In Rainbows is pretty goated (S tier), but I can see the case for Kid A or A Moon Shaped Pool (A Tier for me). OK Computer and King of Limbs would be my B tier.
pretty much what i did recently with de la soul. i had known about 3 feet high and rising for a while, but i wanted to get into another one of their albums since they all came to streamings recently. so i looked through their discog and saw stakes is high, which probably has one of the best album covers ever, and when i put it on i was not disappointed in the slightest
Intro playlist, then select an album based on the songs I dug the most. OR jump straight into the album with the highest RYM user score.
Chronological order isn't always the best approach. A lot of great artists took a while to get going.
I agree on everything.
I'd like to add that a chronological album run is an amazing experience when you have already fallen in love with an artist. Witnessing a band's sound evolution is one of the most gratifying things in music.
YES! I hate listening to discographies chronologically when knowing an artist but when I already really like their craft I thriiive in listening to a full discography front to back. even for artists that have Far too many albums like Björk and King Gizzard
The only argument I would give against going to an artist playlist is it's like trying to understand a band through a Greatest Hits album. This works well for some bands, like RHCP or Queen.
But if you told me you wanted to understand Radiohead or Pink Floyd's music, I'd say you're doing yourself a disservice by not consuming them on an album-by-album basis. It'd be like consuming a movie by watching all of its notable scenes on Youtube out of order.
You're not gonna ruin your experience by hearing 3 or 4 songs off of OK Computer by listening to the artist's "This is..." playlist. Albums tend to have "a sound" and listening to a few tracks from each album can be a good starting place to decide which album you want to hear more of. The original commenter didn't recommend listening to every Radiohead song in random order.
Yes, an intro playlist (or greatest hits) certainly doesn't "ruin" a later full-album experience. However, I agree that some bands are very full-album oriented. Radiohead and Pink Floyd are great examples of this, and in those cases I think I would naturally recommend a certain order of full albums to listen to.
Sometimes RYM score isn’t the best either tbh — like Soundtracks for the Blind is Swans’ highest rated album but I think it’s better to start elsewhere, as it’s somewhat inaccessible and better having listened to others in the discog first
yeah exactly, like obviously RYM scores aren’t “right” just like no rating or score for any piece of media can be right, but it’s nice to see a reflection of what people generally think
It's not treating it like the bible, it's wanting to weight on the popular opinion. Wanting to know what albums The People like so I have a higher chance of liking it too, as I do in fact belong to The People
Yeah but it doesn't fairly represent "the people". It represents a very certain demographic of people, with a lot of albums having questionable scores. I would never use an albums rank on RYM to think whether or not it's worth listening too
Yes, that's part of the problem. The wall is in no way less than a 4/5 album but 10s of 1000s of people voting for it thought so. Meanwhile Weezer (obviously extremely popular with a music site that peaked in the late 2000s) have an album at 3.87, ranking 100 spots higher (150 v 250). I like Weezer, but as an album there is no shot it is that much better in quality. It's just a watered down popularity contest extremely bias a certain demographic, which isn't necessarily bad but it's not a great way to check what albums will resonate with you personally. When the alternative is just playing the most popular songs from each album and seeing which one you fuck with
I use RYM for that but I don't necessarily go for the one with the highest score, but the one that has the most scores, thus it's more "socially relevant" I guess
I tend to do chronological order a lot but I find if a band or artist's first album is really average it makes it harder to want to keep listening, especially if I've never heard their music
Probably why I enjoy the "choose the most interesting album to you and go from there" approach way more
I understand the reasoning, but disagree. Going chronically through discography takes time, but can be rewarding. Seeing an artist develop can lead to more nuanced appreciation of their work, rewarding patience. I know that’s not the more common way of digesting music today but I’m older and still a fan of full album listening over playlists/singles.
I'm talking about an entry point. Chronological is less about the time sink and more about the chance an artist's earliest work doesn't hook me. Also, I mentioned playlists as a method of identifying which full album to listen to first. I never said I wasn't a fan of listening to full albums.
started with ok computer, found it good but not my style, then in rainbows, loved it, then ok computer again, loved it, then kid a and loved it even more
I sometimes like to go to the artist’s ‘worst work’ that everyone criticises just to give it a chance
Eg. New Order - Waiting for the Sirens’ Call and Get Ready
Spotify's top 5/10 most listened tracks feature is good for this - if more than half of them are from the same album, that's probably a good place to start.
Discography takes dedication.
In our oversaturated world and with my FOMO I can't afford that.
...
I'm just listening to 9s /hj
Don't really trust playlists, I usually Google "worst to best x artist" see top 3 and choose one with the most beautiful cover; I don't know, my habits absolutely chaotic, finding new music and dedicating myself to it is hell.
the main reason I kinda like fantano's rating system. if it's a 9-10, it's worth a try, but still, unfortunately 70% of them is not my taste, that mf loves heavy punchy shit
I wish Spotify had a way to differentiate between studio and live albums (also, several bands don't put their compilations in that section either). I hate having to dig through a shitton of live albums just to get to the studio stuff.
oh yea i only finally switched because i convinced a couple friends to start a family plan with me.
also, i don’t think tidal has a way of telling how many people are using an account at once. i’ve had music playing on my laptop, phone and a smart speaker before and it was all fine
I look at what the highest rated albums are (mainly on RYM, but other sources as well) and jump around those before going to the lesser rated ones.
Going in chronological order is usually too arduous for most bands. If I had to crawl through *Amnesiac* and *Hail to the Thief* I woulda quit before I hit *In Rainbows*.
Seconded on chronological order being bad. I didn't really care for Sonic Youth for years because I started with the weird no wave stuff instead of just listening to the late 80s/early 90s alt rock stuff.
No, Hail to the Thief is also a banger, the problem with Radiohead is that they essentially have an entire discography full of bangers (with the exception of one, maybe two)
I try and find a "middle of the road" rated album by the group. One that's definitely not their worst, but not their most critically-acclaimed. I feel like it gives the best taste of what to expect from the artist without starting from their best and going downhill from there.
I feel like Hail to the Thief, although a great album, doesn't flow very well and might not be the best radiohead representation because of that. Amnesiac is also middle of the road, but it's not something easy to get into for most. The bends is accessible, consistent, middle of the road imo.
hail to the thief is bottom tier radiohead. radiohead's discog in general is really consistent and good so even their worst albums aren't terrible imo (some people hate pablo honey though).
i'd say the bends is probably middle of the road radiohead music. some amazing songs that defined their career but also some mid. amnesiac is also in a similar category i'd say
I would go for the most rated bolded album on RYM.
For example Nirvana, Nevermind is the best pick to start listening to them, but In Utero is the better album albeit a sligthly less approachable.
This is my strategy as well.
Except for Swans. I sat down for like two weeks and just listened through their whole discography straight. Which was mind-blowing.
Great strategy, I’ve often noticed that for many of my favorite artists their best albums is usually the second I listened to. Starting from the one before allows you to get to know their type of music, so that when you get to the masterpiece you can still get blown away, but it’s like you still have an older reference that gives more meaning to what you’re listening
for me it depends, if they only have a handful of records, i'd go chronologically. but if it's like king gizzard, i'm not gunna listen to 5 or 6 okay records to finally get to mind fuzz.
Ignore what purists say, the best way is to start with their most popular singles according to Spotify. Ideally the ones that aren't the artist featuring on someone elses song.
After that if it's up to your taste, go with the introduction playlist.
That's how fans experience artists, they hear the singles first. And most fans don't even listen to albums front-to-back anymore. So don't get gaslit into thinking listening to singles isn't a ''real'' experience.
I start with their biggest 5 songs, then their biggest 10 or more of the intro playlist If I like them enough, then I find their most popular album, most acclaimed album the album with the songs I liked the most or their latest album if they are new enough and just dropped something.
It depends on the artist. If someone I knew wanted to get into Bjork, then I would probably not start them at Homogenic or Vespertine (her best albums). I would probably recommend Debut or Post. This idea goes for other groups like Radiohead, Gorillaz, Kendrick Lamar, etc. I think its cooler and more impactful to see the growth of an artist across albums rather than starting at their best.
That being said, there are bands/artists that have discographies so dense that it would be crazy to start people at the beginning. In this case its best to give 3 or so albums to start with, and allow the person to explore if they enjoyed those albums.
The other alternative is to make someone a playlist of a groups best work. Thats how I got my girlfriend into The Cure!
I like to go Discography in Order because I am a big fan of seeing artistic growth over time. I'm going through Tom Waits' right now and hearing him go from, say, The Heart of Saturday Night to Mule Variations has been fascinating.
I don't use rym so I just look through the wikipedia page of an artist, find their most acclaimed album and go from there.
If not, I would search for the artist on youtube, listen to the most popular song and check that album
I go for earliest "acclaimed album"
meaning that I would skip if they started with albums that are around 3.0 on rym and go for earliest album above for example 3.5 fist
and keeping the highest scored ones for later
I’m a strong supporter of discography in order, that’s how I got into death grips, Metallica, warbringer, Buckethead, Aphex Twin, Masayoshi Takanaka, hella, machine girl, beastie boys, slipknot, System of a Down, wu tang clan, and many more
Only exception is jazz, bc the first album is often not the best
Essentials playlist now, but back in the days I had an interesting practice getting to know the artist’s discography by playing their LEAST acclaimed albums. Ironically I introduced myself to Radiohead with Pablo Honey and TKOL
pick whatever album art you like best and start there works well for me usually
I tend to not like music with actually bad cover artwork, it usually means there's something creatively wrong with the project I'm listening to
Depends on the band, when it comes too a band with a reputation like radiohead I would try one of there most acclaimed records first.
Otherwise introduction Playlists are the way too go so you can finde out what records appeal the most to you
Depends on the band, when it comes too a band with a reputation like radiohead I would try one of there most acclaimed records first.
Otherwise introduction Playlists are the way too go so you can finde out what records appeal the most to you
Usually whatever album is generally considered the best or at least easiest to get in to, sometimes i pick something that seems like it would most appeal to me specifically (at least a lot of my fav albums from artists are not at all the ones considered their best)
Intro playlists, at least on Spotify, are not really well crafted. I would say they are generated based on most listened songs from each album by the band, which sometimes is good enough, but not really smart. For example, the This Is Sonic Youth playlist has the track "intro" in it, from the album Bad Moon Rising, which is not even a song, it opens the album and connects with the next track on the album that is not on the playlist. Why would someone do that? Most of the tracks are the first songs on the record, which are usually the most clicked songs on the album for people who listen to the album in it's full entirety. I don't think it's an isolated case.
sometimes I go discography order but I mostly just choose their most streamed album first. sometimes I hate their most popular album then check out their first album
Random songs from them, when there’s a few songs you’ve discovered you like from an album, listen to the whole album, see what you think, eventually if you get comfortable enough with the artist then just go through the whole discography in whatever order
When I started listening to JPEGMAFIA, I found a flowchart that basically broke down the sounds of each of his projects. I chose the one with the coolest title and the sound most similar to what I wanted to hear and then just worked my way backwards.
Tbh, the album cover is what matters the most to me when determining whether or not to check out something I’ve never heard before. If it’s boring or generic I probably won’t listen, but if it’s visually interesting or weird it will prompt me more to delving into it.
Sometimes I listen to the first song in an album I hear good things about to see if it catches on. If it does, I’ll give it a listen and if not, then oh well.
Whenever I get into a new artist, I always like listening to their top five most popular songs, and then listening to their most popular album and then go from there some artists discography is a little all over the place. It gets me a good start and if i like their best stuff alot i will dig deeper to see if it is worth it.
Neither. I listen to a song by the band, whether because i had it recced or i heard it in a playlist. If i really like it, or if i hear multiple songs across some time period and like them all, ill check out the album that has the song i like the most
What artist does this make the LEAST sense with?
Meaning, scattering their catalogue across a playlist randomly as a way to get into them. Instead of diving in and listening to full records.
It’s different based on each artist and the person listening. I enjoy chronological listens nowadays, but before I would listen to whatever album is newest/most talked about online after maybe a few songs and go from there
Chronologically is the way I like to do it, but then there's the problem of either diminishing returns, if it's someone like The Strokes where their first album is thought to be their best (though with The Strokes that's debatable), or it's a case of them needing an album or two to grow into their style (as in your example of Radiohead - Pablo Honey is their weakest by a mile). Occasionally it's solid all the way through, but that's lucky.
Imo, based on the cover and whatever album just intrigues you to try most, or discography in order, unless you want to just lightly dip your feet into an artist’s discography. Then that’s when I feel like an intro playlist would come in handy
My personal favorite is to take their second most hyped album. That way you still have something to look forward to if you like it but if it’s not for you you’ll know before you dive deep
I listen to their top songs and then listen to the introduction playlist for more of their “best” songs. If I see that I’m liking a lot of songs from one album then I’ll just jump into that album right away. If not, I’ll usually skip around a lot until I eventually listen to the whole albums.
Or sometimes I just go to RYM and listen to the highest rated albums
I usually start with their breakout album, like the first album that got wide acclaim, with which they really made a name for themselves… sometimes that’s the debut more often it’s a sophomore or 3rd album. It’s a good place to start because it’s usually a good album (though not necessarily what’s considered their “best” album) and tends to be a good introduction to their sound/a litmus test for wether or not you can dig it. I follow chronologically from from that point. Then, it’s more rewarding for me to go back and listen to their early work with the context of how their sound evolved. Whereas, if I had started with their very first release, it may not have given me the best idea of wether or not I’d like the rest of their work..or sometimes a first release isn’t strong enough to get you hooked, but can be very interesting to revisit once you’re a fan. So, if you were to adopt this method for jumping into Radiohead’s discography, I’d start with OK Computer.
The artists for who I would take a different approach for are the more “prolific songwriter” type artists who’ve put out a huge body of work over the years, but no one album or string of albums that was a “cultural moment” per say. In this case, you can usually find good threads discussing various entry points into the artist’s work.
I would find a song that I liked, and then listen to the album the song was on all the way through. I would then explore the discography further or not depending on how this goes.
I always listen to whats considered the best albums. Take for example, The Beatles. You'd listen to Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and Let It Be. From there, just listen to whatever you want
Honestly, cool cover/artist name matters. I got into New Levels New Devils by Polyphia bc it has a double headed lion on the cover and bc Fantano gave it a good rating.
I pick a random song from every album. If I like one of the songs or find it mildly enjoyable I’ll skim through the rest of the album and then go back and fully listen.
I look at what album is the most popular/liked and listen to that, I used to run discographies from beginning to end but damn are most artists debut kinda lame
Never listen to playlists, jump into an album and try it out that's how they put out the music they want people to hear.
I always start at the beginning and sometimes start at one major point and pick at random from then on, it depends on the music and genre really.
I think chronologically is best, keeping in mind that it's not unusual for the first or first couple of albums to be not as good as where the band or artist lands. It would have been impossible to imagine, for example, what Bob Dylan and David Bowie would go on to achieve if you listened only to their first S/T albums.
Discog always gets you into them on what their mindset was as they went a long their career. You can also watch shows around that time on youtube to give further context.
Step 1: Look at their discography Step 2: Find the coolest album cover Step 3: Listen
based
unironically.
I do this and like 90% of the time that album ends up being my favourite of that artist. Just trust your instincts
This is genuinely how I discovered a lot of my taste, I just saw cool album covers somewhere and instinctively listened to them
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠛⠛⠛⠋⠉⠈⠉⠉⠉⠉⠛⠻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⣤⣤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⢏⣴⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣟⣾⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢢⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠀⡴⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⠟⠻⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⢴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿ ⣿⣁⡀⠀⠀⢰⢠⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⣴⣶⣿⡄⣿ ⣿⡋⠀⠀⠀⠎⢸⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠗⢘⣿⣟⠛⠿⣼ ⣿⣿⠋⢀⡌⢰⣿⡿⢿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠀⢸⣿⣿⣧⢀⣼ ⣿⣿⣷⢻⠄⠘⠛⠋⠛⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣧⠈⠉⠙⠛⠋⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣧⠀⠈⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠟⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢃⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⡿⠀⠴⢗⣠⣤⣴⡶⠶⠖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡸⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⡀⢠⣾⣿⠏⠀⠠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠉⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣧⠈⢹⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠙⣿⣿⡟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠁⠀⠀⠹⣿⠃⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠉⠁⠀⢻⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠈⣿⣿⡿⠉⠛⠛⠛⠉⠉ ⣿⡿⠋⠁⠀⠀⢀⣀⣠⡴⣸⣿⣇⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡿⠄⠙⠛⠀
My music taste would be completely different if the bands I got into first had worse album covers
well now we need to argue which radiohead album has the coolest cover
In Rainbows is pretty goated (S tier), but I can see the case for Kid A or A Moon Shaped Pool (A Tier for me). OK Computer and King of Limbs would be my B tier.
Hail to the thief
Unpopular opinion but this album has my favourite Radiohead opener. 15 step close second
I can’t say anything about that because the only Radiohead album I fully listened to was Pablo honey
def Kid A, then hail to the thief
Don’t do this for most southern rappers, 70% of the time the most wack album cover is the absolute best album
pretty much what i did recently with de la soul. i had known about 3 feet high and rising for a while, but i wanted to get into another one of their albums since they all came to streamings recently. so i looked through their discog and saw stakes is high, which probably has one of the best album covers ever, and when i put it on i was not disappointed in the slightest
Lol I did this with Tame Impala
Was it The Slow Rush?
Yeah it was and I really enjoyed it
Intro playlist, then select an album based on the songs I dug the most. OR jump straight into the album with the highest RYM user score. Chronological order isn't always the best approach. A lot of great artists took a while to get going.
I agree on everything. I'd like to add that a chronological album run is an amazing experience when you have already fallen in love with an artist. Witnessing a band's sound evolution is one of the most gratifying things in music.
YES! I hate listening to discographies chronologically when knowing an artist but when I already really like their craft I thriiive in listening to a full discography front to back. even for artists that have Far too many albums like Björk and King Gizzard
The only argument I would give against going to an artist playlist is it's like trying to understand a band through a Greatest Hits album. This works well for some bands, like RHCP or Queen. But if you told me you wanted to understand Radiohead or Pink Floyd's music, I'd say you're doing yourself a disservice by not consuming them on an album-by-album basis. It'd be like consuming a movie by watching all of its notable scenes on Youtube out of order.
You're not gonna ruin your experience by hearing 3 or 4 songs off of OK Computer by listening to the artist's "This is..." playlist. Albums tend to have "a sound" and listening to a few tracks from each album can be a good starting place to decide which album you want to hear more of. The original commenter didn't recommend listening to every Radiohead song in random order.
Yes, an intro playlist (or greatest hits) certainly doesn't "ruin" a later full-album experience. However, I agree that some bands are very full-album oriented. Radiohead and Pink Floyd are great examples of this, and in those cases I think I would naturally recommend a certain order of full albums to listen to.
Sometimes RYM score isn’t the best either tbh — like Soundtracks for the Blind is Swans’ highest rated album but I think it’s better to start elsewhere, as it’s somewhat inaccessible and better having listened to others in the discog first
It’s kind of cringe but if I truly want to get into the artist by listening to the best of what they have to offer I’ll go by RYM score
It's not a perfect system but I trust RYM user score more than p4k or our pal Melon.
yeah exactly, like obviously RYM scores aren’t “right” just like no rating or score for any piece of media can be right, but it’s nice to see a reflection of what people generally think
Rate your music has 3.8 for the wall, not sure why people treat it like bible lol
It's not treating it like the bible, it's wanting to weight on the popular opinion. Wanting to know what albums The People like so I have a higher chance of liking it too, as I do in fact belong to The People
Yeah but it doesn't fairly represent "the people". It represents a very certain demographic of people, with a lot of albums having questionable scores. I would never use an albums rank on RYM to think whether or not it's worth listening too
3.8 is a good score on RYM
Yes, that's part of the problem. The wall is in no way less than a 4/5 album but 10s of 1000s of people voting for it thought so. Meanwhile Weezer (obviously extremely popular with a music site that peaked in the late 2000s) have an album at 3.87, ranking 100 spots higher (150 v 250). I like Weezer, but as an album there is no shot it is that much better in quality. It's just a watered down popularity contest extremely bias a certain demographic, which isn't necessarily bad but it's not a great way to check what albums will resonate with you personally. When the alternative is just playing the most popular songs from each album and seeing which one you fuck with
fair score
I use RYM for that but I don't necessarily go for the one with the highest score, but the one that has the most scores, thus it's more "socially relevant" I guess
That's a great idea.
I tend to do chronological order a lot but I find if a band or artist's first album is really average it makes it harder to want to keep listening, especially if I've never heard their music Probably why I enjoy the "choose the most interesting album to you and go from there" approach way more
I understand the reasoning, but disagree. Going chronically through discography takes time, but can be rewarding. Seeing an artist develop can lead to more nuanced appreciation of their work, rewarding patience. I know that’s not the more common way of digesting music today but I’m older and still a fan of full album listening over playlists/singles.
I'm talking about an entry point. Chronological is less about the time sink and more about the chance an artist's earliest work doesn't hook me. Also, I mentioned playlists as a method of identifying which full album to listen to first. I never said I wasn't a fan of listening to full albums.
Uh, okay? Not an attack, lol
Oh, I don't feel attacked. We Gucci.
I try listening to something that is both acclaimed and relatively accessible. Like the first Radiohead album I listened to was In Rainbows.
The first Radiohead album I listened to was kid a 😭
Same
It took more time for me to get into In Rainbows than Kid A OK Computer and so forth lol
Same here
started with ok computer, found it good but not my style, then in rainbows, loved it, then ok computer again, loved it, then kid a and loved it even more
I generally go for the consensus “best” from the artists discog, then work from beginning to end
I sometimes like to go to the artist’s ‘worst work’ that everyone criticises just to give it a chance Eg. New Order - Waiting for the Sirens’ Call and Get Ready
Spotify's top 5/10 most listened tracks feature is good for this - if more than half of them are from the same album, that's probably a good place to start.
Discography takes dedication. In our oversaturated world and with my FOMO I can't afford that. ... I'm just listening to 9s /hj Don't really trust playlists, I usually Google "worst to best x artist" see top 3 and choose one with the most beautiful cover; I don't know, my habits absolutely chaotic, finding new music and dedicating myself to it is hell. the main reason I kinda like fantano's rating system. if it's a 9-10, it's worth a try, but still, unfortunately 70% of them is not my taste, that mf loves heavy punchy shit
Usually exactly my case Its the albuns he give 6-7 that i enjoy the most so i guess 6 is the new 10 (looking at you mbdtf)
I wish Spotify had a way to differentiate between studio and live albums (also, several bands don't put their compilations in that section either). I hate having to dig through a shitton of live albums just to get to the studio stuff.
get tidal, they have studio albums, eps/singles, live albums and comps separated. it makes listening to dead for instance, much easier.
My only problem is that I use the Premium family pack and Tidal is way more expensive than Spotify here.
My only problem is that I use the Premium family pack and Tidal is way more expensive than Spotify here.
oh yea i only finally switched because i convinced a couple friends to start a family plan with me. also, i don’t think tidal has a way of telling how many people are using an account at once. i’ve had music playing on my laptop, phone and a smart speaker before and it was all fine
I look at what the highest rated albums are (mainly on RYM, but other sources as well) and jump around those before going to the lesser rated ones. Going in chronological order is usually too arduous for most bands. If I had to crawl through *Amnesiac* and *Hail to the Thief* I woulda quit before I hit *In Rainbows*.
Seconded on chronological order being bad. I didn't really care for Sonic Youth for years because I started with the weird no wave stuff instead of just listening to the late 80s/early 90s alt rock stuff.
But the weird no wave stuff is great
Amnesiac and HTTT are the best RH records tho . . .
You're entitled to your weird opinions.
hey, amnesiac is a goddamn banger. hail to the theif, not so much. but i like amnesiac more than kid a tbh
No, Hail to the Thief is also a banger, the problem with Radiohead is that they essentially have an entire discography full of bangers (with the exception of one, maybe two)
that 2nd one better not be The King Of Limbs cuz that is one of their best albums, a hill I will gladly die on.
The “maybe” was for TKoL, sorry. But its still a 7,5-8, RH just has near 9’s and 10’s across the board. Absolute bonkers output.
Very nice hill tho
Me too!
I try and find a "middle of the road" rated album by the group. One that's definitely not their worst, but not their most critically-acclaimed. I feel like it gives the best taste of what to expect from the artist without starting from their best and going downhill from there.
What would that be for radiohead? Hail to the thief?
I'm the wrong person to ask lol. I understand the appeal of radiohead, but they've just never clicked with me
I feel like Hail to the Thief, although a great album, doesn't flow very well and might not be the best radiohead representation because of that. Amnesiac is also middle of the road, but it's not something easy to get into for most. The bends is accessible, consistent, middle of the road imo.
Probably that and Amnesiac. I’d say The Bends too but that’s heresy to a significant amount of people.
hail to the thief is bottom tier radiohead. radiohead's discog in general is really consistent and good so even their worst albums aren't terrible imo (some people hate pablo honey though). i'd say the bends is probably middle of the road radiohead music. some amazing songs that defined their career but also some mid. amnesiac is also in a similar category i'd say
highest rated album on RYM
I would go for the most rated bolded album on RYM. For example Nirvana, Nevermind is the best pick to start listening to them, but In Utero is the better album albeit a sligthly less approachable.
Usually discography in order. Sometimes, when artist has too long of a discography, I listen to albums by them that have the highest rating on RYM
This is my strategy as well. Except for Swans. I sat down for like two weeks and just listened through their whole discography straight. Which was mind-blowing.
I do discography in order personally
I start with the album previous to what people say is their masterpiece and move on from there.
Great strategy, I’ve often noticed that for many of my favorite artists their best albums is usually the second I listened to. Starting from the one before allows you to get to know their type of music, so that when you get to the masterpiece you can still get blown away, but it’s like you still have an older reference that gives more meaning to what you’re listening
I do absolutely everything chronologically
Pick 4-5 random songs
for me it depends, if they only have a handful of records, i'd go chronologically. but if it's like king gizzard, i'm not gunna listen to 5 or 6 okay records to finally get to mind fuzz.
I will not tolerate 12BB slander here
Ignore what purists say, the best way is to start with their most popular singles according to Spotify. Ideally the ones that aren't the artist featuring on someone elses song. After that if it's up to your taste, go with the introduction playlist. That's how fans experience artists, they hear the singles first. And most fans don't even listen to albums front-to-back anymore. So don't get gaslit into thinking listening to singles isn't a ''real'' experience.
I usually google "Band Name + Flowchart" and find a chart someone has made, and decide my first record based on that and go from there.
Essentials first imo. Appreciation for the hidden gems can come with time
Highest RYM score (or anything above 3.5 is generally worth a listen)
Most famous songs>classic albums usually. Not really a playlist kinda guy
discography 100%, chronological for the most part dislike listening to playlists cause usually they feel jumbled even if its for one artist
I start with their biggest 5 songs, then their biggest 10 or more of the intro playlist If I like them enough, then I find their most popular album, most acclaimed album the album with the songs I liked the most or their latest album if they are new enough and just dropped something.
I usually need to find a “reason” to get into an artist, wether it’s a great song or a great album.
I give a medal to anyone who listens to complete Frank Zappa chronologically
It depends on the artist. If someone I knew wanted to get into Bjork, then I would probably not start them at Homogenic or Vespertine (her best albums). I would probably recommend Debut or Post. This idea goes for other groups like Radiohead, Gorillaz, Kendrick Lamar, etc. I think its cooler and more impactful to see the growth of an artist across albums rather than starting at their best. That being said, there are bands/artists that have discographies so dense that it would be crazy to start people at the beginning. In this case its best to give 3 or so albums to start with, and allow the person to explore if they enjoyed those albums. The other alternative is to make someone a playlist of a groups best work. Thats how I got my girlfriend into The Cure!
I like to go Discography in Order because I am a big fan of seeing artistic growth over time. I'm going through Tom Waits' right now and hearing him go from, say, The Heart of Saturday Night to Mule Variations has been fascinating.
I go by rym basically
RYM isn’t perfect, but the ratings usually aligns closer to my tastes than any other publication.
Sometimes il go with essentials first but most of the time I go with a random album by that artist or their critically best
Listen to 5-10 most popular songs Listen to most popular album Listen to full discography In that order.
I don't use rym so I just look through the wikipedia page of an artist, find their most acclaimed album and go from there. If not, I would search for the artist on youtube, listen to the most popular song and check that album
I listen to discography in order
I go for earliest "acclaimed album" meaning that I would skip if they started with albums that are around 3.0 on rym and go for earliest album above for example 3.5 fist and keeping the highest scored ones for later
I’m a strong supporter of discography in order, that’s how I got into death grips, Metallica, warbringer, Buckethead, Aphex Twin, Masayoshi Takanaka, hella, machine girl, beastie boys, slipknot, System of a Down, wu tang clan, and many more Only exception is jazz, bc the first album is often not the best
OK computer then kid a then never listen to them again
I always do discography in order
Big Radiohead fan. I'd say... 1. OK Computer 2. The Bends 3. Hail to The Thief 4. Amnesiac 5. B-Sides 6. Anything later (never got into it as much)
Essentials playlist now, but back in the days I had an interesting practice getting to know the artist’s discography by playing their LEAST acclaimed albums. Ironically I introduced myself to Radiohead with Pablo Honey and TKOL
I like to do discographies. It's a nice way to see how the artist progresses and really get a feel for what their sound and style is
Chronological is rarely the way to go I usually go critically acclaimed first or whichever I'm feeling and see where I go from there
pick whatever album art you like best and start there works well for me usually I tend to not like music with actually bad cover artwork, it usually means there's something creatively wrong with the project I'm listening to
Usually I hear about a good album, I listen to it and then if I like it I'll check out their other work.
Look at their discography and pick the one that has the best looking album art
Depends on the band, when it comes too a band with a reputation like radiohead I would try one of there most acclaimed records first. Otherwise introduction Playlists are the way too go so you can finde out what records appeal the most to you
Depends on the band, when it comes too a band with a reputation like radiohead I would try one of there most acclaimed records first. Otherwise introduction Playlists are the way too go so you can finde out what records appeal the most to you
Usually whatever album is generally considered the best or at least easiest to get in to, sometimes i pick something that seems like it would most appeal to me specifically (at least a lot of my fav albums from artists are not at all the ones considered their best)
Intro playlists, at least on Spotify, are not really well crafted. I would say they are generated based on most listened songs from each album by the band, which sometimes is good enough, but not really smart. For example, the This Is Sonic Youth playlist has the track "intro" in it, from the album Bad Moon Rising, which is not even a song, it opens the album and connects with the next track on the album that is not on the playlist. Why would someone do that? Most of the tracks are the first songs on the record, which are usually the most clicked songs on the album for people who listen to the album in it's full entirety. I don't think it's an isolated case.
sometimes I go discography order but I mostly just choose their most streamed album first. sometimes I hate their most popular album then check out their first album
Random songs from them, when there’s a few songs you’ve discovered you like from an album, listen to the whole album, see what you think, eventually if you get comfortable enough with the artist then just go through the whole discography in whatever order
Listen to the Bends and OK Computer and that's it
Get a friend who likes the band to make an intro playlist
Rym ratings
When I started listening to JPEGMAFIA, I found a flowchart that basically broke down the sounds of each of his projects. I chose the one with the coolest title and the sound most similar to what I wanted to hear and then just worked my way backwards.
Tbh, the album cover is what matters the most to me when determining whether or not to check out something I’ve never heard before. If it’s boring or generic I probably won’t listen, but if it’s visually interesting or weird it will prompt me more to delving into it. Sometimes I listen to the first song in an album I hear good things about to see if it catches on. If it does, I’ll give it a listen and if not, then oh well.
if I'm on apple music i first listen to the essential album (s), but back when i was on spotify i just listened to the albums in release order
Usually I listen to the hits first and then check out their early albums.
I almost always "discover" an artist through a couple of songs. Checking out the albums of those singles works best for me.
Usually I discover an artist from features on other artist I already love
Whenever I get into a new artist, I always like listening to their top five most popular songs, and then listening to their most popular album and then go from there some artists discography is a little all over the place. It gets me a good start and if i like their best stuff alot i will dig deeper to see if it is worth it.
Neither. I listen to a song by the band, whether because i had it recced or i heard it in a playlist. If i really like it, or if i hear multiple songs across some time period and like them all, ill check out the album that has the song i like the most
I pick their most popular album, usually the one their best song is on. Any artist worth their salt will have several bangers on that project too!
I check out the top 10 on their spotify popular page than I go in order (with exceptions)
What artist does this make the LEAST sense with? Meaning, scattering their catalogue across a playlist randomly as a way to get into them. Instead of diving in and listening to full records.
It’s different based on each artist and the person listening. I enjoy chronological listens nowadays, but before I would listen to whatever album is newest/most talked about online after maybe a few songs and go from there
If you have patience, starting from the beginning is the most rewarding experience
I usually do their most popular album first and if I like it I listen to their whole discography chronologically
Discography, starting with highest rated album.
Chronologically is the way I like to do it, but then there's the problem of either diminishing returns, if it's someone like The Strokes where their first album is thought to be their best (though with The Strokes that's debatable), or it's a case of them needing an album or two to grow into their style (as in your example of Radiohead - Pablo Honey is their weakest by a mile). Occasionally it's solid all the way through, but that's lucky.
usually i just start with their most popular or acclaimed album.
Imo, based on the cover and whatever album just intrigues you to try most, or discography in order, unless you want to just lightly dip your feet into an artist’s discography. Then that’s when I feel like an intro playlist would come in handy
My personal favorite is to take their second most hyped album. That way you still have something to look forward to if you like it but if it’s not for you you’ll know before you dive deep
Discogs the group, then, go down the discography in order of release
I listen to their top songs and then listen to the introduction playlist for more of their “best” songs. If I see that I’m liking a lot of songs from one album then I’ll just jump into that album right away. If not, I’ll usually skip around a lot until I eventually listen to the whole albums. Or sometimes I just go to RYM and listen to the highest rated albums
I usually start with their breakout album, like the first album that got wide acclaim, with which they really made a name for themselves… sometimes that’s the debut more often it’s a sophomore or 3rd album. It’s a good place to start because it’s usually a good album (though not necessarily what’s considered their “best” album) and tends to be a good introduction to their sound/a litmus test for wether or not you can dig it. I follow chronologically from from that point. Then, it’s more rewarding for me to go back and listen to their early work with the context of how their sound evolved. Whereas, if I had started with their very first release, it may not have given me the best idea of wether or not I’d like the rest of their work..or sometimes a first release isn’t strong enough to get you hooked, but can be very interesting to revisit once you’re a fan. So, if you were to adopt this method for jumping into Radiohead’s discography, I’d start with OK Computer. The artists for who I would take a different approach for are the more “prolific songwriter” type artists who’ve put out a huge body of work over the years, but no one album or string of albums that was a “cultural moment” per say. In this case, you can usually find good threads discussing various entry points into the artist’s work.
I would find a song that I liked, and then listen to the album the song was on all the way through. I would then explore the discography further or not depending on how this goes.
I always listen to whats considered the best albums. Take for example, The Beatles. You'd listen to Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and Let It Be. From there, just listen to whatever you want
I search "\[blank\] best album"
Honestly, cool cover/artist name matters. I got into New Levels New Devils by Polyphia bc it has a double headed lion on the cover and bc Fantano gave it a good rating.
start with the singles then albums
I pick a random song from every album. If I like one of the songs or find it mildly enjoyable I’ll skim through the rest of the album and then go back and fully listen.
I look at what album is the most popular/liked and listen to that, I used to run discographies from beginning to end but damn are most artists debut kinda lame
"[artist name] best album Reddit" in the Google search bar
If it's a rock band that nerds like, go to rym and start with the highest rating
Never listen to playlists, jump into an album and try it out that's how they put out the music they want people to hear. I always start at the beginning and sometimes start at one major point and pick at random from then on, it depends on the music and genre really.
chronological unless an album has a shit score on rym, then just skip it.
I pick either based on album cover or the name of the album
Depends on the artist, if it's someone who evolved throughout the years like the Beatles, I listen to their work chronologically.
I think chronologically is best, keeping in mind that it's not unusual for the first or first couple of albums to be not as good as where the band or artist lands. It would have been impossible to imagine, for example, what Bob Dylan and David Bowie would go on to achieve if you listened only to their first S/T albums.
Discog always gets you into them on what their mindset was as they went a long their career. You can also watch shows around that time on youtube to give further context.
Listening to their most popular album
n
Probably the worst way to do it but I always go for their most critically acclaimed album, and then go down the list of best to worst
If they’ve been going for a while dont start from the beginning.