Greatest Hits...punch me...

Kate Bellgard ([email protected])
Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:44:18 +1000

 Blah blah blah
 So those of us who hate the idea of a greatest hits record are being
 elitist and obsessive? SO BE IT....
 There though two central reasons that those in the favour put foward:
 1. It'll help *hook* in new fans
 2. It might contain some new or unreleased tracks and hey we all want
 Now I'm not saying they aren't valid, y'all have a point more or less...I
 just don't agree.
 New fans will be *hooked* (could we pick a more cynical and manipulative
 word here!?) for any number of reasons. You hear a song in a film, in a
 car, at club it catches your ears, your heart, your feet or when you're
 really lucky all three. At one point all of us went through this with U2
 cause you don't get to be obssesive fans without being new fans
 first...and for me it was a truly amazing high, the music played and my
 life really did turn around. So I'm not begruding anyone the else the
 opportunity to experience this but really do we need a greatest hits
 for it to happen? Hell no. I didn't need it, you didn't need it, just
 because it could work is no reason to do it cause when you come down to
 its really just an easy option for the listener and the band. U2 are
 smarter than this and so are the people who are and will be into the
 As to a Greatest Hits containing some new material...I actaully find this
 idea really annoying, sure I'm dying to hear some new stuff but when a
 band does this its really just a ploy to help ensure sales....I mean much
 as I love Crowded House and sweet as it was of them to release a
 recording I would never of bothered buying Recurring Dream had it not
 for the three extra tracks...I was mad about it at the time and I still
 (bitterness is easy) cause no one likes to feel manipulated. And while
 we're at it..if its new stuff then it can't really be a greatest hit. Ok
 thats being totally and annoyingly pedantic but its true. If they're
 stay true to the title it shouldn't contain new stuff and if indeed it
 does then it amounts to cynical manipulation of the audience.
 And futhermore the idea of "Greatest Hits" somehow implies that whatever
 Hits come after (if indeed any do) will be somehow less great. Its
 something bands who have reached the end of the line either in creative
 commercial terms resort to, or in the case of REM's 1991 "Best of"
 compilation a record company venture produced without the bands full
 Maybe as Mark Lanigan suggested U2 could do something radical and
 worthwhile with the concept, if they do indeed decide to go through with
 the project. I hope they do, anything else would be too much like a punch
 in the face.
 Just my view....

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Sun Aug 30 1998 - 22:55:05 PDT