Where do you like to start with their discography?

- The most popular/infamous album for the band
- The highest rated album
- The first album or the newest album
- The one which has the most appealing cover/title
- The one with the song that was the first you heard from the band, that made you want to check out the band (I think I`m in this category)
- For bands that shift between genres, do you start with the album within your interest-area, genrewise?

... Other?

Cronologically most of time. I like to know how a band started and evolved upon every release.

Sample it on youtube to find a good album. I've bought an album randomly once or twice because there was some stuff I liked by a band, then got disappointed because it wasn't that good.

If I'm just checking stuff out on the internet, it doesn't really matter much which one I start listening to.

Usually the highest rated first. If it's below 70, I usually dont bother. Artwork, song titles can be a factor to.

Well if it doesn`t matter, have you expirienced to come across a really crappy album from a band that has become your first expirience with it - deeming the band as crappy overall, only to give them another go with another album - finding out that they actually are a good band, even if that first album you heard was crap?

.

Yeah, many mands have released some turds. What if someone wants to get into Morbid Angel and his/her very first song was Radikult?

Anyway, I don't really delve into complete discographies all the time, but for the bands I've heard something that I liked or was recommended by someone in whom I trust in terms of taste. When I hear a song or two and aren't of my liking, but the band belongs to my fav genres, I usually look for more songs of different albums to make sure if they are good enough or not. If the band sounds like crap and belongs to a genre I'm not much fond of, I just ignore it, until someone recommends it for X reason or I see a very good review or something that convince me to re-check it.

I forgot to mention an alternative that is:

Discover the band through a show.

The one with the catchy single.

Good question. Most of the time it's the most popular album for me. That's how I've discovered and eventually grown to love Blut aus Nord (TWWTG, then MVII) and Between the Buried and Me (Colors).

Usually either the first album, or the most "critically" acclaimed album.

It depends. If one of my friends recommends an album by a band I've never listened to, I'll start with that one and if I like it I will get the rest of their stuff and more often than not start from the beginning.

If it's a band I've come across by another means (rec forum, Last.fm, etc...) I'll start from the beginning of their discography unless the albums have terrible reviews.

True, makes sense, then I sample songs from random albums if I think it has any possibility of being good. Happens quite often actually, a band may have had a crappy singer or something at one time, or changed styles drastically.

Whichever one is easiest to download usually. If it's the discography I'll start at the beginning, or one I've heard is the best.

I end up buying a shit ton of albums before anyone gets pissy, most of which is because of downloading.

Check the archives for best reviewed album(s). Sample a few tracks on Youtube. If I enjoy them as a whole, I'll download their discog and listen chronologically. Rinse and repeat.

I go chronologically. If there are earlier (or later) albums that are in a style I don't care for, I usually skip straight to the ones that are more my cup of tea and go from there.

Going chronologically just makes room for starting off with a band's less mature/inspired works...I always check out the one that seems to be the most highly regarded, so as to get an initial opinion on why the band is revered or liked to begin with. Then I work around and get to other parts of their discography.

Like a couple of others have said, I'll generally go to M-A, find out which album is the highest rate it, then find a few tracks on youtube. If I like it, I'll then go through the reviews for their other albums and find out which ones are the most similar to what I just heard. I don't believe in listening chronologically - so many bands have style changes early on in their careers, or sloppy first albums that just aren't representative of the band at either their current OR "classic" level, that it runs too large a risk of writing a band off.

I like having no obvious rhyme nor reason to it. Sometimes I'll get their newest when it's released. Sometimes I'll get their debut. Many times I'll get an assortment through their career. I enjoy the opportunism of just buying whatever takes my fancy.

I'll usually start with the fan favorite album or which ever I heard first.

Hahaha, you don't say?

i usually start with the debut and from there move to the highest scored reviewed album unless only oneperson has reviewed it and i can tell they dont know what they are talking about.

Either the demos/ first recordings (if I have them), the album I am most anticipating hearing, or the albums in alphabetical order (other).

It depends on if I can find the early stuff or if the later stuff is the most acclaimed. I run into this a lot. With Gamma Ray I bought the newest one I could get off Amazon at the time, No World Order. Then I went and started buying the older discography off eBay.

I hardly ever start with a band's first album unless it's the very first one I hear, usually because for metal bands the first album can be difficult or expensive to acquire. I most often start with one of the most famous albums and then move forwards/backwards one step at a time, or if I see the band's most recent album for really cheap in a record store I'll just go backwards from there (like I did with Enslaved and Dying Fetus). Going chronologically through a band's albums is a lot more satisfying, and it gives off the vibe of progression that you'd pick up if you were following the band throughout all the time they released that stuff, but if you're like me and refuse to download favor of physical formats, then it can be a costly initial investment.

I usually just try to find a bands most acclaimed release (as per the reviews here on the Archives), and go from there. I typically don't even bother with anything that's less than an 80% on average, unless I end up really getting into the band and want to hear everything they've done.

If the rating is more or less descending, chronologically.
If not, the best rated between the oldest ones.

I usually start with their first releases, but it also depends. Usually I check on internet reviews for the most positive feedback and then I choose from their 'best, earliest' releases. This way it kind of gives a perspective on how a band has evolved in a positive way, I guess.

Often, I'll look at the band's well-regarded albums and go with the cheapest one of the bunch. Obviously, this only really works if they have a lot of well-regarded albums.

Usually for me, I'll pick up their highest rated/"best" album. Also if the band has a new album coming out and uploads a new song onto a streaming site (Youtube, Soundcloud etc.) and I like it then I'll pick up their newest album.

Usually their best album and if I like it I'll go searching through the rest of their discography in no particular order really. Sometimes album artwork plays a role as well.

I'd say start from their first album and work your way through their discography or pick their best album. It depends on the band though.

Almost always the debut, but sometimes I prefer to check which one has the highest rating, or the check the songs on youtube and drawn my own conclusions.

It depends...usually I will check out the band's latest album, unless the song I've heard that I really like is on an older album, then I'll check out that one.

I would say most of the time I go with :The one with the song that was the first you heard from the band, that made you want to check out the band" And that's if I had never heard of the band and say I happen to stumble across one of their albums on ebay and saw it for cheap and wanted to sample to see if it was even worth the 4 bucks.

Before everything was on youtube, where I couldn't sample shit, it was whatever I could get first at the time be it through catelogues, ebay, 2nd hand/cd stores (rare nowadays).

I start with their magnum opus. Then move through chronologically or whichever albums are considered their second best. I sample a bunch of songs throughout their career as well, generally in no particular order.

Usually the last couple, because I figure what ever sound they were toying with in the beginning will be more refined and more experimental. Then I'll work my way back through the discography, probably moving on to the second and third release, and finally the first. The main reason being that it took me awhile to get used to bad production and muffled audio. As of late, I usually pick the top rated album because I need to know if the band is worth my time, if their supposed best album is mediocre I'll just move on to another band.

I like starting with the first album and working my way through the catalog chronologically. I like taking that musical journey with the band as they grow and evolve.

I usually look at the band's first three albums, then I look at the ratings and pick the highest one. I then go on youtube and listen to the first 3 songs to see if I dig it. Most of the time I won't go below 80% on albums, though Forced Entry's Uncertain Future would be an exception to the rule (I loved it). And sometimes the cover art plays a small part also (Seriously, Exhorder...you'll see me buying Slaughter at the Vatican before getting the generic bs cover art you call The Law)

It's usually either their most recent album or their most acclaimed, especially if the band is one that hasn't been around for as long.