Post by H2IZCOOL on Jan 22, 2009 11:51:31 GMT -5
I don't remember if we've discussed this before, but I was thinking about Greatest Hits Albums and how just about every artist has one or more. Often the albums are not REALLY greatest hits albums, but are hits from a certain time period or from a certain label. If you buy these albums sight unseen, you will likely be disappointed both by what is on the album and by what is NOT on the album.
So -- are there any artists that should not put out greatest hits albums? The answer is, obviously, a resounding YES! I can think of three reasons why greatest hits albums are inappropriate for some artists:
1. The artists do not have enough hits.
2. The artists have too many hits
3. The artists work is not best represented by a greatest hits album or albums.
The Artist Does Not Have Enough Hits
The number of artists that do not have enough hits to have greatest hits albums are probably as numerous as the number of stars in the sky. When I say "hits" I think it is fair to cover more than one chart. A rock/R&B group can justifiably count hits on either chart as a bona fide "hit", same for a rock/country group. A rock group that has a couple of hits on the pop/rock charts but has other songs that were only played on the album rock (or now classic rock) stations makes a good argument for inclusion also. Even artists who had a portion of their "hits" being regional hits only is probably OK. But - if you take a particular group, and add together all their hits from all of these aforementioned categories, and you come up with fewer than 6 or 8 hits, the artist should not be releasing a greatest hits album, assuming the album/cd has say, 10 tracks. You can be forgiven for throwing in some non-hits, but not so that they take up any more than about 1/4 of the album as a rule of thumb.
The Artist Has Too Many Hits
You know where I'm going with this one. A group like the Beatles, or Stones. Artists like Elvis, Madonna, Whacko Jacko, and Paul McCartney cannot be adequately represented by a single or double cd Greatest Hits album. You need to limit the years or put out a box set of several cds. For a few, like The Beatles you could likely come up with a strong argument that every song they ever did was a hit. So all the Beatles Anthologies, and One and other Beatles compilations are simply repackaging of the old albums. Just to sell more product.
The Artists' Work is Not Best Represented by a Greatest Hits Album or Albums.
In this category are artists like Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, the Who, and others, whose major work consists of or contains some important music on concept albums or other themed music (like the Who's "Tommy"). Now - what is the worth of a Pink Floyd's Greatest Hits album? What would be on it? "Money"? "Another Brick in the Wall"? maybe "Comfortably Numb"? There's a double CD called Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd. You can see the track-list at www.amazon.com/Echoes-Best-Pink-Floyd/dp/samples/B00005QDW5/ref=dp_tracks_all_2#disc_2
- but is this really the "Best"? No. Not in my opinion. The Best of Pink Floyd includes the entire ALBUM "Dark Side of the Moon", the entire ALBUM "Animals", the Entire ALBUM "The Wall" etc. How can you take The Moody Blues several concept albums and take them apart? Again, the major talent of the artists was in the entire album, the way it was crafted, the way it was structured.
So -- how about you? Can you think of other examples - other artists who shouldn't be limited to a "greatest hits" or "best of" retrospective? Maybe for some of the reasons we mentioned - or even better, for other reasons. Can you think of other categories of artists who should not have greatest hits albums?
So -- are there any artists that should not put out greatest hits albums? The answer is, obviously, a resounding YES! I can think of three reasons why greatest hits albums are inappropriate for some artists:
1. The artists do not have enough hits.
2. The artists have too many hits
3. The artists work is not best represented by a greatest hits album or albums.
The Artist Does Not Have Enough Hits
The number of artists that do not have enough hits to have greatest hits albums are probably as numerous as the number of stars in the sky. When I say "hits" I think it is fair to cover more than one chart. A rock/R&B group can justifiably count hits on either chart as a bona fide "hit", same for a rock/country group. A rock group that has a couple of hits on the pop/rock charts but has other songs that were only played on the album rock (or now classic rock) stations makes a good argument for inclusion also. Even artists who had a portion of their "hits" being regional hits only is probably OK. But - if you take a particular group, and add together all their hits from all of these aforementioned categories, and you come up with fewer than 6 or 8 hits, the artist should not be releasing a greatest hits album, assuming the album/cd has say, 10 tracks. You can be forgiven for throwing in some non-hits, but not so that they take up any more than about 1/4 of the album as a rule of thumb.
The Artist Has Too Many Hits
You know where I'm going with this one. A group like the Beatles, or Stones. Artists like Elvis, Madonna, Whacko Jacko, and Paul McCartney cannot be adequately represented by a single or double cd Greatest Hits album. You need to limit the years or put out a box set of several cds. For a few, like The Beatles you could likely come up with a strong argument that every song they ever did was a hit. So all the Beatles Anthologies, and One and other Beatles compilations are simply repackaging of the old albums. Just to sell more product.
The Artists' Work is Not Best Represented by a Greatest Hits Album or Albums.
In this category are artists like Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues, the Who, and others, whose major work consists of or contains some important music on concept albums or other themed music (like the Who's "Tommy"). Now - what is the worth of a Pink Floyd's Greatest Hits album? What would be on it? "Money"? "Another Brick in the Wall"? maybe "Comfortably Numb"? There's a double CD called Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd. You can see the track-list at www.amazon.com/Echoes-Best-Pink-Floyd/dp/samples/B00005QDW5/ref=dp_tracks_all_2#disc_2
- but is this really the "Best"? No. Not in my opinion. The Best of Pink Floyd includes the entire ALBUM "Dark Side of the Moon", the entire ALBUM "Animals", the Entire ALBUM "The Wall" etc. How can you take The Moody Blues several concept albums and take them apart? Again, the major talent of the artists was in the entire album, the way it was crafted, the way it was structured.
So -- how about you? Can you think of other examples - other artists who shouldn't be limited to a "greatest hits" or "best of" retrospective? Maybe for some of the reasons we mentioned - or even better, for other reasons. Can you think of other categories of artists who should not have greatest hits albums?
