Remember those college-era debates over which album rocked harder than the other? How "Houses of the Holy" trumped "Back to Black" on vinyl, but not on digital? These arguments, they were our soundtracks, defined our individuality, and made us downright tribal tastemakers. But it brings us together more than it divides. Why? Because we all feel strongly about it.

Celebrating these great, fraternizing chat-offs is the newly released Rock & Roll Cage Match: Music's Greatest Rivalries, Decided. Edited by Sean Manning, the book brings together critics, humorists, rock journos, and musicians who square off over which band is better. The result is fighting words for any music fan. Take your side. Longtime rock writer Marc Spitz, on the Smiths vs. the Cure, says "If the Smiths are its James Dean, the Cure are the Marlon Brando of modern rock." Touré takes on Michael Jackson vs. Prince and decides that Prince "was the wild son of Jimi, the younger brother of Rick James and Richard Pryor, the ultrasexual black Casanova who told you up front that he had a dirty mind . . . Michael held the opposite appeal. His music was often about escaping through dance or being hopeful about the world, and he came across as super-innocent."

Then there are classic one-offs like Richard Hell's take on the Rolling Stones and Velvet Underground. "[The] Velvets can't be denied," opines Hell. "They take the crown. Lou Reed is queen for the day." Other battles royale include R.E.M. vs. U2, Bruce Springsteen vs. Bon Jovi, Radiohead vs. Coldplay and, oddly, Bob Dylan vs. Bob Marley. While most of the book is smartly insightful, we'll pass on the chapters comparing New Edition vs. New Kids on the Block or ABBA vs. The Bee Gees. There are some things we'd rather just forget. --JOHN CLARKE JR.

READ MORE:
A visit with the singer-songwriter Neko Case
The Beastie Boys can't, won't, don't stop