I typically go for the best-reviewed album if I have a choice. Sometimes though I see a new album by a band I keep meaning to check out in a store and that becomes the one I pick up. This happened with Accept recently. Blood of Nations was the only album I saw and I kept meaning to check them out, so that's the one I got.

- 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)

and then go from oldest to newest...

I tend to go for highest rated -- I figure if I'm not impressed by that, then none of the band's other records are likely to do anything for me. But if I like it I'll dig deeper.

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.

I find the average review scores to be mostly meaningless. Fans (or haters) are the ones that tend to write reviews, so they are almost always skewed. The exception is when an album has a lot of reviews. If you were getting into Iron Maiden for the first time, probably the average review score would work for you. Everything's been reviewed a dozen times or more.

Even that hasn't always worked for me though. When I tried to get into Mercyful Fate, the reviews pointed towards Melissa and Don't Break the Oath, but I couldn't stand either one. (I like In the Shadows, which only has 3 reviews.)

There are some awesome bands that have atrocious album titles & song titles, so I don't think I'd go by that. Ditto with album artwork.

Pretty much this, these days. When I was younger it was more of finding albums with cover art somewhat inoffensive enough to warrant my parent's buying it for me.

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.


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...

this. ive never broken the chronological order

Simply listen to the band's complete discography from the first album to the last. No matter how many albums the band have. Recently I've listened to all 25 Bow Wow albums and that experience was not boring at all Because I have interest to listen all band's music, without reading any reviews first or listening to random samples.

In general I'd say I start with whatever is considered to be their finest work, but there have been exceptions where I've started with the first or just whatever was cheapest.

Highest rated/most critically acclaimed. My time is too limited to sit there swimming through 6-7-8 records of crap only to discover that indeed it isn't something I want to hear. I might give a band a second shot if there is an appreciable change in style somewhere in the career path, but frankly, I generally have a good sense as to whether or not I'm there will be any fucks given within the first 15 minutes of listening to them. I don't need 6 hours of the same to tell me.

I honestly lose the will to properly discover a band when they have 4+ albums, I don't know why. I usually just give up, or listen to one and then not bother with the others either ever or until months down the line. When I see a discography like Iron Maiden's I just feel totally overwhelmed.

I usually go by highest rated too, but not bothering if it's below 70 can be a mistake. I know a couple of great albums here that have an unusually low score (Hate Eternal's "I, Monarch" has 69%). If I see a low score on an album or band that generally has a good reputation I'll go for it anyway.

Most regularly with the first album of one band's discography

I generally just listen to 2-3 tracks from each album to see what they are about. If there is a point in their career that I like more than another I check out their releases in that relative time period.
A lot of bands have a really crappy album or two and then step it up and start releasing awesome stuff so I never take the risk of not hearing something amazing. I feel 3 tracks an album is a fair chance because if i pick 3 songs at random on the album and i don't like any of them the album probably isnt worth the time.

THIS

Although usually I will get another album as well to experiment more.

I agree with the statement about the first album you obtain being the album that contained the track that first got you interested in the band to begin with. After that, from my personal experience having lived the majority of my life in a rural part of West Tennessee, I find a lot of the albums I want to be very difficult to come by at a less than hefty price. I just add to the discography slowly but surely with the albums that become accessible to me at a fair price, most often online. I have recently moved to a more urban area that has a lot more to offer as far as metal albums are concerned so I may have to rethink my strategy.

Where in VA are you?

I'm staying in Norfolk right now. If I get the job I've been working on getting hired to then I'll be moving to Suffolk or North Carolina by the end of the year.

If it's a well-known band I haven't checked out yet for whatever reason, I usually go with the albums that seem to have the best reputation.

For the more obscure bands with less reviews I tend to start with debut albums.

I always start with the most recent album because I have a sort of compulsive disorder that makes me want to know what kind of music the band is making right now. After that I mostly look at ratings and reviews.

I start with the most popular/highest regarded. Then i go an album before and after, then the next ones and so on.

For example, lets say i didn't know Running Wild. I'd start with 'Death or Glory' and then listen to 'Port Royal' and 'Blazing Stone', then go with 'Under Jolly Roger' and 'Pile of Skulls', and so on.

I really can't say I blame you on that one. I used to freely collect bands' entire discographies but have mostly stuck with highlights and new releases these days. We may be missing some highlight songs but there are so many bands out there that all warrant individual exploration.

^
Okay, but isn't it preferable to know 100 bands fairly well, rather than 1,000 bands only superficially?

Me, I would go with the band's latest release!
First, Mastodon with The Hunter, their latest LP got me into Mastodon, but Blood Mountain and Crack The Skye are awesome and even greater than their latest offering. Skeletonwitch's Forever Abomination got me into the band and I love the band's complete discography to death.


_________________________________________
http://www.last.fm/user/metaden

Probably, but it's the thought that you could potentially miss a amazing new release that makes people (me included) wanting to check out everything. Most of my 2011 favorites are from before unknown bands that I just had to check out. So now I just have to check out EVERYTHING because I don't want to miss the next The Atlas Moth - An Ache for the Distance. Let's just think of it as a first world problem.

^ Fair enough. Well, your first world problem is my third world success, then. To be honest, I'm the exact opposite to the point that I didn't even really imagine there were fans for whom keeping in touch with the latest releases mattered so much as to be a priority, until this thread came along... But I can totally see the appeal, it's basically the same thing as following a TV series on the fly, as it's aired one episode at a time. I'm in the "save it for when the whole season is definitely complete, and only then watch it all at once" camp, and it's more or less the same with music. Interesting, though.

Always with the debut album. I want to hear them when they're new and fresh. Very fes times i start withe the most popular album, only few times.

I usually go by which album has the best cover art.

If an album has a good rating on metal-archives, I usually take that as a better indicator of its quality rather than mainstream reviews. So, I'll start with the one that has the highest rating based on the reviews from this site. Usually.

I recently got into a lot of new(er) death metal bands. This site and message board were really helpful. When checking out a band with a lot of albums I will generally go by which album has the highest ratings and then check out the reviews. Debut albums tend to be instant classics for a reason, but a lot of times the second or third album is when things will start to gel or get more interesting. If I really get into a band and I decide that I want all of their stuff I will usually start at the beginning and then go forward.

Nowadays that is so easy to find information about bands, whenever I listen to song by a band I didn't knew, I usually go first to the album with that song and then go back to first album and work my way up.

To come up with a example, that happened with Amon Amarth (started with Versus the World after listening to title track at some on-line radio) and Opeth (started with Deliverance after listening to Wreath at the same radio)

Back in the 90's when it was much harder to know bands history and discography things could go different ways.

I'll mention Slayer. I got into them back in 1994 after reading a review of Divine Intervention, where Reign In Blood was also mentioned. So I got both albums and then tried to work my way through the rest of their catalog as I could, with no particular order.

How much french house do you need to hear before you make a determination of "I should start collecting singles" vs. "I don't really care to listen to this particular form of music"? How much Limp Bizkit must you listen to before generating an opinion? All the records? One song?

I'm not going to listen to something I think sucks for the benefit of other people unless I'm being paid.

I do this too.

Usually, when I'm getting into a band, I listen to a bunch of songs first, just to get a feel. Then I'll decide which songs I like the most, and check out the album(s) they appear on. If I haven't been able to listen to a bunch of songs, then I'll just go for the highest rated (the people can't be wrong, right?)

Sometimes, on a whim, I'll pick an album because of its cover art or title, but that sometimes leads to disappointment.

For the genre-shifting bands, I'll go for the album that best fits what I'm into.

Can't blame you there. VA is kinda sucky. Good luck with all that though!
****BTW do you know about Skinnies Records in Norfolk? Check him out www.skinnesrecords.com

Way to put words in my mouth. I obviously didn't mean the first 100 bands you happen to hear of, let alone ones that operate way outside of your comfort zone. And for whose benefit?! I don't even see where you're coming from, with that part, man.

The point was: if you enjoy album, say, 4 out of 6 by Band X, and don't know the other 5 albums at all, then you might want to give those a listen before trying out another band. Straightforward enough.

A little bit of everything is a lot of nothing, is all I'm saying.

In many cases, such an act is criminal when there's better things to be listened to in life. No one needs to slog through any Mayhem disc since De Mysteriis just because they like De Mysteriis, much less do they need to listen to all the other available recorded material.

Alright, I sort of see where you're coming from; it's nowhere near my alley, in any case, that much is clear. A majority of bands with several albums do not have only one worth listening to and nothing of value on the others. Even for those, sticking to the one album and moving on won't ensure the one you know is the only good one, and you'll never know for yourself if you don't try. But whatever floats your boat. Perhaps the "I feel lucky" button does have a purpose, after all.

As a spotify user, I just hit shuffle on everything they made and see where that leads me.

I usually check out the album that has the "best" combination of number of reviews and average score on MA. If there are more suitable albums I usually try to avoid the earliest if it's an old release. Sometimes the oldest are considered classics, and is likely to be overrated. Sometimes they are made when the musicians are less experienced. Sometimes the debuts are very different from the rest of the material. Sometimes they might be very raw or have an unprofessional production. I don't try to avoid these things, I just think it's more fair to listen to their second or third album first (if they are popular), and might also be more representative for the band's sound.