reviewing greatest hits or best of comps

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Should you focus purely on the music on said comp, or is what's not on it a major factor? Should you just rate the album on the music coming out of the speakers? This was inspired by a couple of reviews. One where the NME gave the Manics Best of zero out of 10, but said that judged on the music actually ON the album, they'd have given it 8, but they were outraged at the omissions. I also seem to recall Uncut panning a VU comp. I think the reasoning was that it was stupid to compile random tracks by them, everything must be heard in its album context, and each album in it's entirety (I think, I can't really remember the review). What would you do if reviewing a best of?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd review the record the punters are actually going to be buying - anything else is just arrogant grandstanding, pretty much.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, because the people who are interested in a greatest hits pkg to begin with are not indie fetishists, they're consumers. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

― Horace Mann, Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Depends on how well you know the artist's back catalogue I suppose. The more of a fan you are, the more tempting it is to nitpick about omissions.

I don't write reviews, but as a reader I'd much rather read about whether the record is any good in itself than about the artist's place in pop history, that's for sure. But if it's not good, and an alternative exists that serves the artist better, yes tell me that by all means.

― Jeff W, Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but by extension, if the "wrong" tracks are chosen for the best of, the band are being misrepresented to said punters. worthy of a mention, at least?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:01 (twenty-three years ago)

that was in response to first 2 comments, not jeff w's.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but to give something a zero and then say that it's really an 8...that's misrepresenting too.

― Horace Mann, Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Exactly - a tacked on "This is good, but if you like it just wait until you hear THAT" is useful. A "This is shit because it isnt that." is less so.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:07 (twenty-three years ago)

best one was in the guardian were it said
'emf's best of... has the audacity to be spread over
2 discs, while gene's has the audacity to be spread over one'.

― piscesboy, Wednesday, 8 January 2003 21:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the choice of tracks is a valid thing to be commenting on when reviewing a "greatest hits" compilation, if the compilation is being promoted as such. If they've left off something obvious in favour of a "new" track then yeah, it's especially fair game to talk about that.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 21:40 (twenty-three years ago)

I presume the implication of "...while gene's has the audacity to be spread over one" is that Gene's catalogue is so bursting with meaty goodness it couldn't possibly be contained on one CD...right? Right?

Hello?

― Charlie (Charlie), Thursday, 9 January 2003 01:33 (twenty-three years ago)

I love shopping Amazon for greatest hits packages. There are actually people there who appear to have gone out and bought multiple versions of all the 'best of' collections by particular bands and are ready and willing to tell you which has more bang for your buck. Kool & The Gang, for instance.

Personally I only find it useless to discuss omissions when those omissions are out of print or otherwise hard to track down. In certain cases it may be perfectly fine for a reviewer to compare a 'best of' with the og albums - with some bands the difference may be well worth knowing.

Still waiting

― Tom Millar (Millar), Thursday, 9 January 2003 01:41 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd review the record the punters are actually going to be buying

Hm...an interesting question: is the idea of a modern greatest hits such that companies aren't targeting fans anymore since they'll have everything on mp3 anyway?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Mention the contxt/choices/etcetera, but rate it on the music contained within. Hence I gave the Stone Roses thing last year a big fat 10 and jizzed on it, but said I'd have liked a couple of different choices to have been included just cos I'm a bitch.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Thursday, 9 January 2003 10:03 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.