For singles-based artists, they're totally relevant.
^this all the way.
but other than that, it doesn't seem that relevant to me. a good indicator of a great artist or band is the ability to make an album that is innovative, cohesive, a work of art, etc. here on "Best Ever Albums", we rank albums based on their greatness. but a greatest hits album is just a quilting of successful songs together which is convenient in certain circumstances (playlists, etc) but irrelevant when judging artists and bands. _________________ Pipe Dreams is a virus...
Sorry.
It's relevant. One or two tracks out of twelve won't hurt. In fact, Cher's remade previous tracks for later albums, to "keep up with the times."
stop trying to make cher happen bruh. cher's not happening.
greatest hits are like any other album, you get good ones and bad ones. i've got at least one on my chart.
Personally, I keep studio albums, live albums, and collections of songs such as Greatest Hits in different categories. The best studio albums work together as a unit, thematically or otherwise. Live albums are like photographs, documenting an instance in time where music was raw and alive. In the end, a Greatest Hits CD is just a mix tape of songs and singles in the same way as that burnt "Jams - Summer 2004" CD my friend gave me back in the day.
I do not mix these three categories, so my main chart is all studio albums. I might one day make a separate "live" albums chart. And I wouldn't rank Greatest Hits albums - I would rather rank individual songs or the body of work of an artist as a whole.
With the ability to download songs and make playlists, I would say that Greatest Hits CD's are irrelevant as anyone can make one that better suits their taste. That being said, though, the concept of a "Greatest Hits" playlist, or CD, is a good one in my opinion because it filters out the bad and the mediocre, artificially creating a body of work that showcases what that artist was capable of.
My favorite example is Hall & Oates - their albums are mediocre at best, and at times are just full of unbearable cheesiness. But their ten best songs over ten years, when listened to in a string together, showcase the irresistible brand of pop that even music snobs hold as a guilty pleasure.
There useful for a band who you aren't gonna buy the discography for, but no I don't think they count for much, they just seems like a good way for record companies to make money.
NickVolosSegnahc Reve4Profile Land of the Argonauts, Centaurs and other such creatures
They are supposed to and in general they are when they contain the artist's generally accepted and truly "greatest" hits. (hits in terms of popularity/sales). Note that while the "hits" part may be a measurable term (in terms of sales) the "greatest" part is quite relative.
genesisfoxtrot21 wrote:
Are they bad?
Some are because they don't contain the artist's "greatest" hits, they are just labeled as such for marketing and sales purposes.
genesisfoxtrot21 wrote:
Are they irrelevant now with the ability to make playlists?
No. They are 2 different things. Although you can create a playlist with the same contents as the relevant "greatest" hits album.
genesisfoxtrot21 wrote:
Are they still relevant?
Sure, why not. They are still marketing/sales tool for the recording companies (and artists) to generate additional revenue while at the same time serve a number of purposes, such as to introduce an artist to someone who does not necessarily want to own anything else from that particular artist, or as a time buffer to an artist to be creative.
genesisfoxtrot21 wrote:
Would you put one on your chart?
Most likely not. But many "respected" third party lists do have them. So it is up to you.
There you go. 😄
FischmanRockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMasterProfile Land of Enchantment
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
junodog4
karbutt
dmercado
MrBrown
NickVolos
Fischman
