Compophobia

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why oh why oh why do rock critics seem to have such a fear of compilations, greatest hits packages etc etc. (not counting box sets which seem to get more 'respect') - every poll or list ever seems to exclude them automatically despite (because?) of these records selling a ton and often being better listening than most 'proper' albums.

Obviously I know the actual answer, this is rockism 101 album>>>track stuff but it still really annoys me.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

because they are NOT "New Albums" with all new music - they are retrospectives - so get classified as "Reissues"

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:23 (twenty-two years ago)

BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK??? The whole thing is ridiculous, they're fucking CDs aren't they, you don't need a special player to play them, they're reviewed in the same places by the same people, etc etc. It's petty I know but it winds me up for some reason, probably that I've got work to do and I'm trying not to do it.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Being an ultra-rockist I actually agree! Comp albums are establishing 'canons with canons', thus even more rockist than the obscurantist approach! I think the disdain comes more from 'auteurists' though, who suspect that the comps are put together by somebody not the artiste. But surely the artiste should have some idea (or wish) what's going to be on comps of the future? (Also if out of the first ten songs they release one of them goes on to be a big hit it can't help but inform how they write the next bunch. Then again any artiste who isn't totally out of touch with reality isn't an artiste! That's me being 'ultra-rockist' again)

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

http://valdefierro.com/lsumwn31_jpg_t.jpg

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:28 (twenty-two years ago)

well, most rock critics regard themselves as curators of some description, so it's probably also partly about a kneejerk reaction to the smell of their own..

(xpost with dave)

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Where is Clegg's hand eh?

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:30 (twenty-two years ago)

it's just been gnawed off by a terrier

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

hilarious!

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

(I thought this said "Comophobia." So this isn't about Perry Como?)

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe compophobia is not rockist but POP-ist! Like if one (or all!) of your top-ten list is comps then ppl will say "But you've missed the whole point of music which is integrating with the MOMENT or even worse you're saying that some OLD moment is better than the new one! (brandishes crucifix)" And then if you reply "But these songs really 'sound good' and [even worse cuz you're standing in the way of the iPod Atomiser Juggernaut] 'sound good together'" then you are outed as a ROCKIST!

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

i dont like compilations because albums are albums, and singles are not. and a compilation is singles masquerading as an album. i think they work maybe as a primer, or a label comp sometimes, but thats about it. i'd rather make my own comp

i think the other things might be less than wonderful packaging

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

(what's even funnier is that most comps by 'rock' bands are better than their actual records while most popstar comps are worse than popstar records. but then that's usually cuz popstar comps substitute all-nu vershes that nobody likes instead of putting the old good ones on! V/A comps where every single track is a nu-versh are good though)

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I typically dismiss them because 1.) I usually own all the proper albums by the time a comp gets released and 2.) I'm angry at the prospect of spending that amount of money to get one or two "new" tracks.

The above only applies to "best of" or "greatest hits" type comps, though. Singles and sides comps I look at differently. For instance, Louder Than Bombs is one of my favorite records of all time. It's miles away from being a proper album, but it certainly sounds like one.

― Johnny Fever (johnny fever), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Making your own is fine, that should count too.

V/A comps which aspire to being a snapshot of a scene or time or genre or even a mood tend to have easily as much care and artistry lavished on them as a real single-artist album: if they don't count as 'albums' then the category is a nonsense (which it probably is).

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I see nothing wrong in putting together a compilation for those who are singles oriented. However, there is always the point that a lot of lesser known album tracks remain unheard by those that go for "Best Of"s.

Anyway, some acts are great for compilations, some are not. I guess, most 50s acts and most 60s R&B acts are best on compilations as those never cared about albums. Likewise, disco acts and glam rockers (save for Bowie and Roxy Music) work better on "Best Of"s than on single albums.

Anyway, nothing like the good old concept album to me, that's for sure!

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Tico - but when compiling a scene snapshot the agonizing over what ppl might 'like' [or, what the company isn't going to pull out of paying for at the last second] isn't there! And I don't believe there's any artiste in the universe who doesn't have a least a teensy-weensy component of that going on however much they say opposite. Like, deciding to make your mark on culture by compiling a comp is a bit 'glory-hunting' as you Brit football ppl might say.

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:55 (twenty-two years ago)

(Actually that might be interesting, wonder if Lenny Kaye lavished more effort on 'Nuggets' or 'Horses'? If the former, then it means the latter was a lazy piece of hackwork nobody should ever listen to any more!)

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely what the company will pay for is U & K if you're commercially releasing it!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

categories of albums:

albums with all new music = NEW ALBUMS

REISSUE/ REMASTERS of Original albums = REISSUE ALBUMS

COMPILATIONS of single artists [best ofs/ primers/ greatest hits/ singles/ b-sides/ an introduction to.. etc]= RETROSPECTIVE ALBUMS [often grouped in for review purposes with reissues in print music mags]

VARIOUS ARTISTS compilations [label profiles/ genre comps/ mix compilations/ themed compilations] = COMPILATION ALBUMS/ or often classified as "Compilations" in print magazines, particularly in dance magazines]

Uncut has a section: "Reissues & Compilations"

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 4 December 2003 15:58 (twenty-two years ago)

most of the time i'd rather hear a personal mix by someone than a compilation put together by a proper label.

― Al (sitcom), Thursday, 4 December 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Tico...well there have been cases where ppl ended up putting up their own money to release their vanity projects on major labels but maybe those were just publicity stories, and also cases where ppl have claimed to have the plug pulled on them mid-recording, but I suspect alot of those latter stories came from ppl who never had label deals in the first place except in the land of rumour and hype. But yeah, a good scene snapshot has potentially a bigger impact culture-wise so you might be right about a lot more thought needing to go into it. Like if you edit a comp and everyone says "Track 7 is a piece of shit, I don't trust this one" then the whole project is fucked, whereas on a single-artist you can just put fuckin' anything on there

― dave q, Thursday, 4 December 2003 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

q's second post = wondrous gem

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 4 December 2003 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

a good comp is one of the great art forms of the late 20th century

― fiddo centington (dubplatestyle), Thursday, 4 December 2003 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

though i'm still not entirely sure what rockism is, i'd suggest that the silly rockist problem isn't making a decision to include or exclude comps from these lists. rather, the silly rockist problem is making -- and worrying about -- the lists in the first place.

― fact checking cuz, Thursday, 4 December 2003 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

(Thank you Dom for making me realize how truly annoying it can be to post images to threads. I will try to avoid it in the future, unless it seems really appropriate.)

― Rockist Scientist, Thursday, 4 December 2003 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

It was appropriate, it's a picture of Compo, for Christ's sake. Get educated.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Thursday, 4 December 2003 23:22 (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.