I always start at the beginning, unless circumstances lead me to be exposed to another era first; even then, as soon as I decide to check out the band properly, I go back to the debut and explore from there. Sometimes, it can be a tedious process, particularly with bands who drastically changed overtime and/or didn't really achieve their full potential until later in their career; it can even be outright misleading in some cases (for instance, someone giving Gravestone a try in chronological order would not be likely to make it to 'Victim of Chains'). But all in all, it's the best of approach for understanding the band's style and evolution, and a majority of debuts rank among their respective bands' best albums anyways, so it pays off in the long run.
GTog wrote:
I always start with the latest album. I want to find out what the band sounds like now, not what they sounded like when they started out, or with the old lineup, or what have you.
Well, in that light, I understand your quality map of the metal world better. With this approach, you're basically setting yourself up for a disappointing first impression of any band more than a few years old...
Because I have interest to listen all band's music, without reading any reviews first or listening to random samples.
After that I mostly look at ratings and reviews.
