Saying a band "sucks" is the most cliche, meaningless thing we can say. What is "Sucks" other than a broadly arbitray expression of personal taste? Do we have anything we can weigh it against? (and for the sake of discolusre, I don't like or hate them. I like some songs, but was never a big fan).

I look at things like, are their songs original or just carbon copy of other things? Are they relatively good musicians? Do they connect with their audience? Those are all things that, while subjective, are less subjective than "Do I personally like them".

I think, objectively, we can say their songs were fairly original. They used pretty complex musical structures compared to the 4 piece power chord basic band. It doesn't make it better or worse, but they had pretty dense musical structure, unusual rhythm and instrument choices, etc. Musically, if not also lyrically, they were fairly unique to other music being played at the time..elements of roots rock, jazz influences, folk, etc.. I think you also have to concede that this denser, more complex musical structure also showed a fairly decent level of musicality....they could play and play well, even if you don't like what they played. For example, I'm not a Dream Theater fan, but I'm not going to even start to make an argument that there isn't talented musicianship there...it's just not my thing. And I think it's hard to argue that they didn't connect with their audience, given the pretty long standing and devout fan base.

So if we're saying the suck just because what they played wasn't to our taste, or they were overplayed in the era where that was the standard thing (which they were) then we're saying our personal preference is somehow a universal measure, which is just silly. There are plenty of bands out there that I don't like that are great musicians doing very original and appreciated. I just don't like their product. I wouldn't say they suck, I'd say "I don't like/understand their music".