Best ofs

[Anonymous]

That's what I do too now, and I also look for fans forums, to know which album represents the best the band or is considered to be the best one. I recently did it for Queen and it appeared that "A night at the opera" was the Queen's best album. Then, internet is still really helpfull because of all the friends you can have all over the world and who share you (very friendly) their music... 
As I haven't been convinced by the album, I think that I'll keep GH I & II but buy nothing more of their stuff...

And that's where the resident Queen fanatic kicks in. Although A Night At The Opera is a brilliant album, it hardly stands representative of what Queen in general is like. To make it short, for hard rock fans, I recommend the first three albums (Queen, Queen II and Sheer Heart Attack). Greatest Hits includes only three songs from those albums (completely omitting the first album), so you won't even have an idea of what you're missing. News Of The World and Jazz are also hard rocking albums. Innuendo also returns to those hard rock roots a bit, but of course also stands in the tradition of their more poppy 80's sound.

How many people here can name even one single Jimmy Page solo song? (I mean pure Page solo, not The Firm or Coverdale/Page or any projects that weren't titled "Jimmy Page".)

Since I own his excellent Outrider album, I can.

We can discuss the Beatles here, after all they have a crapload of "best ofs" lol, and one could argue that is ridiculous considering 95% of their material is worth getting, at least their 13 "official" albums.

I disagree*. In my opinion, the only thing you need to own from the first half of their career is the red two disc compilation (1962-1966). Most of what they produced at that time was shallow, mindless pop music. Even a lot from that compilation is almost unlistenable. At that time, the Beatles were not so much about music, but about the rebellion, the hype, the myth. As a phenomenon, they were something that had not been there before at that time, but musically, they were pretty average early 60's pop. With the notable exception of several classic pieces, most of what they made at that time sounds antiquated these days.
After 1966, or better said, from Revolver onward (maybe even from Rubber Soul onward), each and every one of their albums is worth having. At that time they started departing from that mainstream pop stuff they were doing at that time and began making some serious and innovative rock music. If you only listen to the great hits from that era, you are missing out something. However, if you only listen to the great hits from the previous years, you're not missing much, except more of the same.

______
*I am stating my opinion here. I thought it was tiresome to write "In my opinion" or "IMHO" every five words, so I opted not to do so; however, if you choose to flame me for what I think, please pretend I did.

 

[Forostar]

Off-topic:

Half a year ago, I decided to buy the first Queen album, and apart from the first (or second, I can't even remember) track the album was boring to me. And what a crap production. I guess I prefer Queen a la "Innuendo", "I want It All", "Show Must Go On" etc.

Led Zeppelin I'm not fond of either. Heresy, I know, but Plant's voice is not realy my thing. More important reason: their music (that I've heard) is repetitive, most songs consisting only of one or two riffs, repeated all the time till the end. Bonham was a famous hard hitter, but he drummed slow and with hardly any tempo changes.

My view on Led Zeppelin has to do with my taste. To me they sound the opposite of what bands like Maiden and Rush stand for: Dynamic, adventurous, and melodic music.

 

[Anonymous]

I understand your views on Led Zeppelin, but I would like to encourage you to check out the live album How The West Was Won. The truth is, the tracks they recorded for the studio albums were just a starting point for what they played live. In fact, more often than not, what they played live had little in common with the studio tracks, except that the beginning and the ending were usually what made up the song in the studio, with very powerful and adventurous performances in the middle.

 

[Forostar]

Thanks for the info! I'll remember that title.

 

[Onhell]

I disagree*. In my opinion, the only thing you need to own from the first half of their career is the red two disc compilation (1962-1966). Most of what they produced at that time was shallow, mindless pop music. Even a lot from that compilation is almost unlistenable. At that time, the Beatles were not so much about music, but about the rebellion, the hype, the myth. As a phenomenon, they were something that had not been there before at that time, but musically, they were pretty average early 60's pop. With the notable exception of several classic pieces, most of what they made at that time sounds antiquated these days.
After 1966, or better said, from Revolver onward (maybe even from Rubber Soul onward), each and every one of their albums is worth having. At that time they started departing from that mainstream pop stuff they were doing at that time and began making some serious and innovative rock music. If you only listen to the great hits from that era, you are missing out something. However, if you only listen to the great hits from the previous years, you're not missing much, except more of the same.

Hmm, I can't agree with that, upon a closer listen their earlier works are more than average 60's pop. Their vocal harmonies, guitar work and overall style were new. Of course it sounds "60s", but i've heard A LOT of 60's music and while one can easily place their first albums in that period, it is also obvious they were above their peers.

 

[supersonic]

Off-topic:

Led Zeppelin I'm not fond of either. Heresy, I know, but Plant's voice is not realy my thing. More important reason: their music (that I've heard) is repetitive, most songs consisting only of one or two riffs, repeated all the time till the end. Bonham was a famous hard hitter, but he drummed slow and with hardly any tempo changes.

Thats exactly what I used to think, until I gave Physical Graffiti a good, hard listen. After that, I was a convert 

 

[Cornfed Hick]

So, to sum up:  If the artist has a significant body of work, a two-disc set (at least) is a must, though you are probably short-changing yourself if you do not listen to the artist's "best" albums in their entirety.  For an artist that only has a few albums, or is only noteworthy for its radio-friendly hits (e.g., the Cars, Garbage, etc.), or is wrapping up a first phase of its career (e.g., the Eagles Greatest Hits v.1, ZZ Top, etc.) a single-disc compilation ought to suffice. 

Plus: Zeppelin is overrated, except when they are great*; early Queen is different from later Queen; the Beatles have so much good music that the only arguably worthwhile "Best Of" is a two-disc set of their very early material; post-Black Album Metallica totally sucks; and something about Jimmy Page as a solo artist.

* Allow me to second Perun's recommendation of How the West Was Won.  You may also want to check out the DVD that was released at the same time (I believe it is simply called "Led Zeppelin DVD" -- the package has a photo of a  desert mesa on it).  The live performances sound great, and watching Robert Plant on stage is high comedy.