DM's Beatles forums
Other music forums => Various Artists, Lyrics, Discographies => Topic started by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on May 08, 2011, 08:11:40 PM
-
Which groups do you like enough for having a greatest hits collection by them but not enough for having a quite complete discography?
(http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy74/sebasferna/3731404914_5e5dd19b04.jpg)
The Animals. They had several hits that I really like, but I still find several fillers in this 20 songs compilation, so I can imagine how the original albums would be.
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/f2/45/b50e228348a00ae3c08ce010.L.jpg)
The Beach Boys. This is actually an exception because I do have Pet Sounds, which I acknowledge as a true masterpiece. However, the only other Beach Boys record I have is this pretty complete collection with 30 songs, including almost every Top 40 hit the band had. I know that as a 60's fan I should look for more Beach Boys records in the future, but for the moment I'm glad with this.
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/cf/14/3a86224b9da074ebe7d6c010.L.jpg)
Cream. I'm so glad with The Very Best Of Cream. I'm glad, I'm glad, I'm glad. 20 songs from their 4 albums, especially the first 3 very well represented; I couldn't imagine a more complete collection. I think that only a die hard fan who needs things like "Toad" would want more than this.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515S52IdrkL._SS400_.jpg)
The Hollies. With this I have their 18 most important A-sides from the 60's. A very enjoyable band, but it's enough sugar for me (if I take more it may cause me a diabetic reaction).
(http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/88/f9/0bc1a2c008a0e428a709a010.L.jpg)
Simon & Garfunkel. I have this famous greatest hits album released in 1972. When I listen to it I wonder why I don't have more records by the duo, but it still gives me a good image of how great they were.
-
Believe me, the Beach Boys' greatest hits are extremely unrepresentative for their discography. Thing is, they made brilliant music roughly from 1963 until 1973, but they were only commercially successful until 1966/1967. I could give you a list of obscure Beach Boys songs that would make, in my opinion, a better compilation than any greatest hits disc.
-
(Sorry about being off-topic)
Hey, Joost, what do you think of the song "Vegetables" by Beach Boys off of "Smiley Smile" ?
-
Hmmm..off the top of my head I say Toto, Hollies, Small Faces, Kinks, Beach Boys, Rod Stewart, Roxy Music, Abba, Mersybeats, Searchers
-
(Sorry about being off-topic)
Hey, Joost, what do you think of the song "Vegetables" by Beach Boys off of "Smiley Smile" ?
It's never been one of my personal favorites, but it's enjoyable enough. It's weird, it's funny, it's catchy, and for what it is, it works.
-
Believe me, the Beach Boys' greatest hits are extremely unrepresentative for their discography. Thing is, they made brilliant music roughly from 1963 until 1973, but they were only commercially successful until 1966/1967. I could give you a list of obscure Beach Boys songs that would make, in my opinion, a better compilation than any greatest hits disc.
I believe you. I know that I should listen to more Beach Boys records. I guess that after Pet Sounds I should listen to Today. What do you recommend?
About "Vegetables", I've read that it featured Paul McCartney on vegetables (literally). Is that true?
-
Today is one of their best albums, but it's still from their hit years. It's basically The Beach Boys the way you already know them. Personally I found their 1967-1973 albums much more surprising. They were trying new things and new directions and being more creative than ever. The Beach Boys' albums are available as so called "2fers", which are relatively cheap CDs with two full albums (and in most cases a few bonus tracks) each, expecially Sunflower + Surf's Up and Friends + 20/20 are highly recommended.
Paul was present at the 'Vegetables' sessions and apparently he indeed was one of the people rhytmically chewing on raw vegetables. But that was on the original 'Smile' version, while the 'Smiley Smile' version is a partial re-recording.
-
I could readily make do with just a Beach Boys Greatest Hits but I really must listen again to Pet Sounds which I do own... although I always feel it is a very overpraised album (yes, I know it was hugely influential - not least upon Paul McCartney). Apart from "God Only Knows" which I regard as one of the most perfectly crafted masterpieces in the history of rock & pop, nothing much else on there really grabs me. But I'm going to give it another go for sure.
In the mid 70s I had an unusual compilation album of theirs called "Spirit Of America" and I absolutely loved it. It had a mixture of interesting tracks, many of them very, very good (I became obsessed with the brilliant "Break Away") but included a pretty awful rendition of The Beatles' song "Tell Me Why".
I wouldn't mind exploring some of their later work, although I really enjoy their early surfing sound I'm well aware there was a great deal more to them than that.
-
Sunflower + Surf's Up and Friends + 20/20 are highly recommended.
I've just heard a couple of hits from 20/20 ("I Can Hear Music" and "Do It Again"), they certainly sound different. Soon or later I will hear those records.
-
Mr. Mustard and Hombre de Ningun Lugar:
I want to respond to your comments, but I felt it would be inappropriate to take over this topic and turn it into a Beach Boys topic... So please check the Beach Boys topic for my replies and let's continue the conversation over there, if you want to.
-
The Crowded House best off is a good one..
-
The Crowded House best off is a good one..
I agree. That's a very enjoyable CD and yet I never felt the urge to check out their regular albums.
-
I agree. That's a very enjoyable CD and yet I never felt the urge to check out their regular albums.
The latest one is good...Time On earth.
-
Sunflower + Surf's Up and Friends + 20/20 are highly recommended.
Absolutly
As for a Greatest hits only album. Phew, I dont really know. Its been my experience that I usually like the proper albums better once I listen to them, but i'll try to make an honest stab here.
First one that came to mind.
(http://www.mypartyplanner.com/common/d_images/products/00/04/ED/image_323005.jpg)
-
I got a Deep Purple best of and that's about the maximum I can handle. ha2ha
-
I like this topic! I have some artists I am more than happy owning just the greatest hits of:
Abba
Simon and Garfunkel
The Kinks
The Jam
Stevie Wonder
Boney M...yes you did read right!
Many more that I'm sure I could add.
-
I used to be a big Ramones fan but these days I find I'm satisfied with a compilation. The same goes for The Supremes.
Generally though, I abhor "Greatest Hits" collections as I find them to be too commercial and not necessarily representative of an artists' best work.
-
these are some I have bought over the years without digging deeper, there are others I own that I have "real" albums too like the Who
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/simon_and_garfunkel_greatest_hits.jpg)
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/queen_greatest_hits.jpg)
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/joe_jackson_greatest_hits)
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/james_taylor_greatest_hits)
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/america_greatest_hits)
(http://www.blmeanie.net/music/don_henley_greatest_hits)
-
Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Ray Charles for me.
-
The Kinks
Kinks
I guess that I feel like Joost with the Beach Boys when it's about the Kinks. A greatest hits collection is not enough to see the genius of Ray Davies. Face To Face, Something Else, The Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola and even Muswell Hillbillies are all great classic albums. Maybe none of them is the greatest masterpiece, but they are all very consistent, well written and fun!
-
I used to be a big Ramones fan but these days I find I'm satisfied with a compilation. The same goes for The Supremes.
Generally though, I abhor "Greatest Hits" collections as I find them to be too commercial and not necessarily representative of an artists' best work.
I very much agree with that statement, if you like a band or artist you really have to delve deeper that a greatest hits package, although my wife is different and has quite a few greatest hits by Eagles, Roxy Music, Chicago etc etc and she's more than happy with them, I guess were all different.
-
I've always been a bit suspicious of this rather snobbish "too commercial" argument. Sneering at music for being too catchy or radio friendly is a bit like criticising food for being too tasty. There's a lot of "Emperor's clothes" pretentiousness about it, like when fans of say Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd look down their noses at Wings and refuse to concede that Dylan/Gilmour/Waters et al would give their eye teeth to be able to whip off a timeless hit single the way Paul McCartney effortlessly always could (even though they bluster and huff and puff and try and deny it). "Greatest Hits" means no more and no less than exactly what it says: the most successful and popular tracks that appealed to the broadest number of listeners. There is a genuine and often undervalued talent to being able to write a "hit" remember!
-
Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd look down their noses at Wings and refuse to concede that Dylan/Gilmour/Waters et al would give their eye teeth to be able to whip off a timeless hit single the way Paul McCartney effortlessly always could
very very true ha2ha
They (Floyd) never could write hits post Syd barrett like he did.
I agree, I think writing a No 1 is extremely difficult, you can have some good fortune to be with the right sound at the right time but following that up with subsequent No 1's is extremely difficult.
-
I guess that I feel like Joost with the Beach Boys when it's about the Kinks. A greatest hits collection is not enough to see the genius of Ray Davies. Face To Face, Something Else, The Village Green Preservation Society, Arthur, Lola and even Muswell Hillbillies are all great classic albums. Maybe none of them is the greatest masterpiece, but they are all very consistent, well written and fun!
I agree 10000000%
-
I agree 10000000%
I always thought the kinks were mainly a singles band
only joking guys ha2ha ha2ha ha2ha ha2ha ;sorry
-
I've always been a bit suspicious of this rather snobbish "too commercial" argument. Sneering at music for being too catchy or radio friendly is a bit like criticising food for being too tasty. There's a lot of "Emperor's clothes" pretentiousness about it, like when fans of say Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd look down their noses at Wings and refuse to concede that Dylan/Gilmour/Waters et al would give their eye teeth to be able to whip off a timeless hit single the way Paul McCartney effortlessly always could (even though they bluster and huff and puff and try and deny it). "Greatest Hits" means no more and no less than exactly what it says: the most successful and popular tracks that appealed to the broadest number of listeners. There is a genuine and often undervalued talent to being able to write a "hit" remember!
I see you point, and I also don't like it when people get snobbish about "commercial" music. But still, I don't agree with you. "Commercial" songs are usually the songs that need just one, two or three listens before you "get" them. Songs that take a while longer are usually not good singles. That doesn't mean that they're bad songs. In fact, most of my favorite songs needed a while to sink in.
I think that commercial songs are a lot like snacks. Like hamburgers, hot dogs, pizzas etc. They're very popular, almost everybody likes them, they probably sell better than any other type of food... But does that necessarily mean that they're the best types of food available?
-
I think that commercial songs are a lot like snacks. Like hamburgers, hot dogs, pizzas etc. They're very popular, almost everybody likes them, they probably sell better than any other type of food... But does that necessarily mean that they're the best types of food available?
The person enjoying it decides on whether its the best or not.
From what i'm reading and gathering, are you saying that more complex songs that arent as readily accepted by the public, are better than the perhaps simpler type songs that are?
Maybe i'm not understanding you.
-
I've always been a bit suspicious of this rather snobbish "too commercial" argument. Sneering at music for being too catchy or radio friendly is a bit like criticising food for being too tasty. There's a lot of "Emperor's clothes" pretentiousness about it, like when fans of say Bob Dylan or Pink Floyd look down their noses at Wings and refuse to concede that Dylan/Gilmour/Waters et al would give their eye teeth to be able to whip off a timeless hit single the way Paul McCartney effortlessly always could (even though they bluster and huff and puff and try and deny it). "Greatest Hits" means no more and no less than exactly what it says: the most successful and popular tracks that appealed to the broadest number of listeners. There is a genuine and often undervalued talent to being able to write a "hit" remember!
I tend to agree, I don't care if a song is commercial or not, I just care if I like it. The Beatles was probably the most successful band ever despite (or because of) the fact that they were very talented. There's good and bad music that was popular and unpopular, and it always depends on the listener. However, getting a #1 hit not always depends on writting a good tune, sometimes the name of the artist helps a lot (though that artist must have gained that name). Of course, Paul was (is) very talented, but I guess that if any other artist writes the same song that Paul writes, in most cases it wouldn't be as successful.
-
I always thought the kinks were mainly a singles band
Well, actually I would say that this was true during 1964-1965. Funny enough, when they started to do solid albums their popularity started to go down.
-
I just realized I have a best of.........................The Merseybeats !!
-
U2 is another band that I can only do the greatest hits.
-
I just realized I have a best of.........................The Merseybeats !!
An EP?
-
CD
-
CD
I meant: how many songs did they have to fill a 'best of' compilation? ;D
-
they had a couple of hits
Wishin & Hopin
I Think Of You
think thats it, not bad band though
-
they had a couple of hits
Wishin & Hopin
I Think Of You
think thats it, not bad band though
So, that's two songs. Still a complete cd with 'best of'? ;D
-
From what i'm reading and gathering, are you saying that more complex songs that arent as readily accepted by the public, are better than the perhaps simpler type songs that are?
No, that's not what I mean.
-
I see you point, and I also don't like it when people get snobbish about "commercial" music. But still, I don't agree with you. "Commercial" songs are usually the songs that need just one, two or three listens before you "get" them. Songs that take a while longer are usually not good singles. That doesn't mean that they're bad songs. In fact, most of my favorite songs needed a while to sink in.
But I really can't see why music, in many ways the purest form of artistic pleasure, should have to be a "challenge". Why should I have to work at listening and re-listening to certain tracks in order to enjoy their fruits? Some things like the Rubik's Cube, crosswords or mountaineering are designed to be challenging. I've never seen why music should be. Having said all that I am not an inverted snob - I do really like some less readily accessible/populist material. Case in point: Jethro Tull. The first few times I heard them I really didn't like them, gradually the penny dropped and they would now rank as my joint second favourite group and I own (and mostly love) their complete catalogue of albums. So although I'm still suspicious of those who disparage commercial hits, I am not saying, and never have said, that songs which take their time to sink in are bad songs.
I think that commercial songs are a lot like snacks. Like hamburgers, hot dogs, pizzas etc. They're very popular, almost everybody likes them, they probably sell better than any other type of food... But does that necessarily mean that they're the best types of food available?
Very clever analogy Joost... I like that! ;D
-
My point was not that complex music is better than simple music. There's good and bad complex music, and there's good and bad simple music. It's as... ehm... simple as that. ;) I listen to punk rock a whole lot, so there's a lot of very simple music that I love.
My point is that some people (I say this in general, not to anyone here in particular) seem to be under the impression that an artist's greatest hits, the best-selling singles, are his best songs. I don't think that's necessarily true (and also not necessarily untrue). Usually the greatest hits are just the most accessible songs, the ones that are easiest to digest.
-
I guess the problems begin when a "Greatest Hits" is taken as being the same thing as a "Best Of..." and although they're often thought of as the same thing they sometimes aren't.
"Greatest Hits" is easy to measure and prove based on chart statistics, record sales, airplay durability etc...
"Best Of" is entirely subjective.
I think I read once where someone had grumbled about "Shiny Happy People" being absent from an REM compilation album, only to be told that the group did not regard it as their finest hour (in fact I think Stipe loathes it), rather a tongue in cheek swing at pappy commercial pop fodder. Ironically I love it and think it beats a lot of their "clever" stuff hands down.
But there's no "right" and "wrong" on this is there?
-
My point is that some people (I say this in general, not to anyone here in particular) seem to be under the impression that an artist's greatest hits, the best-selling singles, are his best songs. I don't think that's necessarily true (and also not necessarily untrue). Usually the greatest hits are just the most accessible songs, the ones that are easiest to digest.
I would say that the greatest hits are like the fingerprint of a band, the songs the artists are usually known by. Aftel all, we usually get to know a band from its hits, and if one can't get enough of them then one goes for the original albums.
-
My point is that some people (I say this in general, not to anyone here in particular) seem to be under the impression that an artist's greatest hits, the best-selling singles, are his best songs. I don't think that's necessarily true (and also not necessarily untrue). Usually the greatest hits are just the most accessible songs, the ones that are easiest to digest.
Gotcha. I missed your point completely beforehand, but i'm on board now.
I agree with you.
-
The thing about Greatest Hits albums though is that you're probably going to be familiar with most of the songs on them, and you can hear them anywhere. There's no room for discovery of hidden gems.
-
The thing about Greatest Hits albums though is that you're probably going to be familiar with most of the songs on them, and you can hear them anywhere. There's no room for discovery of hidden gems.
I agree. My first purchase of a band or artist has often been not the greatest hits album, but the rarities/B-sides compilation (my first Beatles album for instance was Anthology 2). A hits compilation usually contains the safest, most middle of the road songs. On a rarities compilation you can hear artists exploring their boundaries which can give you a much broader picture.
-
I guess I always go to the safer place and prefer a greatest hits collection if I only need one album from a band. Of course that for those bands that are on the top of my preference I must have their original albums.
-
I'm with Hombre, I'll listen to a greatest hits album just to get a feel for the band. If their are a couple tracks on the Greatest Hits I'm not into, I won't go any further. Like Red Hot Chili Peppers; their greatest hit CD is good, but there are like 7 tracks I never listen to.