Grestest Hits albums are the biggest mockery of the music industry.

(This stemmed from another topic I just read)

Here's why: Greatest Hits usually means you've ran out of ideas and you admit that your band/group/artist is dying. I'm not saying ALWAYS, but most of the times. The most potent example I can think of now is Creed.

They mainly have 3 albums: Weathered, My Own Prison, and Human Clay(all which I own). They have a bunch of singles and such along with Maximum Creed...a useless CD that you can get for free off their website(or use to). They release a greatest hits album after 3 titles. What happened to them? They pretty much faded.

Though some groups can get away with Greatest Hits CDs like Green Day and Outkast, most groups die after these. Another example is Bone Thugs n Harmony, one of my favorite groups. They released a GH album in 2003, three of them I think, and they pretty much faded after that...not even an album after it.

Greatest Hits albums are just compilations from previous albums that were airwave hits, but they charge you the full album price for re-copied material. Kylie Minogue releases greatest hits CDs(like, 6 of them) and at least throws in some new remixes of popular songs...but for the most part these GH albums are not worth the new album price. Really. I mean sometimes groups rename GHs albums so they sound like new, for example "Big Boi & Dre Presents....Outkast".

Generally a greatest hits CD should come out after 5-6 albums...but anything earlier(especially like Creed) basically tests us you're throwing in the towel because your new ideas suck and you ran out of material. I know the whole point of GHs CDs is to make money by attracting casual fans, but I usually respect an artist less if they do so early in their careers. Lenny Kravitz put out his GHs CD way too early, when much of his material really stinks. Same goes for Sheryl Crow, whose "The Very Best of Sheryl Crow" is just a laugher.

I'm not saying GHs CDs shouldn't exist, but how much effort actually goes into these CDs? Just compile songs together and make some new art for the album and that's it. For one thing, GHs in music should follow those in the gaming industry...reduce the price to maybe $8 or less.

I thought Creed was already broken up? The lead singer went and did his own thing and the rest of the band went and found another singer that sounds exactly like the other dude, and formed a new band, and somehow sucked even worse than Creed ever was.

I agree Dingo. Greatest Hits should mean that you have enough hits to fill an album with first.

Take care all.

U2 have had a couple and they're still around for some reason :confused:

I think you'd find that Greatest Hits releases are written into most artists' contracts these days by their record company. What really does my head in, though, is when a new song is included on the greatest hits album. When you already have all of the albums by that artist, you're not going to buy a whole album for that one song, but that gap in your collection by that artist is annoying as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meat Puppet

U2 have had a couple and they're still around for some reason :confused:

---

U2's Best Of 1980 - 1990, came out around 1999. At that time U2 had been around for nearly 20 years. U2 have survived for so long because they've constantly changed there sound. Listen to Boy(1980), and then go listen to Pop(1997). You'd think you were listening to a completly different band.

After that many years you need to attrack younger people to your fan base, and a Best of Album's a decent way to do that. Rather then expecting someone to go out and buy 6 seperate albums.

I agree with Skogs with regard to Greatest Hits albums simply being another part of an artist's contract nowadays. I really despise it when you look at a track list for a greatest hits album and it is clear as day that the band had no input over what tracks were going on it.
I think some greatest hits albums are good though, notably ones which have come out after a long spell, like The Very Best of The Eagles and U2's Best of 1980-1990.

Great Hits only works if the band has been well known for about 10-15+ years, imo.

I agree!!! It seems to me to be some kind of last-ditch attempt to salvage something of their [dying?] careers. But I'm sure it's not true in most cases, it's just that Greatest Hits keeps reminding me of The Backstreet Boys. :(

The Beatles' "1" Was a great album.

But mainly I agree with you.

I kinda like Greatest Hits abums, even though I may own all of the albums.
I still prefer to compile my own Greatest Hits albums though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spaceman Spiff

I thought Creed was already broken up? The lead singer went and did his own thing and the rest of the band went and found another singer that sounds exactly like the other dude, and formed a new band, and somehow sucked even worse than Creed ever was.

---

They formed Alter Bridge...which was a very bad idea. It's hard to replace Stapp's voice. The broke up took place just after the release of Weathered. I remember the fans were suing Creed because Stapp sang off-key and had to have the audience sing the lyrics for him. But eh...I just didn't think Creed should ever put out a GHs album after 3 albums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingo Jellybean

They formed Alter Bridge...which was a very bad album. It's hard to replace Stapp's voice. The broke up took place just after the release of Weathered. I remember the fans were suing Creed because Stapp sang off-key and had to have the audience sing the lyrics for him. But eh...I just didn't think Creed should ever put out a GHs album after 3 albums.

---

Yeah, he was drunk out of his mind, I heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

Yeah, he was drunk out of his mind, I heard.

---

Yeah...either that or intoxicated by something else. Either way, it just wasn't pretty.