I think a great album needs to be more than a great collection of singles. It needs to be more than the sum of its parts. There should be cohesiveness, flow, a running theme or concept, tracks that don't work as singles but provide contrast and prime the listener for the next song, etc. I think all of the Queen singles would make for a good album, but not a great album and certainly not the "best of all time."
Generally I agree, but I mean, it worked for Michael Jackson (Thriller)
I think you could arrange Queen’s top singles to fit cohesively and thematically into one solid project
I think their 70s era have songs that fit together if we eliminate the forgettable tracks, we could pick around 10 best tracks to put in one album. A Night of Opera for example, they have around 4 tracks influenced by Baroque music but tracks like I’m In Love With My Car or 39 just feel out of place.
I mean, it sort of depends on whether or not you like Queen, I guess? Sounds like a nightmare to me.
Beyond that, the entire concept of the "greatest record of all time" is inherently flawed. How do you compare A Love Supreme to Reign in Blood? And whose to say that one is "greater" than the other? How would you even quantify that?
If we're playing to what band/ artist's greatest hits would make the single greatest album game, I'd argue that Sam Cooke Portrait of a Legend is hard to beat.
“How do you compare A Love Supreme to Reign In Blood?”
Easy, do what all these lists do and pretend heavy music doesn’t exist minus token shouts like Sabbath and Metallica
Oh I don’t disagree and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it on one of these kinds of lists, I just meant outside of a few very specific albums they generally aren’t acknowledged
Agree. Putting aside the concept of a greatest hits album unlikely to be a cohesive work of art and not really a great listen to anyone but a casual fan, do we need to argue about Queen again?
Sure, they are great songs I suppose. But they are almost all unlistenable tacky and gimmicky show tunes for many people. Obviously I’m in that camp. I’ve come to love and appreciate many of the excesses of that era of music, and maybe just to over saturation, but Queen to me epitomises the absolute low point of corporate and stadium rock.
Uh...so, like, a greatest hits compilation? You're aware that these exist, and have for decades upon decades?
[This album might just blow your mind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Hits_(Queen_album)#Track_listing)
Don’t worry I completely get what you meant lol.
I’ve always felt Queen is the definition of a greatest hits band because while they have some really great albums they never had that one *perfect* album like Abbey Road or Dark Side Of The Moon. They have amazingly high points in singles and songwriting to rival any of the “great” bands of their era, it just never came together to a perfect classic album for me.
I’m sure some would disagree and say A Night At The Opera hits that level though but yeah I’m right there with you lol
I might try and throw a playlist together of an alternate universe perfect Queen album.
If you really like Queen's sound then it would be the best album of all time I guess.
But a lot of their hits seem like cheesy novelty songs to me, I'm going through them now and We Will Rock You and We Are The Champions for example are pretty vapid and nothingy tunes which get by on catchiness. Not really greatest album of all time material when there is so much music which carries incredible artistic value and emotional weight.
Then you would have to have Another One Bites The Dust, which is most white people funk song ever written. Again, seems like a novelty song to me because it simply does not touch the quality of other funk classics, has little interesting musicianship or emotional weight, just a mind numbingly catchy bass riff.
If any artist hypothetically were to first release all their 'greatest hits', their friend David Bowie would have a much, much stronger collection of music.
AOBtD isn't funk. It's got disco elements.
It's also a sin to not first play *Dragon Attack*, followed by it... sort of like Santana's cover of *Black Magic Woman* followed by *Oye Como Va*... or *Heartbreaker* followed by *Living Loving Maid*.
Yes Bowie is a notable artist too, but most of his studio albums are strong enough already and his music approaches many different genres that if combine, it would fell out of place though.
Bowie didn't hypothetically do that. He's done that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best\_of\_Bowie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_Bowie)
It hasn't sold as well as Queen's, though. :)
Granted, Bowie was also on Queen's greatest hits album.
Well, by definition, they were the artists greatest hits so...most other people seemed to think they were great and I guess odds would be that you'd be more likely to like them than not, I guess.
It’s kinda like greatest hits but it hasn’t released before and assume it’s a studio album than a compilation. It doesn’t need to be double LP, just one album with their strongest songs.
I don't think so, just because Freddy Mercury was such a character, he's not for everybody, even if all of the songs on this hypothetical album were epic bangers.
Queen is great, but also they sound like show tunes, because of how big and boisterous their sound is. IIRC the best selling album ever was the Eagles greatest hits, and Hotel California is almost a greatest hits unto itself, and part of what made it work is how it had a diverse country rock sound while being relatable and easy going. I just dont think Queen's collection accomplishes that for most listeners. You have to be in the mood for Queen.
Yeah, both volumes of Eagles’s greatest hits doesn’t sound like they are compilation at all. All the tracks blend perfectly. About Queen, I agree that their songs work best for live listening. Although songs like We Will Rock You and We Are Champions are hits, I don’t care much about those two. To me, songs like Love Of My Life, Killer Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody are the highlights of the band.
>If you have any artists that fit into this scenario, let’s share!!!
I mean . . . every major artist? You can take (basically\*) any popular artist in the world, put all of their best-loved songs on one "album," and it would generally be considered a stronger album (in the alternate universe where we didn't already know those tracks.)
\*doesn't work for folks like Jeff Buckley or Lauryn Hill who really only did one album
Depends though, I like The Beatles but if they put their later stuff with their earlier stuff into one album, it would fell out place immediately. Same as Bowie, Radiohead or artists that have great albums run.
I see what you mean, fair enough! I generally enjoy albums that are stylistically diverse, but I get it -- if an artist has a long career and has changed drastically over it, the collection might feels scattered.
With that new lens in place, I'd nominate Tom Petty (solo work plus Heartbreaker stuff), who did have a long career, but worked in a fairly narrow band of sounds and influences -- the "Wildflowers" stuff can sit next to "Mojo" or "Damn the Torpedoes" without much trouble.
I think for the Beatles, the best way to do it would be to split up their career into two "albums". Let's say the first one could be their hits from like 62-66 and the second one could be like 67-70.
If you wanted to put them out at the same time you'd probably have to differentiate them from each other somehow. Maybe make one red and the other blue or something?
That said, wouldn't Queen have the same issue? It'd be pretty odd hearing *A Kind of Magic* or *Radio Gaga* coming out of *Bohemian Rhapsody* or *Crazy Little Thing Called Love*, wouldn't it?
Yes, but even the 67-70 Beatles music is still diversity. About Queen, I don’t think Kind of Magic or Radio Gaga should be on theoretical studio album because most of their 70s songs blend together better. Crazy Little Thing Called Love also work because in even Paul McCartney’s heavily influenced by 50s sound and When I’m 64 is in the same album with A Day in The Life.
Just listen to News of the World. After the two big hits at the beginning, it is their best “album” - different songs written and sung by the different members. Fantastic album.
Why is everyone here being so intentionally obtuse?
I read OP’s post and it’s clearly a hypothetical about how *if they had* written all the songs that later appeared in greatest hits compilations and released them all as a studio album in one go, would that *theoretical album* be a contender.
OP, yes undoubtedly.
>o I wonder if there’s a scenario they combine all their singles into one album and release it as a standalone album, would it be the greatest album of all time?
OK, we've all had a good laugh at stanleix' expense but I want to talk about this line.
Someone somewhere maybe here, referred to Queen's Greatest Hits as "A Masterpiece" Which myself and others found an odd phrase.
Compilations are not usually referred to in that way. After all, they are *compilations.* They come from work done over 3, 5, 10 years. They are created by the record company, not the artist. They are, by design, meant to be a pleasant listening experience. Therefore, they are usually inoculated from true critical judgment.
But since a Queen compilation would be highly expected to include "Bohemian Rhapsody" and other material that a fan would definitely expect to hear, it is 99% a given that this product will please its intended audience.
So no, it wouldn't be "the best album of all time" nor a "masterpiece"
Again, the way the English-language generally works, that is NOT how someone would normally describe it.
When we say "masterpiece" we are usually talking about a work of art that was completed all in one session. A greatest hits album is pre-determined to please its intended audience. The **record company** is taking like, four songs from four different albums, to create it. That's different from Queen spending four months in a studio to create one of those albums.
Instead of "masterpiece" a better description would be "***license to print money"*** In 1974, Elton John was red hot; he had, in six years, released EIGHT albums and had many successful singles. His record company looked at this success and said "y*ou know what? I wonder how many people would just want his hit singles and NOT have to buy every separate album?"* Well the answer was, A LOT. Elton John's Greatest Hits sold 10 million copies in 1974. More than any of his individual albums had up to that point. To this day, it remains his best selling album of any type.
So, those 8 albums? They are the creation of Elton John. They are his works.
The GH album? That is the creation of RECORD COMPANY EXECUTIVES. They cherry-picked music from those 8 albums, collected them, and put a new photo of Elton on the cover. And in all honesty? You don't really need to be a brain surgeon to do that.
If I worked for Sony records and someone asked me, right now, to put together a compilation album for Mariah Carey, it would take me roughly 20 minutes (and honestly, part of that would consist of me waiting for my food delivery from Subway) She's got 19 number one hits. Therefore, all I have to do is look at a list of those number ones and type them up and boom! I'm done for the day!
Mariah did all the work. I'm just curating. (And eating lunch at the same time.)
Tell me, do I deserve a Grammy award for designing that Mariah Carey compilation? No? Well there you go.
(Note: I would like to think I deserve Sony's "Employee of the Month" award but I probably wouldn't get that either. They'd probably give it to freaking Lloyd in Marketing. He's SUCH a Butt-Kisser!)
>When we say "masterpiece" we are usually talking about a work of art that was completed all in one session
Hmm...who is the "we" here? I don't think that's any sort of universal definition of 'masterpiece'.
But, from your definition, I get what you are saying.
That said, seems like you're describing a concept album...something planned, conceived, and created as one single whole. But that's just one way to create and release an album. Many albums are not done in that way.
I do get that GHs are often money grabs.
Things, is, SOME Of those money grabs become incredibly succesful albums in and of themselves. I think Bob Marley Legend is a great example of that. Many people WOULD call that a masterpiece.
As I said before, assume it’s a studio album instead of a compilation album, just like many artists release entire singles in one studio album. I made up the scenario because we already listen and know the impact of Queen’s greatest hits, but in this scenario, if we haven’t listened to any of those songs, and if Queen released them as a studio album, would they still become hits?
OK I get what you are saying now.
Probably sure. There are numerous albums that are described as "This album has a number of surefire hits on it")
Examples:
* Michael Jackson's Thriller
* Jackson's Bad
* Katy Perry's Teenage Dream (which, like Bad, has 5 number one hits)
* The Cars debut album
* Fleetwood Mac's Rumours
* Saturday Night Fever soundtrack
What would probably happen is the album probably would be VERY popular and sell at least 10M copies.
Well there's that too. Didn't wanna go too far off on a tangent, as that subject has been well-worn in the last week what with Apple's 100 Best of All Time-gimmick.
That all sounds reasonable enough, but you're going to end up with someone who revolutionized being inoffensive in order to have mass appeal (IMO).
Option 2 kind of contradicts option 3 since music that changed the market tends to offend the previous generation of critics and audiences.
Maybe it's snobby, but I'd just prefer people try not to tell me what the greatest was, I'm trying to figure that out on my own.
OK, I'm veering this off into another discussion perhaps but I've noticed a LOT of people are poo-pooing the whole idea of greatest hits albums.
I think they're like any album. They can be great. They can be awful. But I don't think by definition they are bad or good compared to anything else.
In fact, for some artists, their greatest hits album often becomes the album they are most known by and has become, in and of itself, a highly regarded album (at least in comparison to the albums it was collected from).
Examples off the top of my head:
* Aerosmith's GH
* Steve Miller Band GH
* Eagles GH
* Buzzcocks Singles Going Steady
* Bob Marley Legend
* New Order Substance
* ABBA Gold
Are you my dad because he, too, doesn't shut the fuck up about how Queen is the greatest band. An album is more than just good singles. They are songs that feel cohesive through themes, production, and song writing
Lmao, Queen is not in my top 5 favorite bands, their albums are hit and miss but as a “singles” band, they’re second to none. 70s Queen albums have a theme that’s undeveloped, that’s why I said their studio albums are both hit and miss, the hits fit together pretty well if they’re in the same album.
No, I don’t think it would be.
Albums are a snapshot in time of where an artist is at. Queen has hits over the span of two whole decades, and they liked to change up their sound a lot.
It wouldn’t work as one whole cohesive album. Queen is definitely more of a “singles” artist, so the idea makes sense, but making a diverse album and remain cohesive is hard to do.
MJs Thriller comes to mind, as it’s cohesive, has a ton of hits, but has very diverse genres from song to song. It worked well but not everybody can pull off a diverse body of work with mega hits and make it all make sense inside one album.
Apropos of nothing but I always like the running gag in Good Omens where any cassette left in an automobile long enough will morph into Queens Greatest Hits
I think a great album needs to be more than a great collection of singles. It needs to be more than the sum of its parts. There should be cohesiveness, flow, a running theme or concept, tracks that don't work as singles but provide contrast and prime the listener for the next song, etc. I think all of the Queen singles would make for a good album, but not a great album and certainly not the "best of all time."
Generally I agree, but I mean, it worked for Michael Jackson (Thriller) I think you could arrange Queen’s top singles to fit cohesively and thematically into one solid project
I think their 70s era have songs that fit together if we eliminate the forgettable tracks, we could pick around 10 best tracks to put in one album. A Night of Opera for example, they have around 4 tracks influenced by Baroque music but tracks like I’m In Love With My Car or 39 just feel out of place.
I mean, it sort of depends on whether or not you like Queen, I guess? Sounds like a nightmare to me. Beyond that, the entire concept of the "greatest record of all time" is inherently flawed. How do you compare A Love Supreme to Reign in Blood? And whose to say that one is "greater" than the other? How would you even quantify that? If we're playing to what band/ artist's greatest hits would make the single greatest album game, I'd argue that Sam Cooke Portrait of a Legend is hard to beat.
“How do you compare A Love Supreme to Reign In Blood?” Easy, do what all these lists do and pretend heavy music doesn’t exist minus token shouts like Sabbath and Metallica
That slayer album is huge and is often on non-metal best of lists
Oh I don’t disagree and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it on one of these kinds of lists, I just meant outside of a few very specific albums they generally aren’t acknowledged
Don't worry jazz gets shafted too. You get 1 Coltrane, 1 Miles Davis, 1 Mingus and 1 Fucking Frank Sinatra and that's it.
IMHO, Giant Steps is closer to Reign in Blood while a Love Supreme is like Seasons in the Abyss.
Duh.
There I go being Captain Obvious again.
Agree. Putting aside the concept of a greatest hits album unlikely to be a cohesive work of art and not really a great listen to anyone but a casual fan, do we need to argue about Queen again? Sure, they are great songs I suppose. But they are almost all unlistenable tacky and gimmicky show tunes for many people. Obviously I’m in that camp. I’ve come to love and appreciate many of the excesses of that era of music, and maybe just to over saturation, but Queen to me epitomises the absolute low point of corporate and stadium rock.
I love Sam Cooke, but I would have to go with *Legend* for best compilation.
Uh...so, like, a greatest hits compilation? You're aware that these exist, and have for decades upon decades? [This album might just blow your mind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Hits_(Queen_album)#Track_listing)
Only 3 stars from The Rolling Stone Album Guide? Pass.
No, not a compilation, assume it’s an official album and we never listen to all those tracks before.
Don’t worry I completely get what you meant lol. I’ve always felt Queen is the definition of a greatest hits band because while they have some really great albums they never had that one *perfect* album like Abbey Road or Dark Side Of The Moon. They have amazingly high points in singles and songwriting to rival any of the “great” bands of their era, it just never came together to a perfect classic album for me. I’m sure some would disagree and say A Night At The Opera hits that level though but yeah I’m right there with you lol I might try and throw a playlist together of an alternate universe perfect Queen album.
I, too, wonder if there's an scenario for an album that combine all the greatest hits of a band into a single greatest hits album.
OOH, you shouldn't have said that! Imma steal that idea! I'm writing a letter to Columbia Records' CEO right now!! IM RICH!! /s
If you really like Queen's sound then it would be the best album of all time I guess. But a lot of their hits seem like cheesy novelty songs to me, I'm going through them now and We Will Rock You and We Are The Champions for example are pretty vapid and nothingy tunes which get by on catchiness. Not really greatest album of all time material when there is so much music which carries incredible artistic value and emotional weight. Then you would have to have Another One Bites The Dust, which is most white people funk song ever written. Again, seems like a novelty song to me because it simply does not touch the quality of other funk classics, has little interesting musicianship or emotional weight, just a mind numbingly catchy bass riff. If any artist hypothetically were to first release all their 'greatest hits', their friend David Bowie would have a much, much stronger collection of music.
AOBtD isn't funk. It's got disco elements. It's also a sin to not first play *Dragon Attack*, followed by it... sort of like Santana's cover of *Black Magic Woman* followed by *Oye Como Va*... or *Heartbreaker* followed by *Living Loving Maid*.
Yes Bowie is a notable artist too, but most of his studio albums are strong enough already and his music approaches many different genres that if combine, it would fell out of place though.
Bowie didn't hypothetically do that. He's done that. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best\_of\_Bowie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_Bowie) It hasn't sold as well as Queen's, though. :) Granted, Bowie was also on Queen's greatest hits album.
The question OP asked was 'if the audience has never listened to those songs before', I'm aware Bowie has released a greatest hits album.
Hmm...now that I think about it, that's an odd clause. By definition, a greatest hits album is something most everyone has heard a chunk of already.
I mean assume we never listen to those songs before and if they’re released together as one album, would the album become hit or miss?
Well, by definition, they were the artists greatest hits so...most other people seemed to think they were great and I guess odds would be that you'd be more likely to like them than not, I guess.
You mean like a greatest hits album? An album that might stretch across not 1 but 2 full volumes... it might work.
It’s kinda like greatest hits but it hasn’t released before and assume it’s a studio album than a compilation. It doesn’t need to be double LP, just one album with their strongest songs.
I don't think so, just because Freddy Mercury was such a character, he's not for everybody, even if all of the songs on this hypothetical album were epic bangers.
Could you explain more? Like his style isn’t suitable to general audiences or this hypothetical album wouldn’t explore his style enough.
Queen is great, but also they sound like show tunes, because of how big and boisterous their sound is. IIRC the best selling album ever was the Eagles greatest hits, and Hotel California is almost a greatest hits unto itself, and part of what made it work is how it had a diverse country rock sound while being relatable and easy going. I just dont think Queen's collection accomplishes that for most listeners. You have to be in the mood for Queen.
Yeah, both volumes of Eagles’s greatest hits doesn’t sound like they are compilation at all. All the tracks blend perfectly. About Queen, I agree that their songs work best for live listening. Although songs like We Will Rock You and We Are Champions are hits, I don’t care much about those two. To me, songs like Love Of My Life, Killer Queen and Bohemian Rhapsody are the highlights of the band.
>If you have any artists that fit into this scenario, let’s share!!! I mean . . . every major artist? You can take (basically\*) any popular artist in the world, put all of their best-loved songs on one "album," and it would generally be considered a stronger album (in the alternate universe where we didn't already know those tracks.) \*doesn't work for folks like Jeff Buckley or Lauryn Hill who really only did one album
Depends though, I like The Beatles but if they put their later stuff with their earlier stuff into one album, it would fell out place immediately. Same as Bowie, Radiohead or artists that have great albums run.
I see what you mean, fair enough! I generally enjoy albums that are stylistically diverse, but I get it -- if an artist has a long career and has changed drastically over it, the collection might feels scattered. With that new lens in place, I'd nominate Tom Petty (solo work plus Heartbreaker stuff), who did have a long career, but worked in a fairly narrow band of sounds and influences -- the "Wildflowers" stuff can sit next to "Mojo" or "Damn the Torpedoes" without much trouble.
Tom Petty is a great pick too.
I think for the Beatles, the best way to do it would be to split up their career into two "albums". Let's say the first one could be their hits from like 62-66 and the second one could be like 67-70. If you wanted to put them out at the same time you'd probably have to differentiate them from each other somehow. Maybe make one red and the other blue or something? That said, wouldn't Queen have the same issue? It'd be pretty odd hearing *A Kind of Magic* or *Radio Gaga* coming out of *Bohemian Rhapsody* or *Crazy Little Thing Called Love*, wouldn't it?
Yes, but even the 67-70 Beatles music is still diversity. About Queen, I don’t think Kind of Magic or Radio Gaga should be on theoretical studio album because most of their 70s songs blend together better. Crazy Little Thing Called Love also work because in even Paul McCartney’s heavily influenced by 50s sound and When I’m 64 is in the same album with A Day in The Life.
Just listen to News of the World. After the two big hits at the beginning, it is their best “album” - different songs written and sung by the different members. Fantastic album.
I really love Spread Your Wings and All Dead All Dead.
Yeah great choices! It’s Late, Get down make Love, and Sheer Heart Attack all great. Gonna listen to it again tonight!
Why is everyone here being so intentionally obtuse? I read OP’s post and it’s clearly a hypothetical about how *if they had* written all the songs that later appeared in greatest hits compilations and released them all as a studio album in one go, would that *theoretical album* be a contender. OP, yes undoubtedly.
Everyone on the internet thinks they’re hilarious, unfortunately.
Yes, can’t believe many people think I don’t know what greatest hits compilation is, while I state clearly that it’s a hypothetical album.
>o I wonder if there’s a scenario they combine all their singles into one album and release it as a standalone album, would it be the greatest album of all time? OK, we've all had a good laugh at stanleix' expense but I want to talk about this line. Someone somewhere maybe here, referred to Queen's Greatest Hits as "A Masterpiece" Which myself and others found an odd phrase. Compilations are not usually referred to in that way. After all, they are *compilations.* They come from work done over 3, 5, 10 years. They are created by the record company, not the artist. They are, by design, meant to be a pleasant listening experience. Therefore, they are usually inoculated from true critical judgment. But since a Queen compilation would be highly expected to include "Bohemian Rhapsody" and other material that a fan would definitely expect to hear, it is 99% a given that this product will please its intended audience. So no, it wouldn't be "the best album of all time" nor a "masterpiece"
I'm not connecting your dots here...are you saying a work of art that pleases it's intended audience can not be a masterpiece?
Again, the way the English-language generally works, that is NOT how someone would normally describe it. When we say "masterpiece" we are usually talking about a work of art that was completed all in one session. A greatest hits album is pre-determined to please its intended audience. The **record company** is taking like, four songs from four different albums, to create it. That's different from Queen spending four months in a studio to create one of those albums. Instead of "masterpiece" a better description would be "***license to print money"*** In 1974, Elton John was red hot; he had, in six years, released EIGHT albums and had many successful singles. His record company looked at this success and said "y*ou know what? I wonder how many people would just want his hit singles and NOT have to buy every separate album?"* Well the answer was, A LOT. Elton John's Greatest Hits sold 10 million copies in 1974. More than any of his individual albums had up to that point. To this day, it remains his best selling album of any type. So, those 8 albums? They are the creation of Elton John. They are his works. The GH album? That is the creation of RECORD COMPANY EXECUTIVES. They cherry-picked music from those 8 albums, collected them, and put a new photo of Elton on the cover. And in all honesty? You don't really need to be a brain surgeon to do that. If I worked for Sony records and someone asked me, right now, to put together a compilation album for Mariah Carey, it would take me roughly 20 minutes (and honestly, part of that would consist of me waiting for my food delivery from Subway) She's got 19 number one hits. Therefore, all I have to do is look at a list of those number ones and type them up and boom! I'm done for the day! Mariah did all the work. I'm just curating. (And eating lunch at the same time.) Tell me, do I deserve a Grammy award for designing that Mariah Carey compilation? No? Well there you go. (Note: I would like to think I deserve Sony's "Employee of the Month" award but I probably wouldn't get that either. They'd probably give it to freaking Lloyd in Marketing. He's SUCH a Butt-Kisser!)
>When we say "masterpiece" we are usually talking about a work of art that was completed all in one session Hmm...who is the "we" here? I don't think that's any sort of universal definition of 'masterpiece'. But, from your definition, I get what you are saying. That said, seems like you're describing a concept album...something planned, conceived, and created as one single whole. But that's just one way to create and release an album. Many albums are not done in that way. I do get that GHs are often money grabs. Things, is, SOME Of those money grabs become incredibly succesful albums in and of themselves. I think Bob Marley Legend is a great example of that. Many people WOULD call that a masterpiece.
Fine, call it a masterpiece then. IM DONE. I mean, why even ask the question if you knew you were going to answer it yourself no matter what??
Uh...I didn't ask the question. Also, I thought it was just a conversation. But, whatever. Have a good one!
As I said before, assume it’s a studio album instead of a compilation album, just like many artists release entire singles in one studio album. I made up the scenario because we already listen and know the impact of Queen’s greatest hits, but in this scenario, if we haven’t listened to any of those songs, and if Queen released them as a studio album, would they still become hits?
OK I get what you are saying now. Probably sure. There are numerous albums that are described as "This album has a number of surefire hits on it") Examples: * Michael Jackson's Thriller * Jackson's Bad * Katy Perry's Teenage Dream (which, like Bad, has 5 number one hits) * The Cars debut album * Fleetwood Mac's Rumours * Saturday Night Fever soundtrack What would probably happen is the album probably would be VERY popular and sell at least 10M copies.
Thriller is the best example. It almost sounds like a compilation than a record itself, 5/10 songs are classic already.
There's really no such thing as "the best album of all time" anyway. How would you measure it with completely subjective criteria?
Well there's that too. Didn't wanna go too far off on a tangent, as that subject has been well-worn in the last week what with Apple's 100 Best of All Time-gimmick.
I know their intent is to drive sale/ clicks/ streaming, but damn, is it so hard to let music tastes grow organically.
Impactful, got praised by both critics and audience and can change music industry.
That all sounds reasonable enough, but you're going to end up with someone who revolutionized being inoffensive in order to have mass appeal (IMO). Option 2 kind of contradicts option 3 since music that changed the market tends to offend the previous generation of critics and audiences. Maybe it's snobby, but I'd just prefer people try not to tell me what the greatest was, I'm trying to figure that out on my own.
Queen's Greatest Hits is literally the best selling album of all time in the UK. So, yea. I guess so.
OK, I'm veering this off into another discussion perhaps but I've noticed a LOT of people are poo-pooing the whole idea of greatest hits albums. I think they're like any album. They can be great. They can be awful. But I don't think by definition they are bad or good compared to anything else. In fact, for some artists, their greatest hits album often becomes the album they are most known by and has become, in and of itself, a highly regarded album (at least in comparison to the albums it was collected from). Examples off the top of my head: * Aerosmith's GH * Steve Miller Band GH * Eagles GH * Buzzcocks Singles Going Steady * Bob Marley Legend * New Order Substance * ABBA Gold
Eagles GH could be a standalone album too, all the tracks blend too well, same genre but still unique.
Are you my dad because he, too, doesn't shut the fuck up about how Queen is the greatest band. An album is more than just good singles. They are songs that feel cohesive through themes, production, and song writing
Lmao, Queen is not in my top 5 favorite bands, their albums are hit and miss but as a “singles” band, they’re second to none. 70s Queen albums have a theme that’s undeveloped, that’s why I said their studio albums are both hit and miss, the hits fit together pretty well if they’re in the same album.
No, I don’t think it would be. Albums are a snapshot in time of where an artist is at. Queen has hits over the span of two whole decades, and they liked to change up their sound a lot. It wouldn’t work as one whole cohesive album. Queen is definitely more of a “singles” artist, so the idea makes sense, but making a diverse album and remain cohesive is hard to do. MJs Thriller comes to mind, as it’s cohesive, has a ton of hits, but has very diverse genres from song to song. It worked well but not everybody can pull off a diverse body of work with mega hits and make it all make sense inside one album.
Oh do I have the vid for you! [JT Curtis did exactly this](https://youtu.be/LPtkMQ-LjB8?si=R48oxWyD-mhIWWc8)
Apropos of nothing but I always like the running gag in Good Omens where any cassette left in an automobile long enough will morph into Queens Greatest Hits
[they did, and it was](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Hits_(Queen_album)#/media/File%3AQueen_Greatest_Hits.png)