i can think of a few

PJ Harvey (6, possibly 7 with this new album)
Nirvana (3, 5 if you include the live albums)
Bjork (5, unless you include selmasongs)

i would have to do a bit of research to confirm others and at the moment i'm just too tired. by the way, i didn't think it was mentioning bands with less than 3 albums.

I'm sure Radiohead does right? Maybe Big Star as well since In Space did get pretty good reviews.

Good topic Moeboid. I think this is a rare instance where modern artists will come out on top even if you only count older bands peak years. Generally, lesser albums by bands from the 60's-80's have been written off as unessential. Modern bands have the luxury of fresh reviews even though over time a lot of their acclaimed albums won't hold up as such. 30 years from now I can see a lot of Bjork's albums rise up the charts but a few of them might fall off completely.

I think all of OutKast's albums are there if you include Idlewild which is bubbling under.

Oh, and Nick Drake's 3 proper studio albums are on there. So are Coldplay's 3 albums for some reason (X & Y, really?).

I guess you could include Velvet Underground as well. Does anyone actually consider any of those albums after Loaded to be actual Velvet Underground albums since Lou Reed and John Cale weren't there?

It's a shame for those lousy first albums, otherwise we'd have Radiohead, Wilco and my favorite band, Blur, on this list. That said, I think some critics need to relisten to A.M. by Wilco (I admit Leisure by Blur is tripe).

Even if critics gave AM another look Wilco still wouldn't be on the list because of Sky Blue Sky. But, I agree that AM is a little underrated. That said, I think every other Wilco album is severely overrated.

I'll disagree about every other Wilco album being overrated (okay, A Ghost is Born and Being There are overrated).

However, I think Sky Blue Sky will make it on the list because it's very polarizing. I think at the end of the year enough critics will love it and since critics don't make worst of lists, or because they're not included here, the people who like it will probably be able to propel it into the 2000s somewhere (kinda like X&Y). Sorry for that horrible run-on sentence.

Put Hendrix, NIN, The Beatles and Beck on that list if we're including bubbling unders.

The Smiths albums were all acclaimed,Sonic Youth maybe?(or did they have some dud?)

Sonic Youth released NYC Ghosts & Flowers, which Pitchfork compared to Metal Machine Music by Lou Reed in it's 0.0 review. I don't think that one will ever make AM. Plus, I believe their first album was something of a throwaway.

Oh, and another example of a first album of tripe: Husker Du. Otherwise, all their studio albums would be on AM.

You know, it's not really a huge deal that an artist has all of their albums on the AM list. If you take out anything before 1960 the math shows that an average of 64 albums a year are acclaimed. That's a lot of albums a year and that's not even taking into account that certain years have a ton of albums. Add in the bubbling unders and I'm sure that number comes close to 100 a year. I know the math isn't completely logical but it shouldn't be that tough to get on a list of around 2900 albums over a course of around 50 years if you have a mediocre album. I think that shows that some really good bands have put out really bad albums if they can't even get lukewarm response in spite of their name. It takes a lot for an album to be universally panned. I mean, Entertainment Weekly still exists right?

Sorry but I know tons of great bands who will never get an album on the AM list. It's not really easy to get on a list of 2900 albums. Heck, that many major label albums are released a YEAR!

Oh most definitely. I was talking about established artists. I wasn't very clear. A band that will have their album listened to by most everyone should be able to crack the list unless it is really terrible.

i'm wondering what you mean exactly by established artists? if you mean popular artists, then there are a lot of very very popular artists that haven't made the list. or maybe you mean artists that have already received substantial critic acclaim? if that's the case, then maybe the reason it's not all that hard for an already acclaimed artist to get an album on the list is because they're actually decent musicians.

Steely Dan was on that list until their comeback. "Everything Must Go" is not at all bad, though, and would have deserved to be in there as well.