smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Jaimie Vernon" <bullseyecanada@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Best Of/Greatest |
| Date | Tue, 01 May 2007 16:15:42 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain (6.0 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
At Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:18:27 William wrote:
> I'm wondering, however, if this split between best songs and greatest
>hits doesn't exist because >of some kind of perception by the band or the
>band's management of what would be most >playable on the radio?
With very few exceptions, the record LABEL and not the artist decides what
goes on a 'best of' or 'greatest hits' package. If the label is footing the
bill for the initial recording and release of albums, they have also built
in compilation clauses when signing the acts that allows them to repackage,
edit and dispatch the material however they see fit in an effort to recoupe
their investment.
Queen, Elvis Costello, Bowie, McCartney, Klaatu and a few other shrewd
artists have been smart enough to regain the rights to their catalogues
which allows THEM total control of their re-issues. But even THEY are prone
to milk their legacy for every last recoupable dime. And frequently this
means reducing the 'hits' packages to charting singles, most popular radio
play and/or concert faves in lieu of songs that were more adventurous or
interesting.
Boxed sets, on the other hand, are becoming more and more the domain of the
artists themselves. The artist is the most knowledgeable in determining,
executing and obtaining access to rare material. The labels rarely, if ever,
keep anything other than finished masters....though occasionally abandoned
albums and label-paid demos are found in vaults. The boxed set offers acts,
particularly those whose catalogues are controlled wholly by the label,
leverage in getting a piece of the pie beyond the unrecouped expenses of
their older work.
> One odd thing that I've noticed happening in the 2000s, that I never
>percieved happening >before the 2000s, is that the few "Greatest Hit's"/
>"Best of Albums" that I've bought that have >been released in the 2000s
>(regardless of when the material on the CD was really new) are much
> >better, and I'm in much more agreement with the material chosen for them,
>than I am with >"Greatest Hit's"/"Best of Albums" that I bought in the
>1980s and 1990s. It's almost as though due >to declining sales from the
>competition of on-line download stores, and illegal free music trading
> >sites, that bands or the band's management (whoever really makes these
>decisions) have become >more cooperative about really putting the best of
>on the "Best of..." CD.
The labels, who are quickly discontinuing entire catalogues of some of their
acts, are putting an effort into creating new, definitive collections that
can compete AGAINST the downloading. As a side note: the reason the labels
were soooo dead-set against downloading originally was the fact that no
matter how you slice it, a physical CD has a larger profit margin than an
MP3 download. So, having SOMETHING they can sell as a new physical product
fulfills their mandate to keep the material in circulation through their
long-standing wholesale concerns.
Both the SONY/BMG "Essentials" compilations and the UNIVERSAL MUSIC
competing "Gold" (which often replaces the Millennium Collection versions of
the same artists) compilations are double CD sets and go a lot deeper into
the careers of many of these acts often digging out material from earlier
works neglected or ignored on previous comp sets. Of note is the Journey
package on SONY that has material pre and post Steve Perry. Similarly, the
Universal Styx and Supertramp comps finally dig out the often ignored first
two albums by both acts.
[snip]
> I've recently bought best ofs by: Guns & Roses; INXS; Def Leppard; Great
>White; and KISS, and I >can honestly say that I don't feel screwed by any
>of them, though KISS has enough material out >there, that I could argue
>that they actually need to add a third CD to get all of their good stuff
> >covered. But overall I'd say these are a lot better than the ones that I
>bought in the 80s and 90s; >I can remember a 38-Special; a Foreigner; a
>Foghat; and others that were ruined by having live >versions of one or two
>of their 2 or 3 most popular songs; and these albums would cut off at ten
> >songs when they could have extend to twelve or thirteen and had
>"everything a fan could want" >(as far as I was concerned anyway) on the
>album.
This was a way to lure devout fans into buying a package full of
predominantly pre-existing material by offering a token "new track" to get
you and your hard earned money apart. If you own everything by your
favourite act a "greatest hits" is going to be the last thing you want short
of being a completist. So....add a new track or live track or something
decided rare or unavailable and they can get a few more sales beyond the
casual fan.
And to address your comment on the 10 song/45 minute limit on older
material, yes, some of it had to do with limitations of the format (21
minutes per vinyl side was standard before additional mastering costs were
required to squeeze more material on per side). But the main reason these
stopped at 10 songs was a little hook called the "controlled composition"
clause in artist contracts with record labels.
Labels for the better part of 40 years refused to pay the publishing
royalties on any songs beyond ten. Because any amount dished out after that
began to erode their profit margins on per units sold.
The Beatles had a clever little caveat added to their contract in the
beginning that was a compromise to the cover tunes they were forced to
include on their first few albums. They agreed to record the cover tunes but
ONLY if the songs didn't count against their controlled composition
clause....therefore, the Beatles could put 14 songs on an LP, get paid for
10 originals and not worry about losing income on the remainder of the songs
added to each album.
Jaimie Vernon,
Bullseye
_________________________________________________________________
Add the Windows Live Messenger NHL Stats Agent to your buddy list and get
your stats fix instantly http://sports.sympatico.msn.ca/NHL/NHL_Stats_Agent
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.