Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
A shameless money grabbing waste of time and money? Or useful tool?
when I was about 14. And I suppose they are useful to a lot of people. But for me: waste of time & money.
but they can be useful if you want to find out whether you like a band.
often they suck..... and dont flow well at all. Exceptions go for The Smashing Pumpkins, The Cure and Blur
really. It was always going to be with the variation and sheer volume of output they had though. I have been looking at that cure one though, and the blur one is ace, I agree.
My parents have a load, helped me to get into various bands, the Blur best of is a good example.
especially with the live cd.
ditto for the at the drive in one.
But they cost the same as a regular album, bring one or maybe two new tracks, and then you want all the albums anyway? What a cash in, generally.
And also, with some bands, I don't like them enough to own the entire fuckign back catalogue. A compilation of the best bits, mine for a tenner? Suits me just dandy.
best ofs don't actually have the best bits.
if you don't like a band enough to want the whole back catalogue you probably consider the hits to be the best bits.
There's bound to be one or two gems you'll never know if you only have the best of though. I think that's quite sad.
Best Ofs do contain the best bits - that'll be why they were the singles in the first place.
arent neccisarily the best songs, often the most approachable
Thinking about the best ofs of bands I really like, I'd never listen to them because it's usually all the commercial stuff or just stuff that's been played to death. I dread to think what they'll do when Radiohead get round to releasing one.
What about the ones you sort-of like. Would you really buy their entire back catalogue?
but I bet the songs which most appeal to me by bands who I sort-of like won't always be the ones on their best of.
I feel differently I think. For example: I would never buy a Fall album on spec. But their Best Of slips down a treat.
often down in chronoligcal order, most bands loose their momentum after a while.... see Cypress Hill - Greatest Hits From The Bong..... the quality takes a nose dive down several canyons after the material lifted from the first 3 albums.
done done done*
If you want an introduction to a band, but it really naffs me off when bands whose albums I already have release a Best Of with a 'new' song on it. See also 'Re-releases with Bonus Tracks'.
I like em. Can be an introductory tool for artists with daunting back catalogues, or an all-you'll-need-to-own for bands you like but not love.
I can think of loads of artists who I've bought best ofs by first and then gone on to love and buy most/all of their work (Can, Leonard Cohen, Coltrane, Sabbath)
Or there's the GBV compilation - a ludicrously over-prolific band with a lack of quality control. Most of their albums sounded pretty patchy to me, but the best of is pure genius from start to end.
Of course, not a big fan of rubbish label cash-ins (which often seem compiled at random), and the horrible fleece-the-fans trick of adding new tracks. Always thought that seemed a bit hubristic too - like they can just toss off a couple of tracks to order that'll be up there with the best of their career.
in these days of the internet where you can stream, and in some cases (hype machine) download music for free sampling purposes, is there any need for greatest hits or best ofs to introduce you to an artist? Don't music fans find other ways to discover music?
but most people have never even heard of the hype machine.
For artists with a big back catalogue, you might know broadly what they sound like, but not know where to start.
Hype machine might throw up 1 or 2 tracks, but it couldn't provide you with a career overview of say, Neil Young as well as Decade could.
The red cover greatest hits is a must!