I'll get this one out the way early. I've powered through two listens, I'm comfortable that this is not the type of album that a 3rd would reveal anything more to me.
I don't think it is a surprise to either of us that my and dlbh's tastes, and attitudes, are quite different. And my discomfort with this type/genre is known.
I could leave it there and opt out with a polite personal dismissal. But I do think that would be somewhat discourteous and passive. So I'll show my respect here by giving it my time and honest thoughts, like with any other album by anyone else.
He is obviously a very capable musician, with good guitar skills and a pleasant voice. And a whole back catalogue of successful songs that many like. It is certainly far more accessible and easier listen to than most of the latest albums we have had. It is, to borrow from bimbo, 'nice'.
That in itself is probably a compliment. For me, that is not enough or what I'm after. It is conventional, safe, unoriginal, repetative, and completely formulaic. It doesn't challenge me, doesn't seem to challenge itself. It feels done for the masses, diluted enough that neither your teenage daughter nor granny will really mind it, and both can be happy with it on. Basically, it is the fucking foo fighters, minus the wristbands and the frowning.
The best song on it for me was we've got tonight, I know a cover. Night moves is a good song too. Beyond that, it was all a bit samey. Now that could be either 'because of' the fact it is a greatest hits album, and he handpicked very similar popular songs. Or it could be 'in spite of' that fact. I don't know enough to think one way or the other. My natural expectation of a best of album would be more variety, with a bigger range to pick from.
While it didn't do much for me musically, what it did do, was make me question myself, and my habits. I.e whether I tend to inherently repel the more popular, and gravitate towards niche. But I think that's just how it tends to fall, and it is not through conscious intent. The widely popular and rated albums tend to, for me, feel diluted and done for the lowest common denominator. And I've found that when I am put off by bands I actually like, becoming popular. I.e it is not their popularity I have an issue with, but the gradual removal of what I found unique and individual to them. And that's what this felt like, and I was not surprised when hammer posted the sales fact.
Having gone this far, might as well put a score against it now. It feels wrong to give this a lower score than I have to some recent albums that it is clearly 'better' than in most conventional senses. But this isn't bloody masterchef here, and I am not taking the role of a talent judge or critic. I'm simply putting an arbitrary number to my reaction to an album, which to me is probably a 4. A 3, given that it is a greatest hits and for that the standard should be somewhat higher.