Taking side - chronological hits compilations vs. carefully sequenced ones.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I definitely go for chronological. Those anthologies are best if you are able to follow the musical progression of a certain act from the beginning until now.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Are we speaking strictly about compilations from one artist?

― person#0 (person#0), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

single artist, i think...although you just conjured up visions of the makers of Now That's What I Call Music painstakingly sequencing this Christina song after that Nelly song that was released a week earlier.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

If it's really sequenced with care and if the artist's output quality is similar throughout his career, non-chronological compilations can be quite satisfying.

― JP Almeida (JP Almeida), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

One artist, yes. That "Now" vision was scary indeed. :-)

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Depends on whether the artist grew much in the time covered by the comp. For instance, The Best of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds screams out to be sequenced chrnologically, but isn't. The early Rolling Stones will not work any other way. But I recently made a Ween CD that was all over the place, and perfect.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

As I said in the other thread I think the sequenced approach is better, generally. I think Ally said that chronological ones are in danger of having a lot of bumf at the beginning/end/middle where there was an artistic slump. One example of this is the Soundgarden best of that I always skip the first 7 tracks or so because they're crap. Also the chronological approach really makes you feel like you're listening to sections of an artist's work rather than the true album. A well sequenced best-of shouldn't do this and you should be able to just sit back and listen to it without worrying about the intricacies of it all.

― dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

If it's as you say "Hits", then it should be in a musically logical sequence. If it's an artist retrospective, it should be chronological. i.e. "Hits" means that you just want to dance. "Retrospective" means you want to study.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

yair!

― dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

it should always be chronological - people can just program a different order if they prefer anyway

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't really care if they are chronological or not.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

It depends on the group and what they did over that span of time; if we're talking about AC/DC or KISS or The Ramones or something where they maintained a mostly singular style all through their career, sequencing them out of chronological order is perfectly natural. But for groups who didn't sound the same through their whole career, chronological sequencing becomes a very effective means of summarizing the stylistic shifts said groups had gone through over the years, like with Talking Heads or Fishbone or Killing Joke, fr'instance; it gives you more of a peak into what happened (musically) over those years than were they to just arrange them in order of, idunno, like, "biggest hits first, b-sides" last or whatever.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Different approaches are appropriate for different bands. I like the Go-Betweens' aesthetically sequenced _Bellavista Terrace_ much better than I'd like a chronologically sequenced best-of for them, but I can't imagine _Standing on a Beach_ in any other order.

When I put together a Stereolab singles comp for myself a few months ago, I did it in reverse chronological order, and it works great.

― Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 15 April 2003 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

It depends whether it is a best of or a greatest hits. greatest hits only contain chart hits right? so say you had a PiL greatest hits, you'd probably prefer it to be sequenced as it might help you appreciate the older, shitter singles more and it avoids a slump towards the end. But a group like Abba you might prefer their greatest hits to be chronological as it may hint at a progression in their very constant sound. so yeah, as always, completely relative

― schnellschnell, Tuesday, 15 April 2003 19:02 (twenty-two years ago)

The point's probably lost now, but just to clarify, I meant perhaps a retrospective on a movement (e.g. one of the many "classic punk" compilations that are available) rather than a Now compilation. Although all things said, I'd love to think that that's how time is spent in the Now offices.....

― person#0 (person#0), Wednesday, 16 April 2003 08:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It seems to me that one should always be concerned with careful sequencing, but sometimes one can go in chronological order without hurting the resulting quality, and so why not go chronological in that situation?

― hep j, Saturday, 19 April 2003 05:17 (twenty-two years ago)

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