The idea for this thread sprang from a recent discussion on The Doors, where it was generally agreed that a single CD was enough to summarise their entire career*. Similarly, I submit Aerosmith: I likes me some Aerosmith, Rolling Stones Mini-Me’s though they be, but does anyone really need more than a dozen or so of their songs?
Your submissions, please - the more heretical, the better…
*Note that I’m not talking about relatively recent artists or one-hit-wonders here, more “classic” bands or artists who’ve had some longevity and/or a popular {or critical} following.
I don’t know if this is heretical or not, but I think Creedence Clearwater Revival is pretty well summed up by the first Chronicle collection. It lacks “Born On The Bayou”, but still adequately represents what the band was.
I would agree with this (though I realise it was meant jokingly.)
I think it would harder to find a band who couldn’t have the best of all their songs in their full range all fit on a single CD. Certainly there might be other “good” songs that would be worth putting in a compilation, but that doesn’t mean you would have shown any more range by including them.
So, instead I’m going to go for “Artists who can be summed up in a single song.”
My favorite best-of disc is the Stone Roses’ The Vest Best of the Stone Roses. I’m usually partial to the album experience, but Very Best puts the band’s best foot forward in a way that their albums don’t, IMO.
Teenage Fanclub is another band with a lot of flawed albums but a fantastic best-of disc.
Bad Company - 10 from 6 pretty much sums it all up
Fleetwood Mac
The Eagles - Greatest Hits Volumes I and II (note they did need 2 discs)
KC and the Sunshine Band
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Barenaked Ladies
Dave Matthews Band
Bad example, IMO. They have only one song that people know, but that one song is not a fair representation of the band. Hell, it’s hardly a song at all; being an extended jam framed by minimal lyrics. Beyond IAGDV, the Iron Butts did plenty of fine (if very much of its time) psych-pop material.
I disagree; for any artist worthy of their salt, a really good compilation should be just an introduction to what they have to offer, not the final word on their career. To take an obvious, if extreme example, twelve good David Bowie songs would barely scratch the surface of his output; to take a {slightly} lesser one, I have an excellent Elvis Costello compilation - and yet a dozen of his songs can’t begin to cover the riches of just his first five albums.
I guess the acid test would be that in compiling Aerosmith, you’d be struggling for what to include; in compiling Elvis Costello, you’d be hard pressed choosing what to omit.
I had the album, not just the song. All the other tracks sounded like a continuation of In-A-Gadda-da-Vida (minus the long drum solo). Very similar chords & progressions, very similar rhythms, some of the same organ and guitar riffs. Mostly forgettable in the extreme…I recall one titled “Are You Happy”, the other track titles are lost to the mists of mindtiquity.
Yes, but that’s what I’m saying. You can always go into more depth, even with a rather monotonal band. The question is whether you can make a introductory CD that does cover all the bases. And for that, I would vote that for most bands the answer is yes.
Of course, Iron Butterfly were handicapped in that there’d only be room for about two songs on their “Best Of”: I have entire Ramones albums shorter than “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida”.
Nirvana I think you’d only need two songs on their compilation: the loud-soft-loud one and the soft-loud-soft one. And maybe “Where Did You Sleep Last Night?”, which isn’t actually very good but has a certain ghoulish appeal as we get a glimpse into the tortured soul {TM} of the scruffy doofus - I mean, spokesman for a generation.
A single CD would adequately summarize the Beatles, eh? From Please Please Me to Abbey Road? From “Twist and Shout” to "“Helter Skelter”? Gotcha.
If one doesn’t like the Beatles, fine–there’s no accounting for taste. But this is a ridiculous assertion even if you don’t like them. Pink Floyd isn’t my cup of tea, but I respect their work enough not to say a single CD could do them justice. If there’s a single band that can’t be encapsulated in a single CD, it’s the Beatles. Sheesh.
My two favorite “Best of” CDs are Styx and Supertramp. I know Styx had some good albums, but really the best of covers it well.
Maybe the Kinks too.
Depeche Mode, I really don’t want to invest in more than one album by these guys, but there are some good songs in their repertoire - tragically the actual best of by Depeche Mode does not include “masters and servants.”
The Kinks have a catalog that spans three decades and several distinct phases. Their so-called “Golden Hour” on Pye Records (1964-1971) has been extensively compiled, and if that’s all you’re interested in, there are some fairly decent single-disc comps out there. But for even a loose overview of their whole career, you need at least four discs.
>