JoyfulPlatypus: SPUT SURVEY: How Do You Approach a New Discography

PotsyTater 05.23.23	Kinda depends on when the band is from / what era defined them. For newer artists (2010’s onwards or so) if I’m checking them out for the first time I’ll usually check their newest album and if I like it enough to want to explore their discog I’ll either go backwards from their or start at the beginning and go from there. With pre-2000’s artists that span multiple decades I start with their quintessential records and then explore the rest of the decade that defines them, but I usually don’t go beyond that unless I’m really interested because the decades after their defining era are usually trash anyways
PotsyTater 05.23.23	For example, if I’m checking some golden age hip hop I will peep the album considered their quintessential work, then I will check the rest of their 90s stuff and if I like them enough maybe their 80s stuff too but I rarely check anything beyond the early 2000s If it was a synth pop band I’d do the same but sticking mostly within the 80s and rarely checking much past the early 90s So on so forth
JoyfulPlatypus 05.23.23	@Potsy - Gotcha, thanks for the insight! Not a bad way to approach those ancient bands/artists who seem to have 40 albums across half a century.
Koris 05.23.23	Definitely option 2 for me. I like hearing how a band or artist evolves over time... in fact, that's exactly what I'm doing with the Yellowcard discog right now, and it's pretty interesting to hear how they started as a hardcore punk band
Zac124 05.23.23	I generally try to do 2 but it typically ends up being 1, especially if the first album or two aren't as great as their other albums, and sometimes I just randomly listen to them.
porcupinetheater 05.23.23	If I'm consciously doing a discog usually start at the beginning, but I almost never got the patience for that if the artist's got a fair few records and burn out on chrono quick. Don't really have a method for it otherwise. Throwing darts at the seat of the pants.
Colton 05.23.23	start with the first album that has a decent average and go in order from there
PotsyTater 05.23.23	Option 2 is risky as fuck because a lot of great bands first couple albums are absolute trash and can be a terrible indicator of what the quintessential part of their discog sounds like
porcupinetheater 05.23.23	Best experience I've had discoging chrono might be Siouxsie and the Banshees tbh
Vercetti 05.23.23	Option 1
Snake. 05.23.23	start with the first album that has a decent average and go in order from there [2]
wojodta 05.23.23	Option 1, cause if I don't like the classics, it's highly unlikely that I'll like the rest of the discog. I'll usually do the 2 or 3 highest rated albums and, if I enjoy, then maybe I'll go chronological.
Flugmorph 05.23.23	option 2
zakalwe 05.23.23	Music for me is a lot more fluid. I don’t just get stuck into a discog because I fancy it, I’ll stick to what I know and pick and choose. Barring the Beatles and about 98% percent of Nirvana I don’t think I’ve ever a heard a bands/artists complete discography.
DoofDoof 05.23.23	I always start with the intention of listening to complete discogs but there's usually a point you duck out because something else grabs you more. Saying that, this year I've consciously listened to albums I've neglected in discogs I thought I had wrapped up and then really liked those albums. A few examples: Alice in Chains 'Facelift', Metallica 'Justice for All', Rufus Wainwright 'Release the Stars', Bonnie Prince Billy 'Ease Down the Road', Red House Painters 'Old Ramon'....and a load more from more obscure bands. I ended up loving all those albums...so you can ignore some really good albums just hitting the accepted 'classics'.
JohnnyoftheWell 05.23.23	zak 98% of the way through the 5 (!) non-shill nirvana releases flashing his best constipated grin i feel the nub of this is that most people don't approach an artist they've never heard before in terms of their whole discog. half the time, people just want to hear the obligatory classic (or two) and join whichever conversations, and if i don't especially care about the artist to begin with (or the shape of their discog looks choppy), that's me - and if it's a hit, then in we delve for the odd band where i do feel invested/assured of probable goods/intrigued, I'll usually go chrono (sometimes skipping over releases that look like deadweights if my motivation isn't there). this usually rests on the assumption that a discog trawl is a fuckin chore and that it's down to the artist to prove me wrong on the front. sometimes this happens (Stereolab, Amon Tobin, Tim Hecker, ig DREAM DOLPHIN and the Cure have all been good shit on that front) and sometimes it's an idiot commitment and Doof's comment sweeps in tl;dr the harmonious chrono full discog trawl is a myth apart from the when it isn't, but usually you are dumb for attempting it
YoYoMancuso 05.23.23	kind of a mix of both. I'll listen to one of their highest rated albums, and if I like it, I'll start way back at the beginning
PotsyTater 05.23.23	I rarely listen to an artists entire discog unless it’s like less than 5 albums or it’s an artist I’ve been following since the beginning. Too much good shit out there to be wasting time listening to a bands bad albums
bellovddd 05.23.23	usually option 2 unless I am told otherwise by a fan of the band.
90m80s 05.23.23	Listening to a band's "bad" albums can really make or break your fanhood. Some bands have albums so awful I can't help but look at them different. Other bands have "bad" albums that will appeal to me on an entirely different, this time positive, level. For the latter, I'd much rather listen to a lesser work than the best from a band that I only like their masterpiece(s). Long story short, go with whatever approach keeps your researching and listening fresh then change things up when things get stale again.
pizzamachine 05.23.23	I do what FEELS right
Kompys2000 05.23.23	Potsy has it, just listen to albums you think you'll like. If you're a fan of an artist maybe that means their lesser known/less acclaimed stuff is up your alley, maybe it just means youre satisfied enough by one or two of their albums that you don't even really need any more
ffs 05.23.23	in order to rate efficiently i listen to all albums by a band simultaneously
JoyfulPlatypus 05.23.23	Damn everyone, really wasn't expecting such quick and in-depth feedback but I really appreciate it! It's kinda relieving to hear that there's no one right answer, because in the past I've taken both approaches to different artists' discograhy. But obviously ffs has the best idea.
Spec 05.23.23	I’ll listen to the album that contains the tracks I heard and enjoyed in the first place. If I’m still into it, I’ll go early to later albums in order. If the artist has like twenty albums I’ll just check out the ones with the highest ratings on here.
90m80s 05.24.23	This is all, of course, assuming that you'll come here to Sputnikmusic.com to read the ratings, reviews, soundoffs, and user comments in order to find out how you feel about the albums after you've listened to them. All things in their place, have fun!
neekafat 05.24.23	Used to be 2, now mostly 1 tbh
Ecnalzen 05.24.23	Mine is pre similar to Spec, methinks But yeah, it mostly depends on how I found out about the band. If I heard specific music and/or read about a particular album, I will go there first, and see what's what If it's just a general rec from someone without a specific album or something of the like, I will probs start with the higher rated stuff and if I'm interested enough, I like to go to the beginning and kinda see how the artist has (or hasn't) evolved over the years But obviously ffs has the best idea [2]
alamo 05.24.23	classics first or what i think i'll like best or sometimes the prettiest album cover
Vinnymcscoop 05.24.23	Sometimes 1, sometimes 2 forward and backwards, and sometimes I go in not knowing a damn thing about it
Vinnymcscoop 05.24.23	"or sometimes the prettiest album cover" [2]
Storm In A Teacup 05.24.23	You can do this for a bans youve never heard?
AlexKzillion 05.24.23	i've done quite a few extensive chronological discog runs in the last few years where i check every album however many times but also listen to playlists of the artist's setlists every year in between the albums, as i've found this is a great way to become familiar with the essential b-sides and standalone singles, as well as just hear stuff from the different albums against eachother. also have just found i will generally like stuff more the more i hear it and it helps me not forget the old stuff as i dig into the new stuff. it can be a very rewarding experience but it heavily depends on the artist. i did this with david bowie while at the same time reading a biography on him, and it was probably the most fun i ever had listening to/discovering new music. the national, dillinger, cave in, and mewithoutyou also all became some of my favorite bands ever in the midst of doing this there's also times where i regret doing it halfway through but power through cause i'm a completionist. i did norma jean and i ended up liking them way less after than i did before. i completely noped out on maiden as soon as i was done the 80s albums too lmao. also did rolo tomassi and while their pre-2015 material (which takes up like 2/3s of their discog) is fun, its not stuff that really needs more than one listen really, and its hard to get up for listening that stuff repeatedly feel like i kinda differ from most people here tho in that i'm way more of an artist person than an album person. like i'd much rather find a new artist who has a lengthy discog of mostly 4s than find a new 5.0 album, that's so much more rewarding to me
mkmusic1995 05.24.23	If I'm actively looking to dive into an artist that I've never listened to before, I'll usually start from the beginning. But I think Pizza said it best, I just do what feels right in the moment.
IsisScript80 05.24.23	If I'm approaching something new, I tend to do a little background research into what the wider consensus discography highlights are, and start with that. An artist has to interest me enough on first impression for me to continue digging through; oftentimes, the consensus fave won't match my own when going through it all, but I take it as a good starting point... it'd most likely be a good overview of a band at their peak creativity at least, even if personal taste will lead me to prefer their other stuff. Not always the way I do it, but it's the pattern I usually fall into. Chronological order is rarely a way to go for me, unless the evolution is part of the story and a means of appreciating the act in itself, like a band such as Talk Talk for example.
Sharenge 05.24.23	I approach slowly and calmly so as not to startle it
anat 05.24.23	I don’t listen to music
IsisScript80 05.24.23	"I approach slowly and calmly so as not to startle it" If I were to get to something like the Belle and Sebastian discog, I'd assume this to be the correct approach.
Sharenge 05.24.23	no sudden movements and I know it can be hard but it's important to maintain eye contact - you don't want the discog you're trying to get acquainted with to think you're a little bitch
Demon of the Fall 05.24.23	Sometimes 1, sometimes 2. If it’s a larger discog then I’ll often cherrypick ‘classics’ early and aim to fill in gaps later (slowly over time). Only if I’m enjoying myself, obviously
Spec 05.24.23	“or sometimes the prettiest album cover" Oh yeah. That too.
0xME 05.24.23	I generally listen to bands chronologically unless they have a bunch of universally agreed upon stinkers at the beginning
PitchforkArms 05.24.23	tbh, depends on what I'm looking for. If I'm trying to find something that I know I will love, I will research and listen around to hone in on what tickles my particular fancies, but if I'm drying to do my due diligence and genuinely familiarize myself with an artist, I will usually do a run of "essentials" from oldest to newest.