen to one another, can play in a harmonious fashion, and have some inspired songwriting ideas or pioneering new type of sound. The Doors definitely had a distinctive sound (thanks mainly to Ray Manzarek’s chirpy organ fills and Jim Morrison’s wailing vocals), and some great moments, but weren’t as consistently great as the Beatles or Stones, IMHO.
The Doors might have continued being great had it not been for Morrison’s substance abuse (which heightened the self-obsession for which he’s mainly criticized) and subsequent inability to work with his band-mates. That’s similar to the whole “selling-out” thing in that you lose the spirit of why you got into rock and roll in the first place.
right now, off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single performer who I haven’t liked less as their career progressed.
goonhead, you can play in my band anyday. we have the same first priority. Music is what you do with your ears first, then hands.
Cool. Actually, I have some experience playing in bands (on saxophone), college jazz band, etc. I also taught myself some guitar and piano.
One of my bands has a website at http://www.mp3.com/ThinkingInTongues. We weren’t great by any stretch, we mostly were improvising and listening (but technically very limited).
we could use a good horn player : ) why don’t you record a part, squeeze it down to .mp3, post it here & I’ll mix it in 
(off topic, i guess, since we’re not Rock & Roll - more funkjazzdancepop)
I seriously think its all about the frontman. Almost every single “good” band had a memorable frontman. Or maybe I’m just partial because I’m the frontman for my band. . .
Yeah I think it is the frontman, I mean look ot Frank Zappa, Grace Slick, Janis Joplin, and Jimi Hendrix.
Zappa, Janis Joplin, and Hendrix were all frontmen who becamt more populat than their band. Grace, no matter how popular, was always a part of the Airplane.
Popular bands without a “front man”
Beatles
ZZTop
Allman Bros
Lynyrd Skynrd
The Who
Pink Floyd
Doobie Bros
Moody Blues
The list goes on and on.
So it’s not a front man you nead.
Is it talent?
Jeff Healey is one of the most talented guitarist’s out there. Is he a “good” band?