That's also a "classical" rock band - vocals, guitar, bass, drums (e.g. Beatles any many others)
Interestingly, I like the 5-piece versions of all 3 of these: add a keyboardist to the rock band, a piano or harpsichord to the classical string or woodwind quartet, a female vocalist to the acapella group. Having two leads lets you do much more intricate countermelodies and harmonies.
A "classical" rock band consists of 4 utterly different instruments from a tonal perspective, and is thus nothing like 4 humans talking. Same thing for jazz - and its why you can have multiple instruments performing simultaneously and in ways that are not obviously connected to each other.
I have not seen a good band with more than 4 people on stage simultaneously.
Any vaguely disco-adjacent band will have more than 4 people on stage because there will be at least keyboards and horns in addition to drums, bass, guitar and vocals. Even a band that simply adds an additional person player percussion to a typical 4 piece exceeds your limit yet can wonderfully enhance the music.
If you haven't seen any of those bands, then that's your loss, but provides no reason to try to generalize about the right size for a live band.
You pick really popular names but in most regular bands when there is more people there is worse link between them...
Glenn Branca Orchestra.
> I have not met a religious programmer
> Donald Knuth
There are good bands like that but not most.
I've seen bigger bands but they suck in comparison.
However your link looks about jazz.
A common rock band is rarely good with more than 4 members because people lose unity and it's just technically harder and people are rarely professionally trained.