Drunken Owls and Other Delights

AP had an interesting story on Yahoo! News about the good and the bad about Greatest Hits compilations the other day...it's a fun read, and brings up a lot of good points.

Bypassing the obvious point that online music sites have pretty much made compilations a moot point, the article does bring up a lot of interesting points about the why and the when of Greatest Hits compilations. One of the biggest points is whether or not a band should release one. Sure, it made sense way back in the day when some bands were primarily singles-based acts rather than album-oriented, but nowadays there are some bands who come out with compilations either a little too early in their career, or a little too often.


Best of ! Most of !
Satiate the need
Slip them into different sleeves !
Buy both, and feel deceived

Sometimes I wonder why some bands and performers come out with compilations so quickly. Some are obviously 'contractual obligation albums' (thanks to Monty Python for that phrase) made to have something out on the charts when the original slew of singles from the album has been bled dry. And it's frustrating when some bands come out with compilations that obviously have everything you already have. Understandable that these are mostly aimed at getting newer fans hooked on albums. But then there are bands and performers who come out with rendundant compilations, such as Britney Spears (how many albums did she come out with before then? Two? Three?), Aerosmith (O Yeah! in 2002 and Devil's Got a New Disguise in 2006--with only one new album in between, and that was of old blues covers), and the relentless repackaging with Sony's Essential series (great compilations themselves, but nothing we haven't seen before). Most of these types of compilations are put together by the labels rather than the bands themselves (they only give it the go-ahead), with maybe a rarity or a new song thrown in for good measure.


Re-issue ! Re-package ! Re-package !
Re-evaluate the songs
Double-pack with a photograph
Extra Track (and a tacky badge)

The Beatles themselves were never fond of greatest hits compilations, releasing only the A Collection of Beatles Oldies only in the UK and featuring nearly all singles and UK rarities while they were together. It wasn't until they broke up that Capitol and Parlophone decided to fill the post-Beatle years with no less than eight different compilations between 1973 and 1982. Not to mention that when their contract with Apple ran out in 1975, John, George and Ringo all came out with compilations. Out of all of those post-band compilations, only Rarities and Live at the Hollywood Bowl had anything of note that fans didn't already have. And even with two more compilations in the 90s (Yellow Submarine Songtrack and 1) that did moderately well, it wasn't until 1995-96's Anthology series and last year's Love that we got something even remotely new. But...the Beatles being so famous and loved, we'll pick them up anyway. Or at least I do. ;)

And then there's The Cure...god love 'em, they're a great band, but during the 90s and early this decade they hardly put out anything new after 1989's Disintegration. Only three albums of new stuff--the great Wish in 1992, the underwhelming Wild Mood Swings in 1996, and the strained Bloodflowers in 2000--were surrounded with compilations and live albums: Mixed Up(1990), Show,Paris and the Sideshow EP in 1993/4, Galore in 1997 (a sort-of continuation of 1986's Standing on a Beach, but really showing how far downhill the band had gone in the 90s), Greatest Hits in 2001, and the Join the Dots box set of b-sides and rarities in 2004. The self-titled album of new stuff in 2004 was actually a great return (and finally a great new direction for them), but at this point the wait is just a bit too long.

A-list, playlist
"Please them , please them !"
"Please them !"
(sadly, THIS was your life)

Like I said, I understand the basic idea behind the greatest hits compilation--it's mostly to bring in new fans, especially the ones who don't want to go out of their way and pick up all the other albums by the band. I admit I've bought greatest hits for that very reason...Hatful of Hollow was my introduction to the Smiths, Standing on a Beach to the Cure, and Gold Mine Trash the obscure band Felt. And I've also picked up compilations that were just flat-out great, even though I have all their stuff already (Wire's The A-List, Depeche Mode's Singles 86>98, The Clash's The Story Of... and so on). And for bands that were not especially mainstream at the time, this made sense.

But when now-huge bands like Aerosmith, REM, U2 and The Cure and even Depeche Mode (last year's Best of) come out with such redundant compilations, it makes me wonder why they're doing such things. It also adds to my frustration of bands waiting at least two or three years between albums only to come out with filler like this. Sure, they're busy on tour and don't have time to come out with anything new, but then again, the Beatles put out two albums a year from 1963 to 1965 while they were touring. I'd rather see new albums than more of the same. Especially if they're going to tack on only one or two new songs.

I'd rather download the new song rather than buy the same songs for a third time, thank you very much. For the most part, I leave the compilations to the new fans...which sometimes does include myself. ;)

------------

(italicized lyrics from "Paint a Vulgar Picture" by The Smiths)

Beatles online deal seen for 2008: Harrison widow

WOOHOO!!!

And the reasoning behind the long wait?

They've been spending the last four or five years remastering the collection and creating new artwork and packaging. So am I going to buy the remastered stuff, even though I already have everything?

I think you know the answer to that one. ;)

One giant RTS Presents piece about music, two attempts at a query letter, and much editing and re-editing of a synopsis for Love Like Blood. This on top of a brief run to Trader Joes as well as various loads of laundry and other stuff.

Got a lot done today, even some writing-based stuff, and it's before 8pm.

Can't complain one bit. :)


ETA: Okay, one thing to complain about. The printed copies of the query and synopsis came out crappy, as I think I'm either running out of toner or it's the paper I'm using...there's grayish shading coming through. Oh well, will have to stop at Office Depot on the way home! :p

I've been reading up on a lot of "Best of 2005" lists and as I've mentioned to Emm, there is a surprisingly large number of albums that are on them that I really had no intention of buying at all. And the strange thing is that they're all in the alt.rock genre!

I think it's that a lot of these bands, at least for me anyway, come off as not terribly great in the sense of performance but I can forgive that. Besides, I can still listen to the Flying Bohemians. ;) What bothers me is that this "meh" sort of feel behind the albums is permeating the lists. By "meh" I mean this lack of oomph behind their songs. Like a lot of bands had decided in '05 to go acoustic and/or twee or something and totally lose their backbone. I will agree to a few albums, especially the ones I heard on the radio or on IMF. I'll even concede to I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning by Bright Eyes because it's actually quite good. But most of them I've heard and said "meh" to. Just didn't grab me at all. I'm not saying that all acoustic music sucks; what I'm trying to say that I wish there were more bands out there that had come out with something I could sit there staring at the stereo and say "...DAMN!" to with a slack jaw and wide eyes. Don't get me wrong; there were a lot of good albums that came out and I managed to make a Top 40 out of both albums and singles (see this post for my list). But I really had to look for them. And interestingly enough I found them NOT on the radio, NOT listed in magazines, and only a number of them through IMF or other stations, but on the INTERNET, by way of K-ROCK2.com or my Launchcast station.

I'm curious to see where 2006 will take us in terms of music. The last year was very much missed by me partly due to moving and not spending inordinate amounts of money on cds, but also to disinterest. I would like to see a lot of new stuff come out that will stun me, excite me, maybe even get me writing as consistently as I once used to. We'll see.

This show was so habit-forming, it's a pity there were only ten bands. Even more a pity that Squeeze never got back together. Not all the episodes were good--Dramarama was kinda lame, as was Extreme--but Berlin and, yes, A Flock of Seagulls were great episodes.

So it's got me thinking--what bands would I personally want to be on VH1's Alt.Rock Bands Reunited? Well, for starters: The Smiths, The La's, The Replacements, Husker Du, The Jam, Dead Can Dance, Cocteau Twins...I'm sure there's more. Yeah, I know, there are those out there who think that "Alt.Rock" and "Bands Reunited" are two phrases that should never be put together for credibility's sake, but hey--let's have some fun here. Don't tell me you can hear a song like "That's Entertainment" or "How Soon Is Now" and NOT think 'Damn, why did these guys break up?'

Right. More on this later...