'Best Of' Compilations

[glo]

I don't really know what to say. Fairly self-explanatory

[rebellious_L]

I'd say no. A lot of times it is the singles that get put on the album, which aren't always the best songs. IAC is a good example of that. This isn't always the case, but it is a lot of the time.

Edited February 27, 2006 by rebellious_L

[Dan #2]

i would say it's fifty fifty.

i nulled my vote.

 

Take a band like Stone Temple Pilots, who only had three good songs per cd anyway, then you've got the perfect package after five or six LPs.

 

IAC sucked though because a lot of MG's singles didn't hold up to a lot of his other songs, and that happens with most bands outside of the 'perfect' mainstream.

[Jarrod]

^i have to agree with dan.

 

some bands are singles bands, and others are album bands.

[glo]

Right now I'm listening to The Tea Party's 'Tangents' and I really like it.

[Quammy]

"Best Of" albums rarely contain the best a band has to offer. They're usually just filled with the singles and commercially successful tracks. But the compilations can be a good way to get into an artist if they have an extensive catalogue.

[darynalexander]

Nine times out of ten, non single tracks on an album beat the crap out of anything on greatest hits.

 

Plus, Anxiety (Get Nervous) isn't on my Pat Benatar best of. Liars. LIARS!

[radio_bomb]

Singles are commonly not the best tracks of an artist but all best of albums are debatable because everyone has different favourite songs.

[Shiri]

Usually they're just an excuse to get more money.

[borntohula]

i agree with dan. they're also a way to get into an artist's work. i think the best "best of" albums are ones that are recorded live, or have something relatively new to offer the listener. otherwise, its a waste of your time. just download the stuff and save yourself the $15.

[mrs jesus]

Take a band like Stone Temple Pilots, who only had three good songs per cd anyway, then you've got the perfect package after five or six LPs.

core and purple are both solid albums

 

hasn't this thread been done before? does no one use the search button anymore?

[Stu]

Most just look at the first page of topics.

[glo]

Sorry about that

[Dan #2]

I have been meaning to get further into the Tragically Hip for years now, but with ten lp's and never enough money, i didn't know where to start, so i just bought their package.

 

$21 w/ tax for a peak at all of their albums is not a bad deal. I know which album to start with now.

[Berserkgatsu]

I would say no it's just usually the songs they choose as singles and for videos and shit, like one of soundgarden's best songs is Slaves & Bulldozers but its not on A-Sides the Best of Soundgarden. I just pray that Metallica and Iced Earth dont put out Best Of's and if metallica does that they stick to before 1991 none of this St.Anger bullshit.

[HoboFactory]

They're unnecessary.

[Shortcut To Moncton]

Necessary for a record company to create profits on bands who are slacking popularity-wise.

[Audio of Being]

I would say no as well. I also feel that just singles and greatest hits are just songs that went huge. Then you have some one hit wonder band, release a greatest hits collection. To me that makes no sense at all.

 

The only exception to the rule i guess is RearviewMirror CD by Pearl Jam, yes it does contain big songs and stuff, but it also is a review of their music history. Some songs on the CD you can find hardly anywhere.

[Computer]

For the most part I'd say no. However It really depends on the artist and which songs you do like. For example I recently bought Sheryl Crow's greatest hits and its awesome because I can't say the same about all of her albums.

[axrw]

I dunno. I kind of don't like them. I always listened to music on an album basis, not sure if that makes sense. The idea of collecting all the hits or whatever on one easily accessible CD is nice for someone just getting into a band or artist, but...you're kind of missing out.

[HoboFactory]

Necessary for a record company to create profits on bands who are slacking popularity-wise.

True enough. They also do b-side/unreleased collections for the same purpose, I like those a lot better.

[MuttersomeTaxicab]

Hm.

 

I like the current trend in two versions of the greatest hits collections, in which there's the deluxe edition for the fans, and just the stripped down "singles collection" for the rest.

 

Thinking about In A Coma, Massive Attack's "Collected" and Mclusky's Mcluskyism.

 

In all three cases, there's the regular single-disc release, and then there's the two-three disc release of rarities, extra bits and pieces and stuff the fans would really dig.

 

If they're put together with care and intelligence, it's a good release for both parties, and they've got all the bases covered, pretty much.

[Instant-Karma]

it really depends how into the band you are. I have a few "best ofs" or "greatest hits" alblums but just from bands that I'm not super into. A greatest hits CD gets you the singles, the songs you've heard and know you like without the other stuff. I guess I'm really just stating the obvious. It's hard to say whether a CD can be the best of because in the end it all comes down to personal opinion.

[glo]

It's *almost* always better when a band/label puts out a b-side rather than a 'greatest hits'.

 

It consolidates(sp?)and expands fan base I think.

[Orange Monkey]

the only time I buy best-of albums is when they come with extras (second CDs with b-sides, or a DVD with videos on it, or something like that).

 

Aside from that, I make my own from the CDs I already own.