Album Rating: 5.0

I think starting with Homo / Post makes more sense. This is arguably Bjork at her most subtle, intimate and introspective. Yes it is her best, but as a starting point I’d argue Homo or Post are perhaps ‘easier’ to your average listener

Debut is some fun ass Euro dance pop influenced ear candy too, if you wanna chrono. The long haul is worth plenty with this lass

I started from Debut and it worked pretty well for me.

I'd say that or Post.

How can a simple “chronologically” not always be the correct answer to this question?

Album Rating: 5.0

It isn't always, but I'm fine with it being a decent option here

never miss an opportunity to post several paragraphs of useless text tho

I can't fathom many realistic scenarios where it is advisable/preferable to experience an artist's albums in an order other than how they were originally released. What benefit is gained?

What about artists with like 50 albums

Album Rating: 3.5

always start with the artist's lowest rated album and work your way up to the highest rated IMO

I want to try this

"How can a simple “chronologically” not always be the correct answer to this question?"

This makes sense to me if you are committing to a full discog run but I wouldn't agree if someone is just wanting to dip their toe in the water. There are plenty artists that I can think of that I wouldn't have gotten into when I did if I had started with their debut. Would have missed out on a lot of great listening.

Album Rating: 5.0

yeah, my answer to tect's Q is simply... "time constrains bro"

not a difficult concept to understand why someone wouldn't want to potentially waste such a precious commodity

Bunch of cowards

"always start with the artist's lowest rated album and work your way up to the highest rated IMO"
best decision my 14 y/o brain ever pulled was to try this with trivium and then immediately give up on first exposure
[2] to Jalapeno post, seems v silly to assume that anyone interested in an artist for one of their potentially many singular appeals should immediately get deeply invested in their entire oeuvre

Music is not to be enjoyed. It is to be obsessively cataloged, arbitrarily rated, and hostilely debated over by other damp corner internet dwellers such as ourselves.

what is/is there a good band that had like a bunch of shitty albums before any good ones

Miles Davis

i like birth of the cool...

If anyone says Swans or Sonic Youth, they are banned from sputnik.

Album Rating: 4.5

Idk Stevie Wonder?



His stuff doesn’t really hit hard til the 70s



Not that his 60s stuff is terrible, but it’s largely ignorable outside a hit or 3

Album Rating: 4.5

Then again, he didn’t write most of his songs til 1971 so that’s prob why. I treat Where I’m Coming From as his true debut or at least the beginning of a totally new era



Probably what happens when you’re originally famous for being a 12 year old genius

Album Rating: 5.0

idk about "a bunch" but there are plenty of great artists that started off relatively slowly with works very few ppl would claim as their peak



David Bowie is an obvious choice. He's also a great example of an artist where 'pre-deciding' the option of doing a chrono discog run seems like a terrible decision given the sheer amount of material

The National's first two are generally considered weak in the context of their discog

The Gathering's first two albums are literally* their worst (the debut might beat out like one other album, maybe)

depending on your existing musical preferences, starting with Blonde Redhead's SY pandering debut may be an unattractive proposition... maybe a less dedicated listener misses their dream pop stuff entirely?

same with PJ Harvey due to stylistic changes

definitely relevant to Radiohead, who would recommend starting with bloody Pablo? lol