We’ve all heard stores of bands that broke up, lost members, or just had lots of drama due to the band members’ failure to get along with one another.
Which successful bands had members that all got along with one another really well, with a minimum of conflict?
U2?
Same members, 40 years, no major rumors of strife.
This video of Rush eating dinner makes clear that they’re more than just coworkers and enjoy their friendships.
The Dave Clark Five is often touted as having the least drama among their ranks. They disbanded the same year as the Beatles, based entirely on diminishing (but still profitable) returns and with no hard feelings.
I think the three boys of ZZ Top must’ve always had a great chemistry, being together for over 50 years without a change of personnel. Other than Frank Beard’s former drug problems, I don’t know about any internal troubles.
The Four Tops were together 50 years without a personnel change before members started dying off (only one is left: Abdul “Duke” Fakir). They once said when one of them got too big for their britches, the other three would verbally cut him down to size.
Rush was who first came to mind for me, as well.
Everything I’ve read indicates that the four members of Queen got along very well together, and despite what was portrayed in the film Bohemian Rhapsody, never had any major conflicts. When Freddie became ill with AIDS, the other three rallied around him, keeping his condition private (at Freddie’s wish), and working with him to get as much new music recorded while he could still sing.
As soon as I saw the title I thought of Rush and already they’ve been mentioned twice.
U2 had some issues. Bono has credited the song One with saving the band. There were differences of opinion on musical direction and some of the members were having relationship problems and it was coming to a head. They did work it out, though.
That’s a great song, maybe the greatest U2 song ever. I’ve never figured out the full meaning, but I thought it was about a troubled romantic relationship. Could it have been about troubles in the band?
I won’t be able to say it any better than this: One (U2 song) - Wikipedia
It’s a fascinating story. I love to read interesting things about the genesis of art.
Darn. Late to the party… Next time I’ll Rush. 
I don’ know of any strife within Led Zeppelin. Mostly just tales of debauchery and hotel destruction, many exaggerated.
None of the members wanted to continue as Led Zeppelin after Bonham’s death.
A 4 December 1980 press statement stated that, “We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were.” The statement was signed simply “Led Zeppelin”.
Another vote for Rush and ZZ Top.
This could end up being a pretty short thread. I was racking my brain and looking at my music collection, and thought, “Damn! All these people hated one another!”
I have to expand on that. When Frank Beard became a junkie in the mid-seventies, it soon became a big problem for the band. Beard was dysfunctional for months and years, and it showed in their output (Fandango was a casual mixture of live and studio tracks, and Tejas was by far their worst seventies album). But Billy and Dusty were patient and helpful and gave him time to recover and get his act together. They could have fired him and hire another drummer instead (the Stones and the Floyd did just that in similar circumstances, not drummers, you know who I mean), but they were loyal to him. Quite an achievement.
Although they had their disagreements and thought of calling it quits a time or two before they did, my understanding is that the members of R.E.M. mostly managed to stay friends, hence the longevity of the band. Even their dissolution seems to have been a more or less mutual decision.