Is it acceptable for a greatest hits album to be one of

>he thinks a compilation of singles is a greatest hits album
but seriously this had some of their best work on it

>>71726692
No, also that's a singles collection not a greatest hits

sure, who cares

I wouldn't call this a greatest hits albums

It's just simply a better version of their self-titled album

>>71726692
Why the fuck does RYM think this is a studio album

favoritism is a spook

Substance 1987 made me rethink my stance on compilation albums

Yeah. The emphasis on albums really hurts artists who were big before that was a thing or weren't given the opportunity to cut a full length LP

I was reading Springsteen's autobiography and early on he talks about how it was weird when he started out because the importance of non-album singles had been drastically reduced by the early 70's.

>>71726725

Because it is. All the songs on the self-titled had been previously released as well.

File: 51AgCqsvgFL.jpg (40KB, 500x497px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x497px

Yes.

Yeah, but not that one. Louder Than Bombs is the only acceptable answer.

>>71726993
Louder than bombs has tons of shit songs on it

>>71726993
Louder than bombs also has a cooler cover art

>>71727008
>a ton of shit songs
yes, a ton of shit songs we like

>>71727008
>has one shit song on it, and we all know it's Golden Lights. It has all the best aside from that though and that cements its status as the best.

ftfy