AFD Ranked No. 32 on The Definitive 200

[Axlfreek]

32...hmmm...32...32 is half way to 64...the beatles wrote a song entitled "when im 64"...Paul Mcartney IS 64....GNR covered LIve and Let Die which was written by Paul Mcartney...this means Axl is the son of Paul Mcartney ! STOP THE PRESSES !

[freedom78]

32...hmmm...32...32 is half way to 64...the beatles wrote a song entitled "when im 64"...Paul Mcartney IS 64....GNR covered LIve and Let Die which was written by Paul Mcartney...this means Axl is the son of Paul Mcartney ! STOP THE PRESSES !

wft?

Anyway, yeah, shit list.  Typical "wank off to the favorites" list, really. 

Just once I'd like to see any one of the following conversations occur amongst the great all knowing list makers:

1.) "Hey, since Nirvana kind of led to the downfall of music, let's not put them too high."
     "WOW!  It makes so much sense now!"

2.) "Hey, Bob Dylan is 426 years old...do we need to keep fellating him like this?"

3.) "Hey, everyone likes U2...but does anyone know why?"

[nonlinear]

I can't believe you guys can stil behind your computer and write these ingorant ass comments like "dylan sucks becuase he can's sing" or "sgt. peppers sucks" or "nirvana has no talent" and "my brother knows nothing about music and saw dylan and thought it was shite and left early."

people who can make comments like these are really just showing how ignorant they are about the history of music.

I love GNR, but honestly, they really haven't done much.  even theirr best album (AFD) can't evben come close to these bands you guys are trashing.

if you want to diss bands like dylan, the beatles, and nirvana, you should really tey and learn something about music history.  spend about 10 years listening to every record you can find, and you will develop some understanding for why these artists are consinstently listed as the best.

[Elrothiel]

Nonlinear, those artists are constantly listed as the best because the people making the lists are constantly sucking the collective cock of the masses, and they know that if they didn't put Nirvana in the top 10, there would be a backlash of complaints from "mainstream" rock fans... they're the ones most affected by the metaphorical fellatio.

We who get outraged at lists like these aren't affected at all and see the list-makers as really ugly-old-fat-spotty-AIDS-infected wankers with no self esteem are hardcore music fans... and the majority of the population aren't... as sad as that may be.

The Beatles... I can understand them being in the top 10, but not number 1. Every list its either Nirvana or the Beatles at number 1.
I'm not saying Nirvana weren't talented at SOMETHING... because if they weren't, then they wouldn't have been so successful.
And I like Bob Dylan! Obviously him being in the top 10 is a result of his song-writing skills. Yea his voice wasn't very good but so what! His songs are awesome!
The Beatles are always gunna be in the top 10 no matter what because they were among the first, and obviously influenced countless later bands.

Then again... so did the Doors and they're not in the top 10. So did Johnny Cash and he isn't there either! So did Lynyrd Skynyrd! So did Queen, and Nazareth, and the Ramones and Cream and AC/DC and billions of other bands!

[chriskon72]

Nonlinear, those artists are constantly listed as the best because the people making the lists are constantly sucking the collective cock of the masses, and they know that if they didn't put Nirvana in the top 10, there would be a backlash of complaints from "mainstream" rock fans... they're the ones most affected by the metaphorical fellatio.

We who get outraged at lists like these aren't affected at all and see the list-makers as really ugly-old-fat-spotty-AIDS-infected wankers with no self esteem are hardcore music fans... and the majority of the population aren't... as sad as that may be.

The Beatles... I can understand them being in the top 10, but not number 1. Every list its either Nirvana or the Beatles at number 1.
I'm not saying Nirvana weren't talented at SOMETHING... because if they weren't, then they wouldn't have been so successful.
And I like Bob Dylan! Obviously him being in the top 10 is a result of his song-writing skills. Yea his voice wasn't very good but so what! His songs are awesome!
The Beatles are always gunna be in the top 10 no matter what because they were among the first, and obviously influenced countless later bands.

Then again... so did the Doors and they're not in the top 10. So did the Rolling Stones, and neither are they! So did Lynyrd Skynyrd! So did Queen, and Nazareth, and the Ramones and Pink Floyd and AC/DC and billions of other bands!

The Stones and Floyd were in the top 10.

[ARC]

The Definitive 200 (Complete list)

1. Beatles ? Sgt. Pepper?s Lonely Hearts Club Band ? 1967
2. Pink Floyd ? Dark Side Of The Moon ? 1973
3. Michael Jackson ? Thriller ? 1982
4. Led Zeppelin ? Led Zeppelin IV ? 1971
5. U2 ? Joshua Tree ?1987
6. Rolling Stones ? Exile On Main Street ? 1972
7. Carole King ? Tapestry ? 1971
8. Bob Dylan ? Highway ?61 Revisited ? 1965
9. Beach Boys ? Pet Sounds ? 1966
10. Nirvana ? Nevermind ? 1991
...
32. Guns ?N Roses ? Appetite For Destruction ? 1987

It always amazes me when "St Pepper" tops these lists.

I mean, the record isn't even in the best Beatles album, in my opinion. "Revolver" is better. "Rubber Soul" is better. "Meet the Beatles" is better...

And, im sorry, but "Thriller" is WAY too high on that list. Better than Zeppelin 4...?!

[Elrothiel]

Nonlinear, those artists are constantly listed as the best because the people making the lists are constantly sucking the collective cock of the masses, and they know that if they didn't put Nirvana in the top 10, there would be a backlash of complaints from "mainstream" rock fans... they're the ones most affected by the metaphorical fellatio.

We who get outraged at lists like these aren't affected at all and see the list-makers as really ugly-old-fat-spotty-AIDS-infected wankers with no self esteem are hardcore music fans... and the majority of the population aren't... as sad as that may be.

The Beatles... I can understand them being in the top 10, but not number 1. Every list its either Nirvana or the Beatles at number 1.
I'm not saying Nirvana weren't talented at SOMETHING... because if they weren't, then they wouldn't have been so successful.
And I like Bob Dylan! Obviously him being in the top 10 is a result of his song-writing skills. Yea his voice wasn't very good but so what! His songs are awesome!
The Beatles are always gunna be in the top 10 no matter what because they were among the first, and obviously influenced countless later bands.

Then again... so did the Doors and they're not in the top 10. So did the Rolling Stones, and neither are they! So did Lynyrd Skynyrd! So did Queen, and Nazareth, and the Ramones and Pink Floyd and AC/DC and billions of other bands!

The Stones and Floyd were in the top 10.

Oops my bad, I didn't have the list right there when I was typing that... shoulda opened a new tab. Sorry... I'll just edit it so it makes  sense...

[freedom78]

I can't believe you guys can stil behind your computer and write these ingorant ass comments like "dylan sucks becuase he can's sing" or "sgt. peppers sucks" or "nirvana has no talent" and "my brother knows nothing about music and saw dylan and thought it was shite and left early."

people who can make comments like these are really just showing how ignorant they are about the history of music.

I love GNR, but honestly, they really haven't done much.  even theirr best album (AFD) can't evben come close to these bands you guys are trashing.

if you want to diss bands like dylan, the beatles, and nirvana, you should really tey and learn something about music history.  spend about 10 years listening to every record you can find, and you will develop some understanding for why these artists are consinstently listed as the best.

It doesn't bother me when they put Bob Dylan pretty high on these lists (even though I don't like his singing).  What bothers me is that every Top 100 list has about three Bob Dylan albums in the top 20.  At the end of the day, the authors of such lists have NO respect for the importance of hard rock.  As someone else mentioned, there is NO Sabbath on the list until Paranoid checks in at #62!  Surely you can understand that that's ridiculous.  My God, The Clash barely make the top 100!  This is just silly. 

Obviously these lists are completely subjective, but I think it's reasonable that something ought to stand the test of time before we put it on the Definitive 200 list.  For example, whether it's good or not, how can a Norah Jones album from 2002 be on there, and ahead of an album like Appetite?  It makes absolutely no sense.     

[Krispy Kreme]

The total list is shit.
I could do a better  list if I were deaf  and dumb. 

[mikegiuliana]

I saw this list in The NY Daily News... I think afd is the best, but that's my opinion... Some great albums up there either way..

[1987]

Nirvana is good but they are also the most over rated band of all time.  pearl jam is way better, AIC was much better and soundgarden was better too.  Ten and dirt are way more deserving than nevermind.  These lists are such a joke.  i wish they could put out a top ten list of greatest albums.. and just focus on the music.. not how it influenced music.. or what it ment pop culture..   the criteria should be based on how many songs you skip when listening to the album... i couldn't even tell you how many songs are on nevermind...  my list would be

1) AFD
2) Ten
3) Back in Black
4) Dirt
5) Led Zep IV
6) Metalica Black Album (i don't even really metalica but this album kicks ass)
7) Pretty Hate Machine
Hysteria
9) Aerosmith (self titled)
10) Open up and say Ahh .... ok this prob doesn't belong a top ten list.. but i couldn't decide between poison, buckcherry or skid row   haha