“Best of” discs.
There are so many out there for each artist. Some of them really suck.
Some of them make really puzzling omissions and inclusions.
Some are put out by musicians who most would admit don’t have enough quality material to warrant a “Best of” collection.
And whereas I think most people will admit that an artist doesn’t neccessarily need “Chart Hits” to constitute a “Best of” collection, it seems peculiar to apply the label “Greatest Hits” to someone like classical music composers who predated the music charts by centuries.
And is there a fundamental difference between a Greatest Hits, a Best of…, an Anthology, or the Essential… ? I know it may just be sematics, but I wouldn’t be posting this if I hadn’t been burned by some crappy, slipshod excuse to make a disc sell.
So I put forth the question - what makes for a great “Best of…” disc? Here are my ideas.
Liner notes
- Recorded and first release date, songwriting & musician credit
- Lyrics
- Notes by someone close to the music. I have often found that I can find more things to appreciate about music the more I know about subtle things I hadn’t thought of before.
- Comment as to why the track is considered worthy, likely coming from one of the categories below
Content
- Chart hits: Did it actually reach the Top 40?
- Fan favorites: Maybe a song was never realeased as a single but fans generally consider it to be outstanding music
- Inclusion in a film or television: These mediums can also do a lot to make a song enter the public conciousness
- Artist favorite: There may be songs that are particualar favorites to the artists themselves. This is a case where the background notes would be particularly helpful.
- Rarities: But not for rarities sake. I’m talking about those occaisional lost nuggets left in the recording studio