Greatest Hits Albums: Your Opinion

[meruizh]

Ask The Killers, Snow Patrol, Travis, Oasis and U2 how relevant they're!
_________________
"Hurry Up, We're Dreaming"

[Guest]

They have their purpose, but I have no reason to buy them myself, or include them on my chart.

[drakonium]

I'm not sure I agree with the "it's a good way to discover an artist" thing. The immense majority of artists don't even have a greatest hits album. The ones who do are the most prolific and/or popular of them all. Among these, there are (to simplify) singles artists and albums artists. Why would you want to "discover" a singles artist? I mean, obviously, you discover it because it's new to you, but after that, there's no exploration to do, no hidden gem to find. Everything's here, on the best of. It's an introduction, but it's also a conclusion. On the other hand, if we are considering album-based artists, why would you want to listen to their greatest hits? Do you really think Radiohead's best of is a good introduction to the band? And Pink Floyd's? And let's not talk about Genesis. Greatest hits don't only give you an incomplete vision of the band, but also a fake one.

Obviously it's more complex in reality. The Red Hot are a good example, as Jason pointed it out : they are recognized for both their albums and their singles. Still, while I don't deny the best of is enjoyable (I think it is actually), it's not a good introduction to the band by any mean IMO. Their discography is much more varied than a bunch of commercially successful songs.

The more I think about it, the more I think you are even more likely to like an album than a best of. An album is a consistent piece of art, with different moods throughout supposed to be linked with each other in a natural and pleasant way. There is an ambiance, a style, and even maybe a story. A greatest hits compilations is a bunch of successful tracks. It might work, but most of the time I think it doesn't. Having Another One Bites The Dust and Bohemian Rhapsody on a single disc is laughable IMO. It's just wrong, it doesn't sound good.

I have nothing against best ofs, they are totally alright in cases where the artists hasn't released anything you like bar the singles, but I think they are an awful way to discover an artist.

[JMan]

It depends on the album. If it's an album made up of B-sides and singles, then I'd include it on my chart. If the only chance for an artist to have a great album is to make a compilation (Cher, anyone?) then I'd say it's relevant, though less than a B-sides compilation like Retro Active or Elvis' Golden Records. Still, most compilations are excluded from charts, so I wouldn't say so.

EDIT: In short (this pisses me off that nobody got it.), if an album has only original recordings that were never on an album, it's relevant. Otherwise, we could just say that the best of the Beatles or something is the greatest album ever. It's simple as counting to 1.

Original tracks: yes.
Used tracks: no.

[Romanelli]

[sp4cetiger]

Yes, but just barely. Greatest Hits collections can sometimes act like a retrospective and chronicle an artist's evolution. Sometimes that makes for an interesting listening experience. Usually not, though.

[Romanelli]

[JMan]

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."

[sszwalbenest]

Greatest hits albums serve in a sense to butcher the artists' music in a way that prevents it from being fully appreciated. All the while, if an artist has no albums worth investing in, then go ahead.

[nutso42]

When CD's were the thing, I loved compilation albums to get better acquainted with an artist before pouring much money into their discography.

With the advent of mp3s, YouTube, Spotify, and Pandora, I find compilations pointless.