Greatest Hits - A good starting point or plain lazy?

Borneo Fnctn

My opinion. I'm currently in the slow process of scrapping my greatest hits compilations and replacing them with proper albums. I think greatest hits albums don't give you a good appreciation of the artist and how their style evolved over the years. Also, for bands like Pink Floyd you really won't get the concept of the whole album. It really takes away from the thrust of the music.

Now this really annoys me; when you get a greatest hits album you never get all the songs you want. The labels always leave a few essential tracks out in order to force you to buy the studio album.

HalloweenJack

I don't think so.

The Changesbowie compilation for David Bowie contains two (I think) non-album tracks and also the best song of one album (Space Oddity). They are a good point to get started.

Once again, with Changesbowie, it has all the big singles from Let's Dance. While I enjoy those songs, I doubt I'll ever buy that album from what I've heard of the other songs on it. I'm certain I wouldn't buy Tonight either.

As the songs on Changesbowie are in chronological order, it DOES give you an idea of how his style changed over the years.

There's a Prince compilation that's like that too. Both gave me an idea of what to expect.

I think greatest hits compilations are a good idea in general if you're someone who just likes the singles. I know I've bought albums by bands on the strength of the singles and it turned out the albums were, singles aside, crap.

strobe

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I think greatest hits compilations are a good idea in general if you're someone who just likes the singles. I know I've bought albums by bands on the strength of the singles and it turned out the albums were, singles aside, crap.

Personally I dislike greatest hits compilations for exactly this reason. You tend to just get a load of singles and there are very few albums I've listened to where I thought the singles were the best songs on them. Singles are chosen to have the broadest appeal possible or because their sound is nearest to whatever the current fad happens to be, the album tracks tend to be far more interesting.

fobster

strobe wrote: »

Personally I dislike greatest hits compilations for exactly this reason. You tend to just get a load of singles and there are very few albums I've listened to where I thought the singles were the best songs on them. Singles are chosen to have the broadest appeal possible or because their sound is nearest to whatever the current fad happens to be, the album tracks tend to be far more interesting.

Nail. Head. I got Decade by Neil Young that covers his stuff from 1966 to 1976. And while there's 30+ tracks on said compilation album. It doesn't give albums like Zuma, Tonight's the night or On the Beach the time of day bar a few tunes. They'd be near my favourite albums now that I've explored a bit deeper.

Also I think Cortez the Killer actually feels out of place on Zuma. Whereas I didn't think that when listening to it on Decade cause of what Decade was, a compilation album.

If you like music/albums to have a nice flow between tracks I wouldn't go with a Greatest hits release. Another example being a lot of Clutch's releases (see my sig for more info), their tracks just roll into each other a lot of the time. This would be more or less lost on a comp album.

DazMarz

It is amazing how badly a ''Greatest Hits'' album can misrepresent the band.

I usually buy them anyway, even if I own all the albums by that band, usually cos the record label sticks one non-album single on the GH album, forcing me to buy it for a sense of completion.... DAMN YOU!!!:mad:

Sinfonia

In my opinion, a good gateway to bands/artists who have a large back catalogue.
For example, Echoes is a good intro to Pink Floyd, but the editing means that you're missing out on a LOT.

I don't mind if there's a few essential tracks missing though, because it leaves more for one to discover if one likes what they hear, and it means one won't always be disappointed by the fact that nothing else is living up to the expectations set by the 'Greatest Hits' (then again it's all subjective innit).

I've always liked 'The Essential <so-and-so>' compilations for these reasons.
The Essential Bob Dylan for example covers a wide range of years, some of the tracks I love, some I loathe, but it gave me the impetus to explore his 50,000 odd albums

IM0

A good starting point, and if disk space is at a premium (less so these days) they are a solid foundation to expand onto in time.

Kold

An album is a complete work. There should be great care taken whilst putting one together. I wouldn't bother with Greatest Hits albums beyond artists before the 60s.