I thought about putting this in Rant sometime ago, but I was kind of hoping this Forum would be created.
If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it is a band/singer who makes a Greatest Hits album way too early in their career. It’s pretensious, for one thing. It does not make any sense to me that a band/singer with only three or less CD’s released should create a, “Greatest Hits,” compilation. One of the more obvious offenders in recent memory is Britney Spears, but there are others.
I propose that the following rules should apply to Greatest Hit releases:
1.) That the singer/band creating a Greatest Hits album been around for at least a Decade, or have released at least five previous albums of original material.
-A good example of this would be, “Decade of Decadence,” by Motley Crue, or Duran Duran’s, “Decade.”
2.) That the singer/band not release a second Greatest Hits album unless they have been around for 20 years, or have released ten albums of original material.
-The Eagles are actually an offender of this rule having released to Greatest Hits compilations prior to satisfying either of the above.
3.) That the Greatest Hits album not contain any previously unreleased material, because how can material that nobody has ever heard constitute a, “Greatest Hit?”
I think that any band/singer that releases an album without adhering to this guidelines is unjustifiable and is clearly doing so only for the purpose of making money.
Thoughts? Suggestions for additional rules?
I think there should be an exemption for the Eagles because of the magnitude of the greatness of those hits.
How about this one, if an artist is dead, then no other person or group should pimp out the material to make money from a greatest hits album. I say this knowing that Michal Jackson’s greatest hits album might be more inspiring than philosophy itself. In spite of that, I don’t want to see such an album released.
I actually have a pet hate against greatest hits albums. In my opinion if a potential music fan wishes to gain knowledge of a artist/band they should invest in the material they have already released, preferrably in chronological order. Greatest Hits albums are cheating, and don’t let a person ‘grow’ with the band. Imagine listening to a song from ‘Kid A’ without first hearing ‘Pablo Honey’, ‘The Bends’ and ‘OK Computer’, you would have no idea of the musical progression with led Radiohead to make that song/album.
Also I have an issue with someone else deciding for me what the greatest hits are, be it the record company or the artist themselves. For me some of my favourite songs by artists are album tracks or b-sides, again Radiohead are an example of this, but also included are Oasis, The Jam, The Beatles amongst others. It leads to people being told what songs from an artist are great, and what songs by association are not so great.
I also agree with you regarding timescale. Prime example is a Jeff Buckley Greatest Hits. I’m mean come on! The poor guy only had one studio album in his tragically short life! And the live/unreleased material has been available quite easily for some years!
Another condition should be that the artist are no longer actively producing new material at the time of the greatest hits release. A greatest hits album should not be a stop gap to make more cash from your fans, nor should it be a Christmas stocking filler!
if it has nothing to do with bumper cars or boxing, it isn’t worthy
-Imp
Smears, when it comes to the Eagles, we must be inflexible with the rule. Besides, who really thought the Hell Freezes Over tour wasn’t going to happen? I think that the liklihood of them doing a reunion tour after they broke up is the same as that of Hell being hot.
I also agree about the artist being dead rule, and would expand it to the band being broken up.
If we incorporate HumeGotItRight’s rules, then the Greatest Hits album should be a retirement thing, and then maybe one tour in promotion.