How many singles or albums do you think an artist should release before doing a “Greatest Hits”?
July 15th, 2009Not that I think there should be laws governing this, but I think it’s ridiculous when you see an artist who’s been around for 20 seconds release a “greatest” anything. I guess it happens, though, because there is someone, somewhere who will buy it.
What do you think?
rukrym - *giggle* Good point. A greatest for a band that’s still together does kind of say “that’s all we’ve got - check back later”.
lovnrckets - I’m going to testify in front of Congress, just like Stone and Jeff did, with your parameters. I wonder if we can get it on the books? 
jmike - I completely agree. It’s all about $$$ for the labels.
And you’re right - some bands having 10 greatest hits albums, all with the same stuff, IS sad.
Deke - that’s another good point.
Senator Prof - I know what you mean. I saw an example of this last week and for the life of me I can’t remember who it was because I’ve seen it THAT many times.
Your assistance in passing this legislation is appreciated! sylvia - I’m still giggling at Paula Abdul.
And thanks for your support!
July 15th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
At the very least, five.
July 16th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I think you should have at least 3 albums out, at least 35-40 songs. You can’t do it with only one album or your greatest hits album will be 2 songs…
July 17th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I know, I totally agree. Like the girl-band Girls Aloud, who released a greatest hits album when they only had two albums out.
I think before there’s even any thoughts of releasing one, the band/musician should have split up/stopped making music. If they’re still making music, then isn’t bringing out a greatest hits kind of like saying, “Well, that’s it, we’re all out of good songs”. It’s usually just a way of making a bit of money, or getting a bit of publicity for a new album, but that’s how it always seems to me.
Edit:
And even if they’ve split up, they really should have released at the very least 5 albums over the span of their career.
Edit (again):
Exceptions to the rule would be people who’ve been around for decades and are still releasing new material, people like Dylan and Springsteen etc. In cases like this, a greatest hits is justified, as it’s a good way for new listeners to get an overview of their career.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I totally agree…every time I go out to buy a CD I see some no name band with a greatest hits album…it drives me crazy. They should have at least a few actual hits before they can release that album.
July 19th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Five or six albums, with 2 - 3 singles per album.
The way ‘bands’ {and I use that term losely} these days put out a Greatest selection after releasing 2 albums…
… they haven’t got a ‘Greatest’ anything.
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 am
I think that an artist should be around for about 10 yrs befor they even think of a best of album (or greatest) and far more than one or two albums with a handfull of singles off of them
July 24th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Nothing says conceit quite like releasing a greatest hits after like two albums. It’s hard to set a minimum as to how long or how much material an artist should come out with before doing this. Of course we could always make some laws.
1. The artist should have at least 7-10 years of performing
2. At least 4-5 albums
3. Actually have hit songs or at least really good songs that were under the radar.
I know I’ve seen these insane greatest hits from certain artists but I can’t recall who they are at the moment. Garbage just came out with one, but they were entitled to it.
Hey, I’m down with passing the Sookie Amendment!
July 26th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Amen sister. It always cracks me up to see somebody (and the only example I can think of right now is sLaughter) who releases three albums with maybe one Top 20 song and then a “hits” compilation; while at the same time, you’ve got guys like Springsteen and Seeger that are around for 25+ years before you ever see one from them.
Granted, in most cases, it is the label and not the artist that it issuing the album. It’s an out in the contract that allows the label to continue to leech money off the artist (especially if said artist is no longer successful) and at the same time, delete their back catalog and wrap all the “hits” up into one tidy package.
Anyway… unless you have at least 12 solid top 40 hits, then there’s no way in Hades that their should be a hits album with your name on it.
As a related aside, it’s almost as bad (and two of my favorite bands, Kiss and Aerosmith are guilty of this) when one artist / band has like 7 or 8 hits packages on the market, all containing the same songs.
NP: “How Long” - Jeff Scott Soto
July 27th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I think at least 3 to 5. That way there’s more of a selection to choose from.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think a career should span at least 10-12 years before considering this.
Often times, it’s not the artist’s decision to release such a compilation. Many times, the album is released following the artist’s dismissal from the label, as a last chance to grab some cash using their name.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Well, they should have been around for awhile- obviously long enough to have a disc worth of good songs.
What I get tired if is when an artist or band have like 8 greatest hits/ best of/20th century masters/box sets/deluxe versions/remix discs, etc. So much to buy, I may miss a chord change or something.
August 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Depends on the artists.
The likes of Dire Straits, Eagles, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Queen, Abba etc could get anything up to 3-5 genuine hits per album. From memory there were about 5 or 6 singles released from Springsteen’s Born In The USA album in Australia, with most of them doing very well in the charts.
But yeah these nobody bands that has have one hit and 3 songs only just reaching the top 100 should re-think the “Greatest Hits” idea.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
It all depends on the artist. Usually I think 5 or 6 albums is a good minimum before a band puts out a “greatest hits.” Roughly 12 to 14 significant singles. I also think any artist who has been around for 10 years is entitled to one. I know bands like Creed and Staind still feel a little recent to have put out “best of” albums, but at least they had enough hits to fill up the disc. But a band like Tool (who has been around for 15 years) still doesn’t have a “best of” CD…even if they did, they would only have like 10 songs on it.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I would think four albums and at least ten tracks. I thought the same thing when I heard Third Eye Blind released a greatest hits. I didn’t even know they made a third album. I was however pleased that I already had it under a different title: Third Eye Blind.
August 8th, 2009 at 10:19 am
They should have at least five albums out…and no less than ten years as a group/artist.
August 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
stupid question
August 12th, 2009 at 1:31 am
When they have enough “singles” that were hits to fill an entire album. Stuffing a greatest hits album with obscure old album cuts is a joke. Only a few artists can even justify a greatest hits album.
August 15th, 2009 at 1:17 am
So true, I’ve seen too many great est hits records by people who have like two albums out, or one hit wonders. It’s just silly. For some reason the good examples are escaping me, but I’ve seen it too many times.
I would say you need to have AT LEAST 8-10 notable songs and 4 records. That should be the minimum, and really it should be more than that. I also think it really isn’t warranted unless you’ve had enough lasting power to make it for 10 years.
In general, I’m way more into rarities cds or singles collections than greatest hits albums. I get it with like Bowie or the Beatles or what have you. A lot of the time people are casually into the music, or looking to get a foot in the door to decide whether or not to buy the albums (I’ll admit I have a few in my collection and for instance my Doors one suits me just fine I don’t really feel the need to own any of their records, but I like a few tracks quite a bit) but you’re right, they should really be more selective on who they allow to have them.
************************
When I finally acheive my seat in the Congress I will push this movement and call it the “Sookie Bill of Sonic Responsibility.” Thanks lovenrckts for the idea to make it a government agenda.
August 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I think people should wait about 20 years before they release a greatest hits album.
August 18th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Again, I see my cohorts - lovnrckets & Prof. Anger have come up with far more astute answers than I ever could, so I’m going to make this as easy as possible.
They don’t have to have 1,000,000 #1 singles, but they should have at least FIVE REALLY WELL-KNOWN songs, and enough of a catalog that the band could pick one or two tracks off an album as their personal favorites.
A great example - I heard Paula Abdul has a greatest hits CD. A local DJ was talking about how it has 18 smash hits on it. My two girlfriends and I discussed this over drinks, and with three of us brainstorming, we can’t come up with more than about six songs. We don’t know where the rest are coming from!
(and I’d sign a petition to bring your amendment to congress!)
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
I think about 7 but a band like the Doors or Hendrix are different because they were only around for such a short time but changed the face of music forever.