I think we’ve done this sort of thing before, but not for a while.
I’ve ben sorting out my music collection recently, having acquired a cloud and a streaming system (Sonos, for reference, I like it but it has its irritations). It has struck me how many greatest hits type collections I have. Most are for artists I kind of like, but not enough to sit through tracks I don’t recognise. Then there are a few bought to complete collections, or to get hold of otherwise-unobtainable tracks. There are a couple I bought as an introduction to artists I thought I might like, or who were recommended to me, which I later followed up with non compilation albums.
For some artists I’d say you can get a good sense of them and their output from a greatest hits, but for others it’s just wrong, wrong, wrong. For example, I remember someone here decrying the Pink Floyd ‘Echoes’ collection, saying that separating the chosen tracks from their original context robs them of their value. On the other hand, I’ve got a 30 track Rolling Stones collection that contains pretty much every track of theirs I’m aware I like - am I missing anything by not having the complete albums?
So - what do you think? Whose greatest hits release is an outrage? Which artist’s greatest hits collection contains everything of theirs you’d ever want to hear? Anyone particularly dislike this type of collection?
In former times, this might have been a question of which artists you think are singles and which album bands, but I don’t think it works like that anymore!
A really good singles collection that really captures the band is Buzzcocks: Singles Going Steady. Buzzcocks didn’t have a particularly long life anyway, but this has most of the best tunes, and covers their career well. It’s all pop-punk gems anyway.
The Pogues are in the pantheon, but let’s face it their albums had a fair bit of filler. I don’t think you’d get too many complaints over their 2 best-of albums missing anything essential out or lacking some critical context. They’re a really strong greatest hits collection - *At their best *and best of the rest or something similar.
I like every song on CCR’s first 4 albums. I can’t imagine why anyone would buy a greatest hits for CCR.
A lot of Motown artists are best heard on greatest hits. Honestly, I have no desire to listen to Martha & Vandellas or even a Temptations album. They have some great singles hits but their albums never were very good. Motown was always a great singles producer.
Lots of sixties groups made their reps with greatest hits albums. Early albums were laden with filler around singles - and many British albums made a point of not including songs issued on singles since it was thought that consumers wouldn’t want to pay twice for the same song. Donovan’s Greatest Hits is a stellar album. The Kinks’ Greatest Hits kept them alive in the U.S. when they couldn’t tour. Buffalo Springfield’s Greatest Hits compiled their signature sound after their breakup.
The Police spring to mind. Greatest Hits, the 16-track British compilation, has basically everything that was good about them on one disc. The Eurythmics’ Greatest Hits and Erasure’s Pop are pretty much all you need to know about those two bands. Madness were so singles-orientated that I couldn’t even name any of their original albums; Total Madness is their most comprehensive compilation and has all the videos, which were ace. The Pet Shop Boys are an odd case where you need their most comprehensive a-sides compilation (Pop Art) and their two b-sides compilations. In fact, even if you have their original albums you still need the b-sides compilations. And the remix albums. God, the Pet Shop Boys are great. “Always different, always the same”, as John Peel said about The Fall. "I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt" as Anthony Eden said about, er, Egypt. That’s not relevant to the preceding paragraph, but I’m trying to achieve a total mental assault rather than linear coherence. (flashing lights)
Conversely, none of the existing Tangerine Dream compilations work, even the multi-disc boxed sets - they either edit down the longer tracks or leave out entire records. And, The Fall, I’m not sure how you’d get a handle on The Fall. The Peel Sessions compilation is a good overview, and if you have that then you don’t need 50,000 Fall Fans Can’t Be Wrong: 39 Golden Greats, and in any case it’s impossible to get a handle on The Fall because they’re a moving target. By the time I’ve finished writing this paragraph they will have another album out. The last one, Ersatz GB, came out in November 2011 so the follow-up is well overdue. I’m not sure if Mark E Smith himself has a handle on The Fall.
Handle, Pet Shop Boys. It’s a pun, see.
Going back a ways, the Simon & Garfunkel and the Fleetwood Mac compilations are pretty comprehensive, although for more obscure recordings of FM you’re out of luck. Most Rhino collections are excellent, especially for jazz artists. Also, for jazz artists, the Pacific and Blue Note collections, such as this one, are outstanding.
“Greatest hits are for housewives and little girls!”
That being said, I probably own a dozen or two greatest hits compliations.
Knead
Neither
I blame the old record club model for some of the proliferation of greatest hits packages. I remember getting offers for “12 free records”, and the majority of the albums were compilations that I had no interest in.
I’m a “greatest hits” fan.
As an example, ABBA Gold has all the ABBA I’ll ever need.
To bring a few more modern acts in this, I love Beck but the man cannot create an “album” to save his life. Each one includes a few good songs and a ton of filler. So even though I consider myself a Beck fan, I don’t own any of his albums.
But a Beck Greatest Hits collection would be epic.
Not really a Greatest Hits…but The Very Best of Robbie Fulks was a collection of rarities and b sides that was and is still one of the best albums I’ve heard.
As others have said a lot of 1960s groups such as the motown bands and Simon & Garfunkel are best served by greatest hits collection. Same thing with the 1950s artists.
To spread the genre out a bit, about 20 years ago Rhino did a series of albums covering the punk/new wave scene of the late 1970s in England and the U S of A. trust me, you do not want to hear anything by Holly and the Italians except for "Tell that girl to shut up".
I used to have a Roxy Music one from the late 1970s (before the reunion of Ferry, Manzanera and Mackay) that actually summed up the group a lot better than I thought it would
I prefer albums to greatest hits, though when I had to buy CDs instead of records, they were a cheap and convenient way to listen to groups. I don’t think I have a single greatest hits LP, but I do have several CDs and downloads. Particularly good are the greatest hits of Taj Mahal and of the Band. Traffic also has a very good collection.
There’s a series out now called 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection that is hits of various artist. There’s some great deals on Ebay for under $5 each. Some are 99 cents. I bought nine Motown artists a few weeks ago. They are a great way to fill out a music collection with hits of your artists.
Amazon has these too, but right now Ebay’s deals are much better.
The Commodores
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Commodores-Millennium-Collection-20th-Century-Masters-CD-/251044824914?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item3a73700752
Etta James
http://www.ebay.com/itm/20th-Century-Masters-Millennium-Collection-Etta-James-CD-Jan-1999-/120906072145?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item1c26904051
Pretty much any greatest hits by an act with a long diverse catalog (Dylan, Bowie, Costello) is pretty much useless. Not only is a lot of great material left off, but usually only the most tame radio-friendly material gets on. The most ridiculous example is Miles Davis. All of his comps just focus on his acoustic records, so you don’t get the fantastic (but avant-garde and 20 minute+) electric music he cut in the 70s/80s.
There is music best appreciated on greatest hits. Pre-70s rock and soul acts (and most country acts) simply didn’t focus on albums. They were quickly thrown together with the hits and a ton of filler.
I like Greatest Hits collections just fine. The fact is many bands really don’t have that many good songs per album. What I don’t like is the tendency to put live versions of some of the songs on Greatest Hits albums.
Slight aside, but I HATE it when bands release a greatest hits package with NEW tracks. Seriously? Isn’t that a bit presumptious? Springsteen did this. So did U2.
The Cars were the first I knew of.
Biggest dick move I know of with greatest hits collections was how Billy Joel’s “Greatest Hits Volumes 1 & 2” included different songs if you bought it on vinyl vs. CD vs. cassette.
I don’t know about presumptuous. It’s done primarily so that serious fans who already own all the albums will have to buy the greatest hits album to get the new stuff. It’s pure marketing.