Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nimrod]

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.

[Mr Mustard]

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!

[nimrod]

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 

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.

[tkitna]

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%

[nimrod]

I agree 10000000%

I always thought the kinks were mainly a singles band










only joking guys   

[Joost]

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?

[tkitna]

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.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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.

[nimrod]

I just realized I have a best of.........................The Merseybeats !!

[tkitna]

U2 is another band that I can only do the greatest hits.

[Bobber]

I just realized I have a best of.........................The Merseybeats !!

An EP?

[nimrod]

CD

[Bobber]

CD

I meant: how many songs did they have to fill a 'best of' compilation?

[nimrod]

they had a couple of hits

Wishin & Hopin
I Think Of You

think thats it, not bad band though

[Bobber]

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'?

[Joost]

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.

[Mr Mustard]

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! 

[Joost]

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.

[Mr Mustard]

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?