Singles collection cd is better than greatest hits cd

[email protected]
Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:20:39 -0400


I think a singles collections sounds a bit better and makes more sense.
When I think a greatest hits or best of cd, I think of record company
picking out their favorite tracks and putting it on the cd. The one cd
that comes to my mind is the best of New Order cd, their are so many songs
missing from that album that I think the band had no input into the cd(I'm
not sure about that?). I think a singles collections sounds more
appropriate, two of my favorite bands comes to mind The Cure and Depeche
Mode. The Cure have done a smart thing about putting out two different
album collections(Stand on the Beach & Galore). Each of them having the
songs that were released as singles and in the same chronological
releasing order. Granted the Standing on the beach album came out before
the cure hit mainstream, it did reach double platinum in the U.S. As for
Depeche Mode, they released "Catching Up W/ DM" in 1986(their singles from
1980-86).Their releasing their second singles collection in October,
appropriately titled "The Singles 86-98".With all the songs in
chronological releasing order. Plus they are supporting the cd with a world
tour starting this week, and I'll happy to see them on Nov. 13, in Miami.
Anyway, all I'm babbling about is if U2 is going to release a "hits" album
it should be singles collection. Maybe a double cd, the first from 80-87
and the other from 88-98, hopefully offering at least one new song which
The Cure and Depeche Mode did. Also when I hear greastest hits I think the
artist has run out of its creative energy and is trying to make money some
how, where as singles is something to offer fans by releasing an album with
all their singles. I may be talking shit, but I think a singles collection
sounds more intellligent than a greastest hits album.

Flame me all u want,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Aug 30 1998 - 20:21:36 PDT