ANTHOLOGIES

When are music fans going to realise that the fabled "Anthology" release of a particular band or performer is never going to live up to expectations?  I realised this after borrowing someone else's anthology collection of John Lennon's solo work.  I am a huge fan of Lennon, but I discovered that I don't want to hear every hallowed squeak, fart and swearword inbetween the laying down of some of his most famous tracks.  That's why the tracks are famous: they are polished, edited and finished to perfection.  If "Imagine" began with the words: "F*ck off, Yoko, and put that soddin' bag away," it wouldn't have touched people's souls over the years in quite the same way it has.

However, the worst parts of an anthology have to be the hallowed squeaks, farts and swearwords in between some of the less successful recordings.  Because not only are the songs a bit rubbish, but so is the conversation.

The excuse for these "Anthologies" is that it lets you follow the creative process, you can  hear the way the artist reaches the finished product.  Cobblers.  It's just a way of raking in more money, especially from artists who are d-e-a-d and not able to produce any more work.  Squeeze their back catalogue 'til the grooves bleed, whack on some original artwork by the musician themselves (even if it's terrible, because apparently musicians are great at all arty farty stuff - just ask Paul McCartney), then box it up, overprice it and wait for the money to roll in. 

To own an anthology of someone's work is simply a reflection of one's own vanity. It just proves to other people how much of a massive fan of [insert band/performer's name here] music you are.  It does not necessarily mean that the work on it is better than the original.  Because that means they would have released the work collected on the anthology, and not the finished article on the original which earned them squillions of  Earth pounds.