Do you ever wonder?

There's a difference between not liking particular artists or certain types of music vs. what I think the original point of this thread which is namely; artists who have achieved success even though they SUCK!;) While I don't care much for Wynton Marsalis I don't think it can be denied that he's a skilled & well-trained musician. The same can be said for Manhatten Transfer. Where as someone like Kid Rock, not so much.

The Steve Miller Band-Take the money and run, how ironic.
Sade-The Kenny G of vocals.
Garth Brooks-A 100+ million Americans are not smarter then a 5th grader.
Nirvana-All that negativity can be fatal.
Eminem-The James Dean of hip-hop.
Nickleback-The real Spinal Tap.

U2
REM
Grateful Dead (ok, I guess it's about the drugs)
Dave Matthews Band
Sting
Coldplay
Radiohead
The Who

Those bands have a cult like following for reasons unbeknownst to me. I'm not saying they're a bunch of "no-talent ass-clowns" (to quote a character named Michael Bolton in Office Space referring to the singer of the same name), but I just can't get why they're as popular as they are for as long as they've been.

As far as Bono... A good friend of mine worked for MTV. He's met and interacted with a ton of famous musicians and other celebrities. He said Bono was easily the most pretentious douche bag he's ever met. Second place (David Lee Roth) wasn't even remotely close.

This thread shows that there is truly no accounting for taste.

Depends on what you like.