What makes a good best-of?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

You don't have to read the review of the Radiohead best-of which got me thinking about this - the relevant bit is this: "This compilation is dominated by a pair of central ideas of what Radiohead sound like: emotionally nourishing, impressionistic balladeers, or crunchy, tech- and texture-savvy rockers. The outliers, moments when the band has dabbled more in mood, atmosphere, or a love of pure sound...aren't represented at all."

Now admittedly Scott's talking about the 2CD version not the 1CD version, which would have more room to roam, but my reaction was still "DUDE IT'S A BEST OF" - one of the things best ofs are for is to boil down an act to its essence, and with the best will in the world the experimental stuff has always been fringier to Radiohead than some might have you think.

But maybe you think best ofs are for representing a band's entire output, or spotlighting hidden depths, or presenting fan favourites, or or or - what do you look for in a compilation?

Comments

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

I think platforms which allow for user recommendations are going to become increasingly important - say if you hear a selection of five tracks from across an act's career, like them all but LOVE one - in places like last.fm what I'd then do is check out who also particularly loves that song, what other songs by that act they like, and go from there. I agree that "packages" of songs are still going to be important as a way into an act, but they have to be as individually tailored as possible, otherwise it's a "try to cater to everyone, end up pleasing no one" deal.