What is your opinion about 'greatest hits' albums -- and when are they enough? Very broad topic, so please bear with me.
In another thread, we touched on the fact that some albums boil down to very few truly noteworthy tracks / songs, resulting in disappointing albums on the whole. Were you to download your favorite songs, very few would make the cut.
Are there artists who consistently deliver albums that are uneven -- who would easily qualify for 'greatest hits' treatment? You've evidenced the poor quality of individual albums, and the 'greatest hits' are the better option.
On the flip side, there are albums that have deep tracks; the hits are just a part of what made the album great, and the deeper tracks are what you grew to appreciate and treasure. No one who does not own the album would have access or even know the deeper tracks. The album, as a whole, plays like a masterpiece as far as you're concerned. Think Neil Young?
What bands, in your estimation, are sufficiently treated and appreciated with 'greatest hits' albums? And conversely, what bands defy this album format?
Bands that have been around 30, 40, 50 years may have a few "must own" albums, but the rest might be meh or well servied by compilations. Re: Rolling Stones? "Exile on Main Street" and "Let it Bleed" are musts, but is "Forty Licks" enough for the rest? Would you still want to own, or recommend other albums to a RS fan that owned very few of their albums?
I don't want to name bands up front, as I'd prefer to hear your opinions, but please eliminate the Beatles, as that one is obvious. :)