6th
There are two rock and roll bands, who’ve released four or more albums - which I believe is the amount that would warrant consideration - that I can say without a doubt a Best of compilation is completely unnecessary and just plain wrong. Those bands are the Velvet Underground and Pavement.
You know what Pavement’s Greatest Hits are?
Everything.
Every work in their oeuvre is essential. You need all five of their studio albums, the early EPs collection Westing (By Musket & Sextant), and every other EP, every B-side, every Peel Session, every Session track, every Compilation track, etc., etc.
Everything.
Now I realize the argument for a Best of would be, ‘What about a primer for new fans? Something to get them interested in the band?’
To that I say how about Slanted and Enchanted? How about Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain? How about you just save up a bunch of money and buy everything? If someone has a modicum of interest, they should listen to a song online and if they like it, just get it all. It’s fuckin’ Pavement.
I was trying to think about what other bands - with the four albums or more rule - a Best of would be unnecessary/wrong. I didn’t come up with a whole lot. The Beatles’ early albums had tracks that were too similar to other songs they did or bands of that time. The Stones have been around for so damned long and made so many albums - most past Tattoo You having little more than a song or two to offer and their early albums, like the Beatles, have the band finding their way and making some missteps. Radiohead has Pablo Honey which, other than “Creep”, isn’t good. The Stooges, had they released the songs they had been working on post-Raw Power could have been included - I am pretending The Weirdness does not exist. The Talking Heads past Speaking in Tongues is quite spotty.
Another I came up with was the Pixies. Come On Pilgrim, Surfer Rosa, Doolittle, Bossanova, Trompe le Monde? You should have all of those.
Who am I missing?
