| Forbes brings us this rather interesting article about Greatest Hits albums, fanning the flames of the eternal hardcore fan vs casual fan vs convenience vs integrity vs whateverthehell debate: are Greatest Hits albums useful capsules to distill the output of a prolific band, or are they money-making endeavors that in some way lessen the integrity of a band's prior albums? Swallow this double-edged sword: Other bands like U2 and Aerosmith have been criticized for their seemingly unceasing parade of greatest-hits albums. U2 followed 1998's "The Best of 1980-1990" and 2002's "The Best of 1990-2000" with 2006's "U218 Singles." Last year's "Devil's Got a New Disguise: The Very Best of Aerosmith" was the band's eighth compilation over the course of their 27-year career. If this article is insinuating that U2 and Aerosmith have in some way sold out, this is certainly the first I've heard of it. On the other hand... Still, there are several notable holdouts, including AC/DC, Radiohead, Phish and Metallica. Many artists feel greatest-hits discs corrupt the integrity of their prior albums. For the same reason, Radiohead and AC/DC have thus far resisted putting their music on iTunes, where albums are chopped into single tracks. While I obviously understand Radiohead and Phish holding out on the Greatest Hits front, how can AC/DC possibly argue with a straight face that their music is better when listened to in album form? Could this perhaps be because Back In Black still sells a thousand copies a week, or do they honestly believe fans stand to gain by unearthing the spectacular deep tracks on The Razor's Edge, which involve a slightly different power chord while the singer screams about electric hell? Even Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin, two of the most album-centric bands in history, have caved under the robust earnings potential of the Greatest Hits cds; Zeppelin continues to withhold their material from iTunes, however, in some apparent bid to retain some flimsy, misguided int |