Best way to start listening to a new artist?

[Cordmore]

What to you guys think is the best way to get into a new band/artist?
Some people seem to prefer getting a best-of album and taking it from there. Some people prefer getting the first album and doing it chronological order.
Pesonally I prefer getting 1 (as in just one) album and listen to it extensively enough to know it pretty well before moving on. Listening to a new artist on the computer pretty much screws up the experience up for me as I then tend to only listen to my favorite songs and miss out on that album-feeling.

For some reason I like artists that I've been introduced to like this better than other artists. What's everyone elses preferences?

 

[mookid]

I usually do a little research and see what is generally regarded as the "best" album (oftentimes the AMG pick) and check that out. I know that's a matter of opinion, but most bands have a widely accepted landmark album. Then if I like it I branch out from there.

 

[elrod-tom]

I also rely on the AMG charts...and, of course, word of mouth.

Once it's time to listen, I make sure that I'm in the right frame of mind. That probably sounds a bit odd, but I need to get into the right open minded mood to listen to new stuff. The more radical the departure from my typical fare, the more important the mood.

I also try to give myself some uninterrupted time. This is why I seem to listen to a lot of new stuff in the car on my commute.

 

[john_jcb]

I normally try new artists as a result of hearing a song that I like either on the radio or at someones house. I then get the album with the song on it. If I like that one I expand into others that have good reviews leaving the ones that you really need to be a fan for last.

My biggest problem is trying to remember the song and artist. At the advice of a friend I have started to make a shopping list so my trips to the store are more focused.

 

[myself, aka me]

If it's a new artist i'll buy their second album, it's usually more controlled than the first. If they've got a lot of material i'll buy a greatest hits although usually if I like the artist it won't get much play time once I have the other albums. Actually, I download two or three tracks to get a feel for the artist first.

 

[SumB]

Start with the most accessible album first.

 

[eyeteeth]

I thought you meant once the CD is in one's hands.

Well my method is mad enough to be worth sharing for entertainment purposes.

With unfamiliar CDs/records I pay it just a little below normal listening volume as background music, repeated twice in a row while I do other stuff. I'll turn my head and take note of the track and time if something catches my ear.

The third play I seek out those songs that caught my attention and give them my undivided focus at proper volume levels. We build a relationship from there. (I use the same method with women,

)

Well it works for me.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to slip into something a little more comfortable...a straightjacket!

 

[Head Creep]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookid I usually do a little research and see what is generally regarded as the "best" album (oftentimes the AMG pick) and check that out. I know that's a matter of opinion, but most bands have a widely accepted landmark album. Then if I like it I branch out from there.

I do this too. A greatest-hits album doesn't do justice to many bands, so it can make them worthless. Then again, there's bands like Motorhead and The Doors that have well-made two-disc greatest-hits albums, which I have gotten and loved.

As far as the second-album theory goes, that would mean that you'd pass up Van Halen's self-titled masterpiece, Ozzy Osbourne's Blizzard of Ozz, Guns N' Roses' Appetite for Destruction, Cypress Hill's self-titled debut, and many others. It's not really a fool-proof way to go about looking at bands.

 

[FalconP]

I just get whichever album easily (and cheaply) available used; don't want to risk too much money on an unknown entity.

No best-of album for me: if I like the artist/band I'll eventually get most of their albums, making the best-of nearly redundant.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

First thing's first: I download a few songs to see if I like the sound...

If I do, I go for the album that gets the best reviews and listen to it completely a few times. Then I pick it apart song by song to see what I like and don't like. After that, I listen to it one more time straight through. If I like it, I burn it and listen to it in my car, if not, it goes either in the rack or in the trash (very rarely). If the album is outstanding, I go through the rest of the catalogue one at a time. I had some GOOD times making my way through Ozzy's and Opeth's catalogue

 

[myself, aka me]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Head Creep I do this too. A greatest-hits album doesn't do justice to many bands, so it can make them worthless. Then again, there's bands like Motorhead and The Doors that have well-made two-disc greatest-hits albums, which I have gotten and loved. As far as the second-album theory goes, that would mean that you'd pass up Van Halen's self-titled masterpiece, Ozzy Osbourne's Blizzard of Ozz, Guns N' Roses' Appetite for Destruction, Cypress Hill's self-titled debut, and many others. It's not really a fool-proof way to go about looking at bands.

If I like the band then i'd go back from there of course. If I get to know a more polished sound then my ears will accept earlier material more easily. The second album was for a band that has relatively few CDs (maybe two or three full albums).

 

[Dusty Chalk]

It depends.

If I suspect a greatest-hits compilation is going to be adequate for my purposes, I'll start with that.

If I suspect I'm going to end up liking their whole catalog (and eventually getting it), then I'll try to find their best single album, and give that a shot first.

Sometimes I go apesnot and just get their whole catalog right away. That's only disappointed me a couple times so far.

 

[Riordan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumB Start with the most accessible album first.

that's not always a good idea, for accessible might also mean bland, uninspired, shallow, flat, glossy, overproduced and utterly without merit. there are a lot of artists whose most accessible work is simply a failure and would leave a newcomer baffled as to why he/she/they have such a strong following.

on the other hand, the album that brought me into electronica was aphex twin's rather strange and not at all accessible 'drukqs'. i was warned, i was intrigued and i was hooked.

incidentally i know the PERFECT way to start listening to a new artist: the music forum at head-fi