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

[koganbot]

(oops, too many goofs so here's a repost)

Some unrelated thoughts here:

In the old days especially, when singles and albums buyers were not the same people, Best-Ofs and Hits packages were ways for (1) people who owned some but not all the singles to get the ones they didn't own at a fairly cheap price (with singles going for about $1 and albums for $3 or $4, this was a good deal), (2) those people to play the singles all in a row without having to get up and change what was on the record player, (3) album buyers to get their favorites all on one album, especially from a band they like but don't love fanatically, (4) album buyers to get the singles that were never on an album.

Also, I think there was an attempt to make the album a viable listening experience; that is, don't just throw the hits on in any order. So The Rolling Stones' Big Hits (High Tide And Green Grass) in its U.S. version had the ballad "As Tears Go By" as its third track, which is often standard placement for where you put a ballad on an album by a band that's primarily dance or rock.

Their Greatest Hits by the Eagles is now the best-selling album in the U.S. (29 million copies), having outsold Thriller by about two million. So for lots of people this is likely one of only two or three Eagles albums they own.

Whereas Led Zeppelin has had a remasters compilation that sold 800,000 and a box set that sold a couple million but neither has anything like the sales of Led Zeppelin IV (Zoso), which is over 23 million in the U.S.

So, you know, album acts and singles acts.

And then there are compilations that are meant to introduce a lot of a band's music to an audience. The Kinks had had only one hit in the U.S. after 1966 ("Lola"), and only one other hit ("Sunny Afternoon") that postdated their first Greatest Hits album from late '65. So when The Kinks Kronikles compilation came out in 1972 (drawing from the band's output from 1966 to 1970) it basically introduced or reintroduced the band to the American audience. It helped that the album had excellent programming and notes by John Mendelssohn. So the album wasn't just a collection, it was an argument for the band.

There are probably other instances where a compilation helped to establish or widen a performers' reputation, though those are often with dead or noncurrent acts.

EXAMPLE IN ANOTHER ART FORM: I've heard that The Portable William Faulkner (1946) brought Faulkner to general attention (rather than to the select literary few) as One Of Our Great Authors. (Real Punks Don't Wear Black was conceived in a similar spirit.)

[koganbot]

(That is, up until 1972 the Kinks had only had one post-1966 hit. They ended up scoring a few more in later years.)