>But all their best songs are on the greatest hits album,

>>69198850
>mm... okay

>>69198850
I mean unless it's an odds and ends albums like The Beatles' Past Masters collections then... You're missing out on the big picture.

>>69198850
>listening to artists who released "greatest hits" albums

>>69198850
>Implying anybody would want to talk or even look at me

Lmao

>>69199218
/thread

>>69198850
I generally download a bands greatest hits just so i can get a feel for their overall sound before i check their individual albums.
It's close minded but it's a working strategy in my opinion.

>>69198850
Because a lot of times albums were constructed to be as a greater whole, rather than individual songs here and there, especially during the late 60s and 70s.

i respond to it by listening to their advice

i only own greatest hits albums
if you don't have even a single hit why should i listen to you

>>69198850
'sorry, i'm not a big fan of queen'

>>69199408
you seem To be in the wrong place buddy

>>69199450
name one artist worth listening to who didn't even have a single song reach the top 100 (or at least the bubbling under charts)

>>69198850
no one has ever said this.

>>69199476
are you mike love

>>69198850
Because "greatest hits" doesn't mean "best songs" it just means whats most popular.

>>69200340
that doesn't answer my question

>>69200319
it's what they're thinking though

>>69199476
If you like an artist's music then it's worth listening to. That's it. Popularity is irrelevant to whether or not it's "worth listening to".

>>69200393
Swans, NMH, MBV,Weezer

I don't think I've ever had someone say this to me and I've discussed music irl fairly frequently

>>69199214
>artists
You mean labels who curated and released them without any input from the artist

>>69200502
>Swans
>MBV
>Weezer
all of these charted at least once

>NMH
>worth listening to

I was thinking about this today.

Honestly, you really have to pick-and-choose which greatest hits albums you get. The problem is that greatest hits albums usually take a big net of songs from every era of that artist's output; the thing is a lot of artists have only certain periods where they are good, so the compilation will have a lot of garbage since its going through their entire discography.

It's best to just download their strongest albums and then clean-up by individually checking out their singles and deep-cuts that you hear about.

The only time I feel this doesn't apply is when the artist only has hits or a few good songs and doesn't have that many quality deep-cuts. At this point you're better off getting their "best of" disk. Some artists that strike me as falling under this banner are ABBA and The Four Seasons.

>>69200745
I feel this way about Queen. Despite the memery they really wrote some great songs, but I've never found any of their albums enjoyable at all as a whole.

>>69198850
Some artists and genres, like basically any early jazz or blues, exist before the age of the album. In those cases compilations are probably your best option since they're a much more convenient alternative to downloading tons of individual singles. They're also helpful if you have something like the Bold Beginnings Louisville hardcore comp that collects a bunch of painfully obscure artists who didn't produce much more than a couple singles or an EP.

Also girl is cute

well honestly bands like foo fighters don't deserve anything better

>>69200454
^this^this^this^

>>69199439
>>69200848

>Not seeing that Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack, A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races, News of the World, Jazz, The Game, the Flash Gordon soundtrack, The Works, A Kind of Magic, The Miracle, and Innuendo are literally all amazing albums
Didn't know I'd stumbled into Pleb Central. Or is it just that you guys listened to each of these albums only one time and decided you didn't like them?