Greatest Hits Albums Track Order

[Dagger Dias]

Greatest Hits albums are one of the best ways to find a collection of a band/artist's better songs all at once. One thing that I have noticed people disagreeing about over the years though is what order the tracks should be in. You have hits collections that go chronologically by order of release that show the older material coming first, up until the latest singles. Then there are those that have a more random track order, these often have the biggest hits of all appearing first followed by the rest.


Do you think that greatest hits albums should list the tracks in chronological order by release, or a random order with the biggest hits coming first, and why?


I personally think that it should be in chronological order, especially if the album is by a musical act that is no longer active, because it is a better way to look back on his/her/their career by hearing the singles in the order they were released.

What do the rest of you think? Discuss.

 

[Davi323]

I am inclined to agree. Chronological release order. Doing it that way allows you to hear the progression of how they changed musically over the years. Using U2 as an example, hearing "Bad" right next to "City of Blinding Lights" just doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Put it immediately before "Where the Streets Have no Name", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and "With or Without You"? Makes perfect sense, because it's what the band sounded like back in the mid 80s. It fits in musically with those songs, as opposed to being sandwiched between songs from one of their later albums.

Greatest hits albums should reflect the direction of the band as they develop over the years, rather than a simple hodge podge mish-mash of everything.

 

[D-Man]

I hate to sound like a negative Nelly but I honestly don't care. And I don't think I'm alone on this one. All that should matter is that the album contains all of the songs that I want to hear.

What difference does it make when it comes to the order of the songs' appearance on the album, anyway? People don't buy the album because of the convenience of the order in which the songs appear as compared to the chronology in which they were released or how popular the songs were. They just want all of the specified bands' greatest hits to be in one place, regardless of their order of appearance.

 

[Alex]

Like D-Man said, I'm not partcularly fussed. If they've got the songs I want to listen to I don't really care what order they come in.

Admittedly its nice to have some form of order instead of higgeldy piggedly, such as chronological order, but at the end of the day if the songs are there its not that big of a deal.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I would never want the biggest hits at the start and then the rest afterwards, that would just piss me off.

Chronological order works in the example of a "singles" collection, where you can see the change in style and musical progression over time, but I don't really think that is neccesary.

Some songs sound better as album closers, or album openers with nothing to do with when they were released in an artist's careers. For example, Oasis's "Champagne Supernova" is a perfect album closer, and in my opinion should be the final track on any Oasis Greatest Hits compilation, as it just sounds out of place thrown in the middle.

It really depends on the artist, the type of song and whether they are trying to give the listener a guide through their chronological history, a random mix of their best songs, trying to emphasise their biggest hits above the others, or a collection of songs that fit together when played in a certain order.

 

[Johnny Scumm]

In my opinion, I say to put the songs in a chronological order makes the perfect sense. I'd like to hear from beginning to end how the band evolved, even if I already know all their songs from start to finish. To listen to their older music, then go into their more modern tracks means you can really take in and appreciate the music. You can point out where and how the band has changed, or if they've always been stuck in their own ways. Having this order through the years just keeps it nice & tidy as well. If you throw in the "best" songs first and then you just put any others in any order would annoy me and I'd probably stop listening to the album 4 or 5 songs through.

Chronological for me.

 

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

I can understand why people would prefer chronological track order on an album especially a band like U2 where the bands sound changed a lot over time.

For me though when i buy a greatest hit's album it's usually of a band im trying to get into so i want all the best songs at the start to see if i like the band enough to get their other albums.

I only care about listening to songs in chronological order for the artists i really like. An example of this would be Pearl Jam, i own all their studio albums but not their greatest hits album because i already have all the songs that would be on the greatest hits album anyway. Therefore i don't need to use Pearl Jam's greatest hits album to listen to them chronologically.

So in my opinion put all the best songs on first and if i like the band enough then ill go get their other albums and then listen to them chronologically.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

It depends for me, some bands will release a Greatest Hits because they have been going so long rather than a notable number of hits. In this case, having their big hits at the start can save the hassle of skipping after every song if the lesser known 'hits' don't meet your approval (you can just skip back four or five times once you get to the end of the hits. For a band with loads of hits, I do like the chronology approach as it can help with things like reminiscing.

Overall, for the simple fact I'm more likely to buy Greatest Hits of bands I'm likely to be reasonably up on, I'd say chronological would be my preference.

 

[THK1138]

Honestly if it's a "best of" or "greatest hits" it doesn't really matter much, though if it's a singles collection, it really needs to be in chronological order.

That being said, I tend to agree with most of you that it's better if the songs are chronological.

A couple examples, all (IIRC) compilations by The Beatles (1, Greatest Hits 1962-1966/1967-1970,and Past Masters) are all in chronological order. Queen's three greatest hits are not, for example, track two on the first edition is from 1980, the last two tracks are from 1977.

Anyway, it's really just personal preference.