bjaiken

Against Me! - Thrash Unreal

Whatever.

Thank you. Are you trying to give me a compliment as a consolation prize? Because I am still not considering you a clear cut winner. I am just saying you have plenty of ammunition to back your claim. I know, I know...still a fist pump....haha.

haha...fair enough.

haha. I didn't say all lists. i could produce at least 3 lists from credible publications in a matter of seconds ranking Achtung Baby ahead of Joshua Tree. But I am finding Joshua Tree ranked higher at least as frequently, if not more so.

I've been looking. Maybe you're right. I mean, both albums are on almost all "best of all time" lists, but they flip flop often. But, as I look, I do see Joshua Tree ahead of Achtung Baby on several lists.

Joshua Tree sold more copies (I believe), but I usually see Achtung Baby ranked higher. Of course, that's not always the case. Both are amazing albums, IMO. Now I'm going to have to go and look through other lists to see which album is consistently ranked higher. You've sparked a curiosity.

I prefer Joshua Tree, too (only slightly). But I've come to accept that Achtung Baby is a more highly regarded album more times than not. I compare it to the Nirvana's "Nevermind" to Pearl Jam's "Ten" debate. I much prefer "Ten" and think it is a far better album. However, I've come to accept that most critics and music fans think Nevermind is the better album. Therefore, I am never shocked or surprised when I see Nevermind in a higher position.

How can anyone be surprised that Achtung Baby is #1? It was both a critical and commercial success by the biggest band over the last 25 years. Like "Nevermind" and "Ok Computer," it's toward the top of almost any credible list discussing the best albums of the 90's. This shouldn't come as a surprise.

^ I agree with Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers. Pearl Jam's Ten, Vs., and Vitalogy were brilliant albums in the 90s, and RHCP's back to back albums, Californication and By The Way, were fantastic (and you could throw BSSM in the mix, too). For most albums, I think you need to allow 5-10 years of reflection in order to see how it stands up against the test of time. When you think about great albums, you think about their timelessness and influence on the future musical landscape, and both are almost impossible to access when a band has released only one or two albums. As a side note, I think it's easier evaluate the quality of new albums by established acts because you can compare the new album to a band's entire catalogue in order to see how it stacks up.

^ I agree, it is not a raw sounding production. I'll have to think about this one. I just never think of "Radiohead" and "poppy" in the same sentence. That's not a good or bad thing, as I have absolutely no problem with good "pop" music.

Abbey Road - The Beatles

At this point, there is only one that has been released, and I've not listened to it. R.E.M.

Rain - The Beatles

Two Days in February - Goo Goo Dolls

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John

Elvis Costello

Revolution - The Beatles

One Tree Hill - U2

23 Jimmy Eat World

Queens (it's always Queen or QOTSA, right?)

10 Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight - The Beatles

Green Day The Sex Pistols vs. The Clash

First Impressions of Earth - The Strokes

Yeah, I know you could buy it as: 1. Regular CD 2. In a book 3. In a box set 4. On vinyl I know there are more formats; those are just one's that I've seen and remember. I bought the vinyl and box set (I bought it cheap when Virgin Megastore was going out of business). By the way, the box set is a waste of money.