Do you believe in this theory about bands/artists releasing Best of?

[U2girl]

That they essentially have nothing left to say once they put out a Best of and that basically things go downhill from there?

 

[daisybean]

Interesting theory.....and true in many instances.

If you are refering to U2 I think they still got some good stuff left in them. I don't think they are quite ready to open an antique shop yet.
If not, then at least we have 20 some odd years of wonderful stuff.


Personally I love Best of/ Greatest hits because a groups best songs are all right there, no need to buy a bunch of albums.

 

[HelloAngel]

I think in many cases it's true.

I also think that it's often used as a device to fulfill a recording contract (artists often are bound to release X number of albums for a record label)

 

[david]

I think it's inevitable if you're a really great band that has been around for quite a while that actually has enough songs that could really be considered for a greatest hits package. like U2 for example, theirs came out almost 20 years into their career as a band, and it spanned only their first ten years. I consider that more of a compliment.

Then there are situations like REM where their first two greatest hits albums were put out against their say so. IRS was the record company they were on before they went to Warner Bros. REM were gaining mainstream success after Document, so after they left IRS, IRS put out a complilation ablum which focused on all of REM's IRS albums. It was their way of making money off the people that might not have owned any of REM's earlier albums. Then after REM put out two records on Warner Bros, they released a greatest hits album too.

Then there are bands that really don't even deserve greatest hits albums. Those bands are usually just one hit wonders that actually don't have anything left to say.

 

[dsmith2904]

It totally depends on the artist. In Madonna's case she puts out a new greatest hits album at the end of each decade sort of as a capper to that era. With others, like Elvis Costello, I think they (or their record companies) release compilations to introduce their older stuff to a new generation of fans. Then their are the artists who have those few hits, will probably never really sell tons of albums again, so a greatest hits package is a fast way to make a buck.
I think U2 falls somewhere between the first two examples.

 

[Zoomerang96]

yes, i agree u2girl. its a shame, and it really is a black mark on the artist. there is no way that i really believe u2 was excited to put these out.

then theres aerosmith, i believe they now have a total of 7 greatest hits packages? is that right? i heard they came out with THREE this year alone. i think it was called "oh ya" or something shitty like that. aerosmith is the worst band to ever emerge from the last century.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

then theres aerosmith, i believe they now have a total of 7 greatest hits packages? is that right?

yes. it's groups like this that appear to not have anything left to say with the release of a greatest hits album.

 

[JOFO]

well, u2 put out best of 1980-90.

then they released atyclb.


so much for that theory.

 

[dsmith2904]

then theres aerosmith, i believe they now have a total of 7 greatest hits packages? is that right? i heard they came out with THREE this year alone. i think it was called "oh ya" or something shitty like that. aerosmith is the worst band to ever emerge from the last century.

Artists like Aerosmith (and the Rolling Stones and Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey) don't stay with labels very long and often own their back catalog, so it's the decision of their record company to release at least one compilation per the term of their contract to make the most money as possible in the shortest amount of time.

I really like Aerosmith, but that's a different discussion.

 

[IWasBored]

the only theory i have about best ofs is that they shouldn't come out until a band has been putting out meaningful music for 10 years.

and another one: who buys them? two groups of people, if i'm not mistaken. one, hardcore fans. and two, very casual fans.ok, that sounds a lot like it covers everyone, but it's meant to be two extremes. people who listen to the band and like the singles but don't necessarily own any albums might buy a best of. die hard fans will too, just on the principle of it being one of their favourite bands. the big fan will already know the songs, and for them it serves as a mix of sorts. and the other group sticks the cd in the rack, along with all sorts of other comps and greatest hits albums, and takes it out occasionally once the radio stops playing the singles non-stop, or for party music. but the hardcore fan never COMPLETLY agrees with the track listing.

ok admittedly that could have been worded better...

 

[Saracene]

Or there might be a third group of people: those who want to discover new music by a previously unfamiliar artist/band and can't afford to buy all of their back catalogue. Buying a separate album can be a tricky business, too; you may unknowingly buy the weakest of the bunch and be turned off straight away.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Or there might be a third group of people: those who want to discover new music by a previously unfamiliar artist/band and can't afford to buy all of their back catalogue.

this is how i got into some of the groups i love today, like duran duran and fleetwood mac. also, thanks to groovy box sets, i was able to buy the police's box set which was majorly on sale at the time, and hear everything.