What constitutes a "good band"?

[nlo13]

So I was browsing the politics forum and saw the interesting thread "what constitutes a 'good person'?" [ by: open mind] and I thought it'd be a cool idea to tie this idea to music. Should be interesting because there are endless aspects of a band's foundation, lyrics, musicianship, etc. at your arsenal to validate your point. I want conversations.

ready, go.

[Neo Cassady]

In all honesty, different things make different bands good. Some have great lyrics, some have great melodies, some elicit certain emotions, etc. etc. It all depends on the band in question.

[_><_]

Originality

[voncorn]

Great hair.

[Paulb-182]

Great songs, good work ethic, good look and being themselves, and dignity.

[wewascontenders]

a keyboard player.

[Forever.Zero]

If a band has character/personality shinning through their music then I'm onboard.

[hockeyguitar99]

There's thousands of different answers. It changes for every band.

[CalRahhh]

There's thousands of different answers. It changes for every band.

and every listener.

[NaughtyScotty]

mainly for me, it's meaningful lyrics, and a good melody or message.

[El_Jeffe]

obviously a very personal question, & each answer will no doubt chop & change for each person. for me it's all about creativity & passion, that's what i've always searched for. i have no predisposition to seek just lyrics, or just great music, or hooks, or what-have-you, it has to be a complete package that engages me into the audio world the artist has created, i want to go on the journey with them. but that "package" knows no boundary of genre, time, mainstream, or independent barrier, if it clicks with me... then play on

[Animalhill]

One thing: SOUL.
If they don't mean it, it is transparently obvious, and no matter how musically inclined they may be, they fucking suck.

[oddwithoutend]

Good artists make a good band. Good art make a good artist.

What is good art? Good art is inspiration, synchronicity, and profundity. Anything that holds these three values is good in my eyes.

Can profundity exist without inspiration? In short: to the listener, yes; to the creator, no. The question is confusing because profundity exists differently in different people's minds, whereas whether or not the artist was inspired actually has an objective answer to it. I would argue that a person cannot create anything that he finds profound without being inspired. One can, however, create something that other people find profound without being inspired. This clarification shows how uninspired artists can become very popular, but never truly appreciate their own art.

Can synchronicity exist without inspiration? Of course, as it is a more technical aspect of good art. Synchronicity relies on great amounts of explanatory evidence. Do the lyrics and music fit well together? Do the vocals and production work together to convey the same idea? These are questions one must ask to determine whether or not something has synchronicity. An artist can clearly achieve these qualities without inspiration.

Is synchronicity objective, and if yes, does it make sense to have objective parameters to determine good art? Synchronicity cannot be completely objective because we are dealing with how people percieve and interpret sounds/words. Different words have ever-so-slightly varying meanings to different people. So if the meaning of lyrics is contestable, then it's illogical to believe that the question of whether or not, say, the lyrics match the vocals is an objective one.

Is it possible for an artist to be inspired to create something that he doesn't find profound? I honestly am not sure...

[RuledBySecrecy]

The ability to stay grounded no matter how successful they may become... the ability to converse with the people who listen to and buy your music is what denotes ultimate "material" success, although the actual process of making the music is a success in itself in my opinion and means more but sadly some bands forget that and get lost in the commercialism and the business side of it all...

[Eastwinn]

Anything that sounds good. We can try all day to describe what we like about music but for the most part we will fail. I could say that I like originality, but I can already think of some bands that aren't so original that I like. I could say catchy, but a lot of the stuff I listen to is by no means catchy. You're basically asking "What makes good music?" and that's a silly question. "What makes a good composition?" is a better question, but I have a feeling that you weren't going for that.

[SickOfStars]

My dad constitutes a good band


sometimes eyeball lollipop ducks

[briewer]

My dad constitutes a good band


sometimes eyeball lollipop ducks

::interrobang::

[SickOfStars]

::interrobang::

find the scissors and you'll be able to grasp the golden shoedam

[Derka Derka]

One thing: SOUL.
If they don't mean it, it is transparently obvious, and no matter how musically inclined they may be, they fucking suck.

this
i completely agree

[Animalhill]

this
i completely agree
*high five* its so true.

[briewer]

I prefer to think of bands from album to album being 'good' or 'bad' and not as a whole. That way, when a band puts out a shitty album or sells out or whatever (read: Weezer), I don't feel obliged to drop them all together, I just keep listening to their old stuff. So what constitutes a good album? I'd say it has something to do with it feeling natural, like the album is what the band was destined to do. I also think it has to do with the album feeling inspired, like they want to make it or feel like they have to make it. I can't stand bands that sound like they don't want to be doing what they're doing.

[briewer]

find the scissors and you'll be able to grasp the golden shoedam
No more combining acid and AP.

[whataclush]

Tool

[chipdip18]

I think a band is a better band when they treat music like an art rather than a tool for success, popularity, money, etc. When a band makes music expressive of what they want to write for themselves. That's why a band like Fall Out Boy is a better band in my opinion then perhaps Cute Is What We Aim For, since they have different ethics behind the music. That's just one portion though, i would say that you need to have clear and organized musicianship, a knowledge of when enough is enough (twenty minute guitar solos...) or in other words a good balance of instrumentation, mixing, etc. A good band should try to push boundaries and be innovative, but remain true to what they can write well. That means that All Time Low shouldn't try to write an Abbey Road, since an album of that magnitude is not in their capabilities.

Just a few thoughts.

[RickFav]

There are hundreds of little things that make a good band but latley something ive noticed all of them have in common is lyrics that you can eather relate to or they have something or someone in the band you can get obsessed with.

[Birdflu777]

*high five* its so true.
Absolutely. If a band really means what they're saying it's apparent otherwise it's fake as hell.

[imahoodlum]

I think a band is a better band when they treat music like an art rather than a tool for success, popularity, money, etc. When a band makes music expressive of what they want to write for themselves. That's why a band like Fall Out Boy is a better band in my opinion then perhaps Cute Is What We Aim For, since they have different ethics behind the music. That's just one portion though, i would say that you need to have clear and organized musicianship, a knowledge of when enough is enough (twenty minute guitar solos...) or in other words a good balance of instrumentation, mixing, etc. A good band should try to push boundaries and be innovative, but remain true to what they can write well. That means that All Time Low shouldn't try to write an Abbey Road, since an album of that magnitude is not in their capabilities.

Just a few thoughts.
I think the last thing you said is something I definitely agree with. A band should go to the very edge of a cliff, without going over the edge. An ability to express creativity and innovation, I personally, find very appealing. But at the same time, I don't care for someone who tries to be too outlandish about their creativity or innovations.

[chipdip18]

I think the last thing you said is something I definitely agree with. A band should go to the very edge of a cliff, without going over the edge. An ability to express creativity and innovation, I personally, find very appealing. But at the same time, I don't care for someone who tries to be too outlandish about their creativity or innovations.

I totally agree. I mean Radiohead had the ability to make OK Computer and Kid A, we see flops when artists go beyond their boundaries. (Looking at you Panic at the Disco).

[oddwithoutend]

I think the last thing you said is something I definitely agree with. A band should go to the very edge of a cliff, without going over the edge. An ability to express creativity and innovation, I personally, find very appealing. But at the same time, I don't care for someone who tries to be too outlandish about their creativity or innovations.

I would argue that inspiration inherently takes you to the "edge of the cliff" you're describing, and that a conscious decision to be innovative is unneccessary.

[oddwithoutend]

Originality

This can't be true.

[_><_]

This can't be true.


Originality sure isn't the only thing that makes a band 'good' , but in many cases it is. Though, shitty 'bands' like brokencyde claim to be original too...

[danielineffigy]

Consistent, enjoyable music with integrity.

[Derka Derka]

I think a band is a better band when they treat music like an art rather than a tool for success, popularity, money, etc. When a band makes music expressive of what they want to write for themselves. That's why a band like Fall Out Boy is a better band in my opinion then perhaps Cute Is What We Aim For, since they have different ethics behind the music. That's just one portion though, i would say that you need to have clear and organized musicianship, a knowledge of when enough is enough (twenty minute guitar solos...) or in other words a good balance of instrumentation, mixing, etc. A good band should try to push boundaries and be innovative, but remain true to what they can write well. That means that All Time Low shouldn't try to write an Abbey Road, since an album of that magnitude is not in their capabilities.

Just a few thoughts.

nice

[oddwithoutend]

Originality sure isn't the only thing that makes a band 'good' , but in many cases it is. Though, shitty 'bands' like brokencyde claim to be original too...

Name a band that is good because they are original. I think this is a lazy/uneducated line of thinking.

[Derka Derka]

Name a band that is good because they are original. I think this is a lazy/uneducated line of thinking.

between the buried and me

and mewithoutYou

[_><_]

Name a band that is good because they are original. I think this is a lazy/uneducated line of thinking.

There are loads of bands that are praised because of their originality.

[chipdip18]

There are loads of bands that are praised because of their originality.

You can be praised for being original and not be good.

[_><_]

You can be praised for being original and not be good.



Sure, but most bands praised for being original are also praised for being ' good ' .


With my first post i was just stating, that originality is definitely one of the reasons that migh make a band ' good ' , not that originality is the only reason behind being ' good ' .

[chipdip18]

Sure, but most bands praised for being original are also praised for being ' good ' .


With my first post i was just stating, that originality is definitely one of the reasons that migh make a band ' good ' , not that originality is the only reason behind being ' good ' .

Then we're on the same page.

[White Noise]

a keyboard* player.

Synth*

[nlo13]

Name a band that is good because they are original. I think this is a lazy/uneducated line of thinking.

Agreed.

[oddwithoutend]

There are loads of bands that are praised because of their originality.

And I would reason that the people doing the praising are under the same misconception that you are.

[oddwithoutend]

With my first post i was just stating, that originality is definitely one of the reasons that migh make a band ' good ' , not that originality is the only reason behind being ' good ' .

I do still disagree. First of all, originality is such an ambiguous parameter, which is a pretty good reason to avoid using it as one. What makes something original? If by original you mean that it didn't involve copying a different piece of art word for word, note for note etc. then of course originality is required for good art. If by original you mean that the approach to the piece is new (which I assumed you meant), then I disagree. So much, if not all good modern art is achieved through familiar approaches. However, I would argue that this is a highly subjective opinion in that everyone has a different definition of "approach", and therefore categorize and limit approaches in different ways. Originality's characteristic ambiguity is grounds for seeking alternative parameters of good art, in my opinion.

[imahoodlum]

I would argue that inspiration inherently takes you to the "edge of the cliff" you're describing, and that a conscious decision to be innovative is unneccessary.
Meh, I think a lot of bands or musicians feel like they're being inspirational. I mean, would a band put out an album if they thought they weren't? So, to one person, inspiration can be fueled by different motives, therefore lacking in innovation.
I can't tell if I'm spewing random bullshit at this point, am I?

[emilywriteslove]

"good" is a relative term ... but to /me/ it would be a band that makes music that makes me feel something. a song with lasting power. not just something i'm going to forget.

[oddwithoutend]

Meh, I think a lot of bands or musicians feel like they're being inspirational. I mean, would a band put out an album if they thought they weren't? So, to one person, inspiration can be fueled by different motives, therefore lacking in innovation.
I can't tell if I'm spewing random bullshit at this point, am I?

I know what you're getting at, and I guess when I say inspiration I am referring to inspiration to make good art for the sake of the art itself. In other words, I was not referring to being inspired by money, fame, etc.

[imahoodlum]

I know what you're getting at, and I guess when I say inspiration I am referring to inspiration to make good art for the sake of the art itself. In other words, I was not referring to being inspired by money, fame, etc.
And even to the extent of having good motives of inspiration, I still don't think that defines what good music is. There's a lot of bands out there with good motives and they don't reach the potential they should. :shrug:

[oddwithoutend]

And even to the extent of having good motives of inspiration, I still don't think that defines what good music is. There's a lot of bands out there with good motives and they don't reach the potential they should. :shrug:

haha And I don't disagree with this at all. If you see my original post on the first page, I listed three parameters to constitute a good band: inspiration, synchronicity, and profundity.

[imahoodlum]

haha And I don't disagree with this at all. If you see my original post on the first page, I listed three parameters to constitute a good band: inspiration, synchronicity, and profundity.
Yeah, we're more on the same page with those kind of answers.

When you really think about it, music is a really subjective thing though. Everyone has their two cents. However, at the same time, I would really hope people would be able to recognize a good tune when they hear it. And now I'm confusing myself with all this abstract thinking...X-)

[Raarzipan]

A band that actually plays instruments, writes their own material not just playing something someone else wrote for them (co-writing is allowed). Needs a singer who can show emotion in their voice and sing different styles for me. I hate bands where every song sounds the same.

[Richard Maxim]

Probably the most important is musicianship, Honing your instrument is the most important thing when it comes to writing a song.

[jay_klinkhammer]

A lot of it would have to do with your personality as well.

Like, I mean, personally, I'd rather listen to a fun record like any NFG album than any Death Cab even though Death Cab may be considering "more original" than any NFG album.

[nlo13]

Probably the most important is musicianship, Honing your instrument is the most important thing when it comes to writing a song.

This.

[thesafeword]

A great layout for their MySpace page.

[Jake Denning]

In all honesty, different things make different bands good. Some have great lyrics, some have great melodies, some elicit certain emotions, etc. etc. It all depends on the band in question.

I agree with this.

[Emily In Color]

Well, what I consider a good band is one where the members can connect/relate to fans, have dedication for their music(which is good quality stuff), know how to promote themselves, put on a great show, and having the ability to diversify their music to a point.
However what is "considered" a good band is all opinion; so here is mine.

[A_True_Poet]

i think good bands are ones that have powerful lyrics and crazy guitar solos. kind of like dragonforce.

[CalRahhh]

i think good bands are ones that have powerful lyrics and crazy guitar solos. kind of like dragonforce.

lol

[nlo13]

i think good bands are ones that have powerful lyrics and crazy guitar solos. kind of like dragonforce.

lolz.

[A_True_Poet]

do you guys listen to them?

[iamtheprincess]

A combination of good sound, artistic performances, and just good old fashioned makes you feel good

[asTallasCliffs]

The ability to put on a good performance (and by this I mean that they should be able to sing in key and play their instruments as well as, in their recorded work.)

[kearn1tm]

A good band should try to push boundaries and be innovative, but remain true to what they can write well. That means that All Time Low shouldn't try to write an Abbey Road, since an album of that magnitude is not in their capabilities.

Just a few thoughts.

If you really think this, you would never have Abbey Road. The Beatles weren't capable of "an album of that magnitude" when they initially started recording. They were a one-dimensional Britpop band. It's only by transcending what's comfortable and self-imposed formulaic structures that a band can begin to evolve and reach their capabilities. It's quite possible a band like All Time Low could make a profound and meaningful album. It's possible any scene band could.

[Cari]

A "good band" consists of whatever appeals to the listener/fan. It's not something tangible or achievable, it's just something the fans themselves prefer and find appealing.

[chipdip18]

If you really think this, you would never have Abbey Road. The Beatles weren't capable of "an album of that magnitude" when they initially started recording. They were a one-dimensional Britpop band. It's only by transcending what's comfortable and self-imposed formulaic structures that a band can begin to evolve and reach their capabilities. It's quite possible a band like All Time Low could make a profound and meaningful album. It's possible any scene band could.


I think a major difference here between The Beatles and All Time Low is their career lengths and history as evolving musically from album to album. While The Beatles didn't initially make any huge impact, later down the line of their discography they grew and eventually became within the grasp of writing an Abbey Road, and did. All Time Low of the other hand has four recognized releases that don't show any progression yet like The Beatles.

So i guess my example was poor. But i would argue that The Beatles did push their limits in making Abbey Road, but not as if they had just jumped from scratch to masterpiece, which is what i was trying to imply.

[doppelganger]

the answer is in tight jeans and v necks.

[michelle182]

If you really think this, you would never have Abbey Road. The Beatles weren't capable of "an album of that magnitude" when they initially started recording. They were a one-dimensional Britpop band. It's only by transcending what's comfortable and self-imposed formulaic structures that a band can begin to evolve and reach their capabilities. It's quite possible a band like All Time Low could make a profound and meaningful album. It's possible any scene band could.
It's possible but it wouldn't be an Abbey Road because there is no way ATL could capture all the fans that are now doubtful of them with one album. The Beatles didn't totally fail before Abbey Road. They didn't have a ton of haters. I'm pretty sure they were liked for the most part.
I do see your point though.

[michelle182]

Also, to answer the initial question, I think passion is what makes good music.

[kearn1tm]

It's possible but it wouldn't be an Abbey Road because there is no way ATL could capture all the fans that are now doubtful of them with one album. The Beatles didn't totally fail before Abbey Road. They didn't have a ton of haters. I'm pretty sure they were liked for the most part.
I do see your point though.

Liked by who? You're completely missing the point and making absurd accusations without substantial evidence.

Ultimately, the Beatles made substanceless pop music prior to becoming one of the most luminary and respectable bands in popular music. Any band we know of now could potentially make a fantastic and lauded album. Bands grow and progress and evolve. The Beatles did it. All Time Low could conceivably do it. That band that plays at the shitty all-ages club down the street who just released an awful EP could do it.

Also, since when does "fan appreciation" or attention make an album good? By my estimation, the best album of this year so far was a release by Bill Callahan. Who beyond music-enthusiasts and press know this LP exists? In addition, if they become an entirely new band capable of penning and composing an "Abbey Road," I imagine they'd gain an entirely new fanbase to support them.

[kearn1tm]

I think a major difference here between The Beatles and All Time Low is their career lengths and history as evolving musically from album to album. While The Beatles didn't initially make any huge impact, later down the line of their discography they grew and eventually became within the grasp of writing an Abbey Road, and did. All Time Low of the other hand has four recognized releases that don't show any progression yet like The Beatles.

So i guess my example was poor. But i would argue that The Beatles did push their limits in making Abbey Road, but not as if they had just jumped from scratch to masterpiece, which is what i was trying to imply.

How long have they been a band? Conversely, when did The Beatles have a noticeable change or organic sign of growth? Moreover, how does that apply in the slightest? It matters not if we've seen any semblance of sonic evolution in their records to this date. It could happen at any time on any record. That's the point.

[chipdip18]

How long have they been a band? Conversely, when did The Beatles have a noticeable change or organic sign of growth? Moreover, how does that apply in the slightest? It matters not if we've seen any semblance of sonic evolution in their records to this date. It could happen at any time on any record. That's the point.

The difference that i see here is that yeah, The Beatles did have a much longer career and have more time to make that change. I think people generally say that from Help! on the Beatles started making am impact, which was after a good chunk of their discography had already passed. What i'm trying to say is that since All Time Low hasn't had a lot of their career pass, they probably aren't at a stage like the Beatles were to make an enormous break through album. Yeah, i realize that there is always a chance and All Time Low's next album could be incredible, but i'm too pessimistic for that chance to occur. I mean All Time Low in four albums are pretty comfortable in the pop-punk sound and i don't see them leaving that any time soon.

[AndrewIcex]

Bright colored merch.

[Colorblind!]

Mosh parts.
Shutter shades.

[kearn1tm]

The difference that i see here is that yeah, The Beatles did have a much longer career and have more time to make that change. I think people generally say that from Help! on the Beatles started making am impact, which was after a good chunk of their discography had already passed. What i'm trying to say is that since All Time Low hasn't had a lot of their career pass, they probably aren't at a stage like the Beatles were to make an enormous break through album. Yeah, i realize that there is always a chance and All Time Low's next album could be incredible, but i'm too pessimistic for that chance to occur. I mean All Time Low in four albums are pretty comfortable in the pop-punk sound and i don't see them leaving that any time soon.

I'm not advocating the idea that anyone should believe they're going to. I don't imagine All Time Low is going to make a Sgt. Pepper for the '00s, merely that no one should claim they're completely incapable or that it isn't feasible. In 1963, no one would have imagined the Beatles would make an album like Revolver.

[TreyForest]

lol why is all time low in this thread, not to mention in the same sentence as the beatles
fucking generic powerpop

[thefaceless]

to me, a good band is one that changes their style gradually without leaving behind their roots completely. i can't handle the same album 6 times, but i also hate when someone completely changes the genre of their music without rhyme or reason.

[Jumpoff]

Me liking them. Obviously.

Probably the most important is musicianship, Honing your instrument is the most important thing when it comes to writing a song.

I completely disagree. Being skilled with your instrument isn't remotely important in my opinion.. I mean, pretty stereotypical example, but, Yngwie Maimsteem is an amazing guitarist who couldn't write a song that interested me if he tried his hardest.

[Divinehand]

Just for the record, being original as the sole positive aspect of a band does not make them good. Being good is not that one-dimensional.
If all it took was originality for a band to be "good", than a band comprised of 500 pound sumo wrestlers recording the fart noises expelled from their defecations and later symphonizing them digitally would be great. It's original, isn't it? But definitely not good. There you go.

[kearn1tm]

lol why is all time low in this thread, not to mention in the same sentence as the beatles
fucking generic powerpop

Do you actually read these posts or just "All Time Low [words] Beatles?"

I have a red ball. If I throw it, go chase it. Aaaaand...go!

[Richard Maxim]

Me liking them. Obviously.



I completely disagree. Being skilled with your instrument isn't remotely important in my opinion.. I mean, pretty stereotypical example, but, Yngwie Maimsteem is an amazing guitarist who couldn't write a song that interested me if he tried his hardest.

Well to each his own but for the most part, When ever i listen to a song, The technical aspect is what fascinates me.

[chipdip18]

I'm not advocating the idea that anyone should believe they're going to. I don't imagine All Time Low is going to make a Sgt. Pepper for the '00s, merely that no one should claim they're completely incapable or that it isn't feasible. In 1963, no one would have imagined the Beatles would make an album like Revolver.

Alright then i think we're on the same page. But it's interesting discussion to have. And you're definitely right about the Beatles in 1963. Who knows whatever where going to do with later albums.

[nlo13]

Me liking them. Obviously.



I completely disagree. Being skilled with your instrument isn't remotely important in my opinion.. I mean, pretty stereotypical example, but, Yngwie Maimsteem is an amazing guitarist who couldn't write a song that interested me if he tried his hardest.

So talent means nothing? :eyebrow:

[Jumpoff]

So talent means nothing? :eyebrow:

I just mean that being purely good technically means absolutely nothing... I would much rather listen to a simply Dylan song than something that is technical just to be technical. We're jsut going to disagree though, as you are a fall of troy fan and they are exactly the type of band that I believe rates technicality over writing a good song..

EDIT: That sounded meaner than I meant it to. Wasn't meant to be an insult :shrug:

[nlo13]

I just mean that being purely good technically means absolutely nothing... I would much rather listen to a simply Dylan song than something that is technical just to be technical. We're jsut going to disagree though, as you are a fall of troy fan and they are exactly the type of band that I believe rates technicality over writing a good song..

well our views of a "good song" differ then. but i'm not gonna change your mind mind, nor you mine, so yeah we'll just disagree. that's why i like this question; it inspires a lot of different responses and none are "right", though some are more valid than others.

[Richard Maxim]

well our views of a "good song" differ then. but i'm not gonna change your mind mind, nor you mine, so yeah we'll just disagree. that's why i like this question; it inspires a lot of different responses and none are "right", though some are more valid than others.


Just ftr, Even though you agree with my opinion. I don't like fall of troy either.:-(

[nlo13]

Just ftr, Even though you agree with my opinion. I don't like fall of troy either.:-(

Cool.

[AndrewIcex]

Just ftr, Even though you agree with my opinion. I don't like fall of troy either.:-(
I enjoy them.

[Richard Maxim]

I enjoy them.

That makes 2 of you on the site. :-)

[Thesleepingwell]

Meh it's pretty simple... Good riffage!
But it has to be heavy and powerful vocals with lyrics that are intresting.
Not screaming or growling words that can't be understood.

[whatblairsaid]

Great melodies, meaningful lyrics, can preform great LIVE, and good personalities.
I think it's such a turn off when bands can not preform their own songs well or are total jerks.

[Lifesnatcher]

you're only a good band if you're on Rise.
;]

[Divinehand]

you're only a good band if you're on Rise.
;]

Sarcasm...right?

[Lifesnatcher]

Sarcasm...right?


most definitely.
heavy sarcasm.
[=

[nlo13]

That makes 2 of you on the site. :-)

Yeah, and it should be more. They have way more talent than a lot of bands discussed on this site.

[$eth]

I really don't think that there is a "good band." Therefore, I don't feel that there are any "bad bands." Music is about personal taste, not about if a band is "good." Do you know anybody with the exact same music library as you? See what I'm getting at. A lot of people hate BrokeNCYDE (myself included), but there are people out there who like them and find them to be "good." So, I really think that being a "good" band is the ability to have at least one person out there who wants to listen to your music.

[BryterJonah]

You just gotta, gotta

[reesa]

I really don't think that there is a "good band." Therefore, I don't feel that there are any "bad bands." Music is about personal taste, not about if a band is "good." Do you know anybody with the exact same music library as you? See what I'm getting at. A lot of people hate BrokeNCYDE (myself included), but there are people out there who like them and find them to be "good." So, I really think that being a "good" band is the ability to have at least one person out there who wants to listen to your music.
amen. i never actually thought of music that way.

but seriously brokencyde is a bad band. it's all about pig squealing haha

[BryterJonah]

U jes goottaafollooww yer dreems an s' all good!!! sum1 out dare <3s yer shitty band, dont wry!11@>!


GUMDROPS & BUTTERFLIES
:pengy::panbunny::pengy:

[hollyy.heart.at]

i tried to answer this question and ended up rewriting it about 25 times.
so here is the most basic answer i could come up with:

the music.
the fans.
work ethic.

[Rey1789]

for me the most important thing about an artist is their lyrics. if it's just a load of bullshit thrown together like modern pop is, then it's pure crap as lyrics actually have to mean something. also immportant is the whether or not the band are a bunch of assholes, because it's very hard to spend your money on and listen to somebody you think is a Prick. Also then the most obvious thing is whether or not the music is really any good