(11-19-2003) Five U2 Albums on RS 500 -- Rolling Stone *

[dsmith2904]

Five U2 Albums on RS 500

Rolling Stone magazine has released its list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, including five U2 albums in the ranking. The highest placing U2 album is 1987's "The Joshua Tree," coming in at No. 26.

Of the album, Rolling Stone writes, "'America's the promised land to a lot of Irish people,' U2 singer Bono told Rolling Stone. 'I'm one in a long line of Irishmen who made the trip.' On U2's fifth full album, the band immerses itself in the mythology of the United States, particularly the wide-open spaces and possibilities of the Western frontier, while guitarist the Edge exploits the poetic echo of digital delay, drowning his trademark arpeggios in rippling tremolo. While many of these songs are about spiritual quests -- 'Where the Streets Have No Name,' 'I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For' -- U2 fortify the solemnity with the outright joys of rock & roll, although one of the most moving songs is 'Running to Stand Still,' a stripped-down slide-guitar ballad about heroin addiction."

Other U2 albums on the list are "Achtung Baby" (No. 62), "All That You Can't Leave Behind" (No. 139), "War" (No. 221) and "Boy" (No. 417).

For more on the list, check out the collector's issue of Rolling Stone or visit www.rollingstone.com.

 

[STING2]

When Rolling Stone had its top 100 of all time last year or the year before, 6 U2 albums made the list.

 

[bono_man2002]

what was #1?

 

[Leeloo]

Sgt. Pepper

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i think their 100 album list last year was done by fans... this is done be "experts" whatever that means... every time there's a list they claim to have interviewed "hundreds of musical experts," and every time the list is drasticly different from the other ones, so they're obviously using different experts. how many different friggin "experts" could there possiably be?

 

[MBH]

When Rolling Stone had its top 100 of all time last year or the year before, 6 U2 albums made the list.

THESE LISTS ARE RIDICULOUS! THERE IS A NEW LIST EVERY FEW WEEKS! IT IS A MATTER OF TOO MANY PUBLICATIONS AND NOT ENOUGH TO WRITE ABOUT....

YES, THEY DID. THAT IS THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT WHEN I SAW THIS. DESPITE THE FACT THAT I RECEIVE RS AND ENJOY IT AT TIMES, THEY HAVE BECOME REDUNDANT AND PRINT MORE PROPAGANDA THEN EVER.

UNFORTUNATELY,THE QUALITY OF RS CONTINUE TO BE IN DECLINE

 

[forbonou2]

Tho I think it's gr-8 that Joshua Tree made it-cuz it's My Fave, I find it strange out of all the Beatles albums-Sgt. Pep it #1! Ah, no I don't agree at all!! And why care about "Lists' when it comes to *U2* music anyway-we know what WE like!

 

[DaveC]

Dark Side of the Moon is #43?!?

Horse Feces.

"Total album sales: 6.3 million" Yeah, times like...12. Idiots.

The Wall #87?!?!?!?
OK Computer #162??
Wish You Were Here # 209?!?!?!?!?!?!?
And how does Piper at the Gates of Dawn Come ahead of Animals at #347?!? WTF?
Kid A (#428) beats The Bends?

These albums almost single-handedly gave birth to and revived Prog-Rock. Music would not be the same without them. Boo-urns to the "experts" that thought up this shit.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Tho I think it's gr-8 that Joshua Tree made it-cuz it's My Fave, I find it strange out of all the Beatles albums-Sgt. Pep it #1! Ah, no I don't agree at all!!

I do. Sgt. Pepper was a very important album to the band.

Anywho...that's cool about U2 having 5 albums in the list.

Angela

 

[Klink]

I wouldn't want to dispute the Beatles coming in at number one. I know I like U2 better than the Beatles, but that doesn't mean very much.

What I would like to see are concrete criteria for evaluationg the significance of albums. I think the only respectable criterion is judging based on total album sales. Does anybody know how they came to these conclusions?


I object to Jimmy Hendrix occupying such a lofty position. I really don't mind him, but in my opinion, he's over-rated and I cannot fathom for two seconds how War, Joshua Tree or Achtung are of lesser quality. Other obvious favourites in this chart are more deserving, but again, in my opinion, over represented. Those include Bob Dylan and The Beatles.

Other:

I'm 150% behind Dave.

1)There's no way in hell 'Kid A' is better than 'The Bends'
2)Ok! Prince beats The Who? OK!!
3) Bon Jovi doesn't make the top 100?!! 'Slippery When Wet' easily beats a multitude of albums on there, including GN'R (Appetite for Dest.) and Dr. Dre (LOL!!!)
4)Rod Stewart's 'Every Picture Tells a Story' is arguably one of the best albums of the '70s. No way on earth it only finishes at 172. That's insulting, especially if you consider some of the bands in front of him, not to mention those that have 5-6 albums ahead of him. That gets a zero from me.

.

 

[Johnovox]

I don't think this list was made by the readers or the RS critics but a so-called panel of experts (including Beck and Missy Elliot) that did not seem too U2 friendly.

Joshua Tree usually ranks in the top 10 on "all time rock album lists." Within the last couple of years, it was voted as number one album of all time on a similar list in the UK ( I think it was a BBC survey). It was #4 on Zagat's survey (Achtung Baby was #10) which was not rock-specific.

 

[MBH]

I wouldn't want to dispute the Beatles coming in at number one. I know I like U2 better than the Beatles, but that doesn't mean very much.

What I would like to see are concrete criteria for evaluationg the significance of albums. I think the only respectable criterion is judging based on total album sales. Does anybody know how they came to these conclusions?


I object to Jimmy Hendrix occupying such a lofty position. I really don't mind him, but in my opinion, he's over-rated and I cannot fathom for two seconds how War, Joshua Tree or Achtung are of lesser quality. Other obvious favourites in this chart are more deserving, but again, in my opinion, over represented. Those include Bob Dylan and The Beatles.

Other:

I'm 150% behind Dave.

3) Bon Jovi doesn't make the top 100?!! 'Slippery When Wet' easily beats a multitude of albums on there, including GN'R (Appetite for Dest.) and Dr. Dre (LOL!!!)








I don't post that much anymore b/c it often leads to a pointless argument. Music is opinionated and in the end, if a person enjoys a certain song/band, then that is what is good for them.

However, I find your comment stating that "Slippery When Wet" by Bon Jovi should've 'beaten' G-n-R's "Appetite...." appalling.

To my amazement, Bon Jovi has enjoyed 20+ years of enormous success and "Slippery..." is clearly perceived as their "best/most popular" work. With that said, this album and most of their work in general, does not add up to much more than over-produced, redundant, uncreative, boring, common pop-rock party music. They were the best of a bad lot of hair bands that capitalized on a downtrodden time for creative music.

Guns-N-Roses on the other hand gave us a small glimpse of what could have been and inspired many to reflect on the heyday of great rock/hard rock music of the late 60's and early 70's. "Appetite..." is widely considered the best hard rock album ever and they continued to show their brillance with later albums such as the Illusions. From a lyrical, guitar-playing, rock-cohesion standpoint, "Appetite..." is cleary a superior album.

As far as the bands are concerned, well, don't even get me started. G-N-R managed to remain arguably the biggest band around AFTER grunge took over and if not for the drug-enduced, ego-crazed attituded of most of the band members, may still be a top band today.

Although stilll very popular, Bon Jovi has reduced themselves to re-making previous hits, shilling for the NFL several times over (for U2, the NFL was a one-off thing, which is different), begging for album sales and releasing albums that sound outdated with the hopes of capturing a teenaged girl's heart on the local hits station.....

 

[STING2]

Remember that there are millions of albums out there, so to simply make the list of the top 500, weather its #472 or #62 is impressive.

I notice that almost all the Police Albums made the list except for Zenyatta Mondatta. Unfortunately, none of STING's albums made the list, but hey every list has its mistakes.

 

[STING2]

I must say I'm not really a fan of either GNR or Bon Jovi, but I will say that Bon Jovi has remained very popular in Europe for the past 16 years. Each of their albums sale an average of 7 to 8 million albums worldwide and they are able to sellout stadiums in most area's of the world except the USA. ( the exception being a few big cities in the North East of the USA).

GNR was a very big act, but on a worldwide scale they were not as big as U2 was in the late 80s and early 90s. They were bigger than Bon Jovi by the early 90s, but the band essentially broke up at the end of 1993. They released two or 3 full studio albums, depending if you consider Illusions to be one big album or two. Although GNR is supposedly back now, Axl is the only remaining band member and this reformed GNR has not put out a new album.
The members of Bon Jovi have remained together and continue to produce work their fans love and tour the world. The last time GNR did that was over a decade ago. This is what makes me tip my hat to Bon Jovi rather than GNR.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

These albums almost single-handedly gave birth to and revived Prog-Rock. Music would not be the same without them. Boo-urns to the "experts" that thought up this shit.

prog

oh well. you have your tastes. i have mine. prog may make me physically ill but i can't say as a genre it sucks simply because i don't like it. i think you will agree with me though that no one should give a fuck what rolling stone thinks. i've flipped through their sorry excuse for a music magazine a couple of times and it's complete rubbish.

 

[MBH]

I must say I'm not really a fan of either GNR or Bon Jovi, but I will say that Bon Jovi has remained very popular in Europe for the past 16 years. Each of their albums sale an average of 7 to 8 million albums worldwide and they are able to sellout stadiums in most area's of the world except the USA. ( the exception being a few big cities in the North East of the USA).

GNR was a very big act, but on a worldwide scale they were not as big as U2 was in the late 80s and early 90s. They were bigger than Bon Jovi by the early 90s, but the band essentially broke up at the end of 1993. They released two or 3 full studio albums, depending if you consider Illusions to be one big album or two. Although GNR is supposedly back now, Axl is the only remaining band member and this reformed GNR has not put out a new album.
The members of Bon Jovi have remained together and continue to produce work their fans love and tour the world. The last time GNR did that was over a decade ago. This is what makes me tip my hat to Bon Jovi rather than GNR.

Sting,

Everything that you stated about BJ and G-n-R is true and I touched on most of this in my post. However, the basis of my point was not longevity or popularity but rather quality. As I said, G-n-R's music was much more diverse, creative, profound, challenging and interesting than that of BJ.

You also state that, "BJ have remainded together and continue to produce work their fans love....." Exactly. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but BJ panders to the crowd and produces fan-friendly music more than just about anyone in rock (Aerosmith is another significant band that does this). I usually here "Living on A Prayer" on any given Saturday night in a bar here in NY. However, in terms of critical praise, actually raising the
bar musically or challenging the music scene, BJ is cleary destitute.

A few ex-members of G-n-R have formed a band called "Velvet Revolver" with STP frontman Scott Weiland. I greatly anticipate what should be an excellent, musically interesting album that may pump some emotion & energy into rock. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for any of BJ's work within the past 15 years......

 

[STING2]

The great thing GNR has going for them is that everything that is said or will be said about the band is based on those 3 studio albums. from 1987-1993. (unless Axl GNR actually comes out with an album)

Its more difficult to continue on after a "golden age" like that and produce and make albums. Bon Jovi does that although some people don't like the music. If GNR had continued beyond 1993, opinions about the band today may be a lot different, depending on the work they would have done over the past 10 years.

I actually wonder if Axl has decided to not do Chinese Democracy under the GNR name now, because of the "Legacy Factor". Everyones thoughts on GNR are trapped in that Golden age for them of 1987-1993 and will remain so as long as there are no more GNR albums.

 

[alia612]

1)There's no way in hell 'Kid A' is better than 'The Bends'

.

It's not.

110. The Bends, Radiohead.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

These lists are almost always crap, but they're usually interesting to read.

 

[TheFly84138]

Isn't anyone going to say Pop and Zooropa deserved to make the list over War and Boy?


As for Bon Jovi being, good...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. They don't deserve to EVER be hailed as an album band, EVER.

 

[Danospano]

I have 86 of the 500, and I can think of at least 25 others that I own that should be on that list.

The order of the list is irrelevant to me, but I was surprised that REM's "Automatic For The People" was placed near the middle of the list; it belongs in the Top 50.

As for U2: where's "Zooropa"? I'll go to my deathbed believing that it's better than "All That You Can't Leave Behind".

 

[zooperson]

Isn't anyone going to say Pop and Zooropa deserved to make the list over War and Boy?


As for Bon Jovi being, good...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. They don't deserve to EVER be hailed as an album band, EVER.

first statement i don't agree with fully. but secound statement i agree with totally. sorry but the truth is i can't stand Bon Jovi, and i wouldn't have them in my top 1,000. sorry

 

[MBH]

Isn't anyone going to say Pop and Zooropa deserved to make the list over War and Boy?


As for Bon Jovi being, good...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. They don't deserve to EVER be hailed as an album band, EVER.

ALTHOUGH ZOOROPA AND POP ARE BOTH UNDERATED, THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE CONSIDERED 'BETTER' THAN EITHER BOY OR WAR.

BOY WAS A LANDMARK ALBUM THAT PROVIDED A BRIDGE FROM 70'S PUNK INTO 80'S NEW WAVE/NEW AGE AND WAR--ARGUABLY THEIR BEST WORK YET---WAS AN IMPECCABLE, GUITAR-DRIVEN ALBUM THAT CAME TOGETHER AT THE RIGHT MOMENT THAT PUSHED U2 INTO THE SPOTLIGHT.

I DO AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON BJ---DEF LEPPARD IS A MUCH MORE INTERESTING AND COHESIVE BAND THAN BJ EVER WAS.

ATYCLB IS VERY OVERRATED BY ROLLING STONE. I AM ALSO CONFUSED BY SOME OF THE SALES ESTIMATES: I THOUGHT JT SOLD MORE THAN 10MILLION IN THE US AND I THOUGHT THAT AB SOLD OVER 8 MILLION, NOT THE 5 MILLION + THAT RS HAS LISTED.....

 

[Bono's shades]

I could have sworn I read somewhere that JT has sold 15 million worldwide.