Best ofs

[Onhell]

  Best-Of CDs should be two-disc affairs, though...anything else is almost criminal.

/rant

I read this from the Edward the Great thread in maiden chat and I thought it perfect to start this new discussion I was going to start anyway.

Today I bought three "Best-ofs", Gun 'n' Roses, Styx, and Garbage. It got me thinking on best ofs in general and why I got these in particular. As rockin' as GNR are, I really could care less about them outside of their biggest hits. I do have use your illusion pt. 1 and outside of the "hits" it's not that great of an album, so I have my fix from their greatest hits collection which is rather complete (20 tracks). Styx is an old band from the early/mid 70's to early 90's. With old bands you have the problem of not being able to find all their albums (specially their earlier stuff) and if they have many (say like Megadeth and Maiden) compiling them all is rather time consuming and a best of gives you a nice set of highlights. Garbage's I got because I liked their videos in the early/mid 90s, they had good tunes, but theirs was not a genre that today I'm really into, but i liked a few of their singles. If I really like this one I might actually get their albums.

So basically I get best ofs for to reasons: 1. getting an artists "best" work and weeding out their crappy songs or 2. If the artist was very productive and/or I'm curious about them I'll get them as a sample of their work to later get their albums. That's what I did with Megadeth's Capitol Punishment and Jethro Tull's best ofs.

Bands like Maiden where every single album is a must have (one can strongly argue such statement) really made me rethink best ofs... Is it really a bands best works? a gimmick? and is it worth getting? Other artists' who's best ofs I have and wish to get more albums of are Billy Joel, Tom Petty and Yes, however I have enough with Boston's. Other bands I just want a best of from are America and Kansas, mostly to familiarize myself with their material, but also because that's usually the only thing one can find in record stores hehe...


What do you guys think of best ofs? Should they be 2-disc affairs (like Billy Joel's vol. I, II and "Essential", Maiden's Best of the Beast) or are single disc efforst more than enough, (Like GNR's and Styx)? 

 

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

I think best ofs really only serve one purpose and that's to give newcomers a taste fo the band's style, especially those who know little about the band. I remember a best of album was how I got into Black Sabbath a few years ago. When I was new to Maiden, I would have just as soon gotten No Prayer for the Dying as Piece of Mind, and in the former case, would have probably lost interest in them without given them the attention they deserve. Edward The Great was my second Maiden album after AMOLAD, and in my opinion it's a fun and instantly catchy representation of Bruce-era Maiden (Di'Anno albums were out altogether and Blaze-era was terribly misrepresented.) Edward the Great was how I knew to get Seventh Son and Piece of Mind. At this point though, I wouldn't bother getting any best-of albums. Listening to nothing but hits gets boring pretty quickly, whereas albums usually have a certain depth to them. I'd say if you want a good taste of a band's style, live albums are probably the way to go. Best ofs are usually only good for newcomers and collectors.

 

[Mmm...Donuts]

Agreed, while best offs can introduce you to a band's biggest hits, it's not necessarily their best. Like how most metal compilations popularize NOTB and RTTH, it's not maiden's best. You will really learn to appreciate a band if you listen to all their records and not just their best. I'm not against listening to best of's first, but there is a point to dive deeper and see what the band has to offer 

 

[Onhell]

I think it depends on the band. I got The Cars greatest Hits a while ago and I love every single one. I borrowed an album of theirs from a buddy and it sucked ass, might not have been their best, but if it was even a hint at the rest of their material I rather stick to my best of

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

Maybe this is a bit of a change of topic, but the Cars are one of those bands who started great and went downhill from there. The first Cars album is very good, the second one only slightly less so ... but after that, the singles are all you need to hear.

Styx is a more typical band, with the standard five-phase life cycle:
1. Early albums with limited or no commercial success, experimenting as they find their style.
2. Commercial breakthrough, and a few great albums during their artistic peak.
3. Mediocre (or worse) albums, each one with one or two singles and otherwise a load of pedestrian crap. During this time, the success of each single diminishes from one to the next until no one but the hardcore fans care.
4. Having run out of major success at the end of step 3, the band breaks up. The lead singer tries a solo career.
5. Unless the singer's solo career takes off, the band eventually re-unites for nostalgia tours.

For comparison, both Metallica and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are in stage 3 right now. Metallica has been there since Load, and unless the new album breaks them out of the above pattern, step 4 is coming after that.* RHCP just entered step 3; most of their last album was a severe disappointment, but "Dani California" was still one of their biggest hits ever.

Or consider The Police. Their first album was stage 1. The next 2 were stage 2. The last 2 were stage 3. Then they broke up, released a GH and Sting had a successful solo career. But how many years has it been since Sting had a big hit? And now they're on a nostalgia tour.

Most bands release their first Greatest Hits album when they're in stage 3. It's a way of getting more record sales; fewer people are buying the albums because the band is starting to lose it. In fact, the release of a GH is usually the prime indication that a band has jumped the shark.

*Yes, I am officially predicting that Metallica will break up after the next album if it sucks as hard as St. Anger did ... and that Hetfield will then start a solo career.

 

[Onhell]

I agree with your observation, for the exception that Red Hot Chili Peppers are sucking right now. I think they are making some of their best stuff... but then again it could be a matter of tates...  Another thing I noticed is that GNR and Styx broke up for the exact same reason. Deyoung in Styx and Rose in GNR both wanted a more orchestral/theatric/symphonic direction while the rest of the band wanted a harder, straight forward brand of rock. A compromise couldn't be reached or rather, they wouldn't have more of it (November Rain for GNR and Kilroy Was Here for Styx) are as far as everybody was willing to go.

 

[Belenor]

Very interesting analysis, SMX, probably not far from the truth The bit about Metallica - well, I'm really interested whether this will come true or not.

Well, on topic -  one or two disc - well, it should depend on the band's album count, I think. But there is a chance that people would prefer buying a cheaper one CD than two CDs potentially resulting in a greater increase of fanbase (more buyers). I usually do not buy best ofs. Instead, I read a lot about the particular band, read album reviews and then pick one full album which is considered as one the bands top albums. I have been lucky with Dream Theater this way buying Scenes from a Memory recently. Now I am thinking about Queensrÿche's Operation: mindcrime but not yet decided

 

[LooseCannon]

RHCP just entered step 3; most of their last album was a severe disappointment, but "Dani California" was still one of their biggest hits ever.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Dani California was a terrible, terrible album.

 

[Shadow]

What do you guys think of best ofs? Should they be 2-disc affairs (like Billy Joel's vol. I, II and "Essential", Maiden's Best of the Beast) or are single disc efforst more than enough, (Like GNR's and Styx)?

In my opinion, it depends very much on the nature of the band's music. For a band like Styx - with a large number of singles and generally shorter songs - one disc can suffice. But how representative can you make a single disc Pink Floyd compilation? Not only does fewer singles make the selection more difficult, they are also a band renowned for lengthy compositions. Any reasonable overview of their material would fill up two discs.

I sometimes buy compilation albums to discover new music - for example, my first Pink Floyd and Rush albums (Echoes and Chronicles respectively) were best of releases, and the one disc Best of the Beast was my third Maiden album. However, most of the time I'll get a regular album, or a live album if I want an overview. Most bands I like have more than two good songs per record.

Hypothetically, a downside of overly comprehensive compilations could be that you wind up owning two thirds of a album, and despite really liking those songs you might feel reluctant to pay for the full album already owning so much of it. However, I can't recall this ever happening to me.

 

[Albie]

Wait a minute, Garbage have a best of? But they've only been around for 2 minutes. Their best of must comprise of about 60% of all their material to date.

As for best of's, I don't tend to buy them unless the track listing has a good selection of stuff from a band I am unlikely to buy normal albums from - a good example is the Stone Roses "best of" (10th Anniversary Edition), a stonking collection of tracks, but I don't care too much for what else they have done (I Am the Resurrection has the greatest musical piece this side of The Nomad).

But what gets me is that best of's are picked by someone and it is their judgement what goes in. So best of's become very hit and miss at the best of times. However, they can be a very good way of sampling new music for a band you wish to get into, but for every Maiden, there is a Stone Roses.

As for the best of being single or double - this really does depend on the band. You only have, what, 80 minutes to play with. Should that band have loads of 6, 7 or 8 minute songs, that is not going to go far on one CD.

 

[Onhell]

I agree wholeheartedly.  Dani California was a terrible, terrible album.

That's because Dani California is not an album, but a song on the album Stadium Arcadium which kicks ass

Wait a minute, Garbage have a best of? But they've only been around for 2 minutes. Their best of must comprise of about 60% of all their material to date.

a little over 10 years to be exact and yeah... 4 (or 5 I forget) albums...

All I really ask from best ofs are A) the band MUST no longer be active, either they are dead because their plane crashed or they can no longer stand each other so the band is defunct. AND as pointed out by Albie, They have to have considerable material, not just a handful of records...

That said I'm a big hypocrite because I really like Atreyu's best of composed of 18 tracks from their first three cds and I'll very likely get their fourth sense it sounds decent enough

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

Garbage was formed in 1993 in Madison, Wisconsin. I know because I was living there at the time, and very involved in the local music scene. Some friends recommended me to Butch Vig as a potential bassist for Garbage, but to my knowledge Butch never took them seriously. He did see me play live at the time, though, and complimented my playing. Nice guy. He was the biggest star on the Madison scene (and already a world-famous producer), but not at all arrogant about begin the big dog in town.

 

[Albie]

OK, what I meant to suggest is that Garbage have not been recording for long enough to warrant a best of. I know their recording career started over 10 years ago (I have their second album on CD - Version 2.0 - which dates back to 1998, and a damn good album it is), but they released only 4 albums and then - as far as I know - broke up around 6 years ago only to reform quite recently. It's not like they have been recording for all of the last ten years and have 7 or 8 albums to choose from.

I think you summed it up nicely, Onhell:

All I really ask from best ofs are A) the band MUST no longer be active, either they are dead because their plane crashed or they can no longer stand each other so the band is defunct. AND as pointed out by Albie, They have to have considerable material, not just a handful of records...

 

[Anonymous]

Best Of's also serve nicely to wrap up a phase in a band's career. Queen demonstrated that quite well when they released Greatest Hits in 1980; they just stopped being the hard rock band they were in the seventies, and going through an experimental phase, so they were probably aware of the fact that they weren't going to return where they came from. While it certainly does not do too good of a job of representing what kind of music the band were doing at that time, it still is essential listening to everyone, a great start (it was my first Queen CD together with Greatest Hits II) and remains one of the best-selling albums of all times.

 

[Forostar]

The Helloween compilation-album "The Best, the Rest, the Rare" features Helloween's period with Kai Hansen. An end of an era.

 

[porcnoz]

(...) I read a lot about the particular band, read album reviews and then pick one full album which is considered as one the bands top albums.

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...

I had a discussion with a friend about Best of's and he told me that he would never buy anyone because, to him, a CD relates a story and there's a good reason about the order of the songsand you lose all of that "thinking" stuff in best of's.

James Hetfield starting a solo career? Hmm...that would be interesting 

I really don't. But more than the singer, isn't it, instead, more the leader who makes a solo career and do so because he sings ? I mean, if the leader is the bassist (as for exemple !) and sing very bad, he can never hope doing a solo career. And in Metallica, the leader is Lars, not James .

(...) the album Stadium Arcadium which kicks ass

I agree with you Onhell, nice album !

Oh yeah, I was forgotting, thanks for the analysis SMX ! But aren't ,sometimes, Best of's also a way to make wait fans, like  when an old album gets a new package ? Ask AC DC, they know much about that !

 

[Shadow]

Many compilations are released due to record companies wanting something to fill the gap while a proper studio album is in the works. Quite a few old Pink Floyd compilations - like Relics and A Nice Pair - are examples of this.

It can also be a contractual obligations thing, or labels exploiting famous names formerly signed to them. For example, look at all the Mothers of Invention compilations MGM have thrown out over the years.

 

[Onhell]

It can also be a contractual obligations thing,

Megadeth's last record with Capitol

or labels exploiting famous names formerly signed to them.

Iced Earth's "Best of"...

 

[SinisterMinisterX]

But more than the singer, isn't it, instead, more the leader who makes a solo career and do so because he sings ?

Sometimes, a bandleader who is not the frontman tries such a thing. For example, Jimmy Page has released solo albums. 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".)

Now think about Robert Plant's solo career. I'm not especially a fan of his solo stuff. It's not that I dislike - I just haven't paid any attention to it. And even I can name a handful of his hit singles. (On an off-topic tangent, consider that most people would define a "melody" as containing more than one single pitch, and yet Plant sang "I'm in the mood for a melody" in a monotone. That has always amused me.)

The reason that the singer has the solo career is because he's the frontman. He (or she) is the face that the public knows. A successful solo career starts with recognizability, not musical talent. That successful solo career may be sustained beyond one or two singles if the singer is also a competent songwriter. Compare Steve Perry of Journey, who had one hit single after Journey first broke up, vs. Sting's career. Sting kept it going for a long time because every now and then he writes some great songs.

---

And in Metallica, the leader is Lars, not James .

Can't let this pass without dispute. James and Lars are the co-leaders. James concentrates on the music, while Lars does more of the business side (though this is obviously a generalization, as they're both involved in both areas, but to differing extents as I just indicated.) I will confess to not having watched all of Some Kind Of Monster, so maybe things have changed lately - but up to Newsted's departure at least, they were equals.

Not all apparent partnerships are what they seem, though... for all the influence that Paul McCartney had over the Beatles, it was always Lennon's band. In fact, the most direct cause of the Beatle's breakups was not Yoko Ono - it was Paul trying to take over the band leadership, and the other three rejecting that.

Yeah, I know this topic has nothing to do with the Beatles, but this oldster just felt like dropping some knowledge on the youngsters here.

 

[Onhell]

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.

Anywho, Yoko was the straw that broke the camels back, but more than anything, regardless of the new girlfriend and power dynamics, they were just sick of each other by then. George wanted out because he wanted to release his own material after the crappy contract they had signed that only allowed him two tracks per album, so aside from Lennon's and McCartney's "leadership" bouts I think every Beatle had a reason to leave.