I have a lot in common with a bunch of you, but it's interesting to me that just about everyone named a band I like a lot as one of "the worst." Just goes to show how truly subjective art appreciation is.

For example, f4b's list had me nodding quite a bit, but somehow, Tom Petty makes his list, and I think Tom Petty has been really good for a really long time (though I didn't much care for his music as a youngster). RobertF's list was more or less right on for me, except for Elvis Costello and REM. Elvis Costello and the Attractions are one act I'm very sorry I wasn't able to witness live in the 70s. Costello was a solid guitarist, vocalist, and lyricist, and brothers Bruce and Pete Thomas were one of the strongest rhythm sections around, for my money. There's a live album, which may have only been available with the box set that came out in the 90s, that was recorded somewhere in Canada in 1978, that is anything but boring (my opinion, of course). Of course, I also like the albums from that time period, so.... REM, who were never my favorite, I believe made a lot of melodic, creative, original music, which is more than I can say for what I would consider a bad band. That said, I agree that Michael Stipe is a whiner... which brings me to a point:

I think frontmen (or frontwomwen) are the most polarizing factor in whether or not a lot of us like a band. There was a time in my life when I lamented how much credit and attention singers got versus the "real" musicians (I'm a drummer, so I have a bit of a street cred complex). I've since developed a better appreciation for what singers do, but looking back, I think singers, being the personality most openly expressed in the band, have done the most to mold my initial opinion of a given band. At least in the case of popular music, if a singer rubs you wrong, regardless of the reason, you're probably not going to be too fond of the band, since it's almost impossible to filter vocals out of recorded music.