Are artists ever the best compilers of their back catalogue?

IMO Simply no. Never. It's not even a desirable characteristic of creative people to focus on their past in selective mode.
It always adds immense kudos to rarities and outtakes packages, I suppose, if there's input from the artist. I'll accept that it's a very fine line I'm treading here.
Input is one thing. But the guiding compiling hand should neither be the artist's / family member's.

Posthumous archive releases are consistently more interesting to me.

Ideally, the compiler should have taken an artistic path themselves, but not be too close to their subject.
In the Dylan universe there's been a negative trend away from the hugely successful objectively compiled or selective sets of the 80s, 90s to the approach Dylan / the management now take which is to throw everything they can at us in the most obvious sequence within a release.

A corollary,
thank heavens they separated the so-called 'hotel' songs onto the only disc I play from Cutting Edge on repeat.

 

Neil Young - Decade was rather splendid.

 

Just don't get Phil Collins to do it apparently.

Graham Nash on the other hand was doing a splendid job for a while.

 

Bob Seger, need I say more, great back catalogue that he won't reissue

 

Don't ask Genesis, they removed two songs from a rarities collection because Phil didn't like one and Tony and Mike didn't like one.

Missing the point hehe

Also who did the 10CC set and not include Worst Band in the World?!

 

I listen to it a lot. You have a very good point.

 

Artists certainly have their rights, but they we never fans of themselves and don't have the same emotional relationship. There are many album tracks that became fan favorites that are often ignored by a pure Greatest Hits collection.

 

Picked up Simply Red’s Greatest Hits this morning at a flea market nearby, compiled by Mr. Hucknall himself.

The first two albums are only represented by three songs while the album Stars alone gets a whopping five in. Because of this songs like Jericho, the later Remembering The First Time and Every Time We Say Goodbye are all m.i.a. while we get a new Aretha Franklin cover with a guest appeareance of Wyclef Jean of all people (Angel). I like the collection for what it is and maybe they might be their ‘greatest hits’ as going by the title, but the impression I get, judging by the track selection as well as the booklet (pics of Mick, Mick and Mick), is that it’s a rather non-democratic affair with a slight disdain for what put them on the map in the first place.

My answer to the OP’s question?
Not neccessarily.

But leave it to Elvis Costello and Neil Young to do such a thing!!!

 

not always...they have to much of a personal connection which could be a negative.

 

Wouldn't it be a hoot though, if he released a whole album of demos in which he had a melody down pat, and was just mumbling "Dyah-dah-dahh..." for the lyrics. Casual fans who don't know musicians sometimes write like this, would go apoplectic!

 

Artists are not always the best compilers of their back catalogue. However, there are times when they do a splendid job.

In contrast, an artist's manager/record company/PR company/estate/family/etc. are not always the best compilers of his/her back catalogue. We are fortunate that they do sometimes get it right.

 

Artists (or anyone too close to the artist) probably aren't the best for the job, but neither are the superfans (who obviously think they are).

 

I remember reading online somewhere that the members of Rush chose which songs to include on the first 2 Retrospectives, and if that's the case, they did a great job. The track selection is more varied and less obvious than Chronicles IMO. On the other hand, Retrospective III's selection was very predictable and lacked a few gems from the Atlantic era.

Another case where an artist made good contributions to a compilation is Santana's Multi-Dimensional Warrior. It mostly focuses on the band's late 70's-to mid-90's albums and isn't too heavy on the hits (ie - no Black Magic Woman and Evil Ways for the 500th time!). The mid-80's albums, which nearly every Santana comp (and live set for that matter) unfairly ignores, are well-represented here as well. It's a really fun and intriguing listen if you're only familiar with the first few albums and Supernatural, though the sound quality isn't very consistent. For other artists, I can't say too much as I don't really buy comps unless they include rare or unreleased songs.

 

The virtues of democracy within a band.

Here’s an example of an artist-compiled compilation that actually works partly because of it’s glaring omissions:
In Time: The Best Of R.E.M.

Ample room is given to some relative rarities that are well worth the acquisition while it all has a flow of it’s own. I can’t see where Drive or Shiny Happy People would fit in that, honestly.

 

And, they approved those horrible remixes and made them "cannon", deleting the original mixes. Not to mention their keyboard player insinuated that anyone who thought they remixes were bad, needed better equipment.

 

In my view, they often aren't the best compilers of their material where the fans are concerned, but many are good at compiling packages that cover their best-known material. Often many times over.