When discovering a new artist, do you ever buy their most recent album, even though you'd prefer an earlier one, just so you can be "current"?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I do this.

For example, ...And You Will Know Us By the Trail of Dead. I don't have any of their older albums, but from what I've heard, I think I like them. I don't have enough money to buy all the music I want, so I don't buy many CD's at a time. Source Tags, from my understanding, is a classic album. Everywhere I hear about it, it's a glowing review. Worlds Apart, the album coming out tomorrow, on the other hand, is getting mixed reviews. Some people saying it's great, some other people saying it's worse than their older material.

Now, if neither of these were new, I'd definitely get Source Tags first. Since Worlds Apart is coming out tomorrow, however, I'm going to buy that one instead. I like to be able to see reviews of new music I just got so I can compare opinions to my own. I like to see ILM/internet discussion so I can think in my head, "ROFFLE that guy is dumb WTF" or "OMG OTM!!!!!!!!!!!!" And it's just not the same searching for discussions/reviews of an older album and then react to it as if it's current. I prefer to actually be current.

Do you do this? Is it lame?

― Mickey (modestmickey), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't get any AYWKUBTTOTD records at all.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I totally do this--it's not lame. Lots of times you buy records because you want to know what the fuss is about, etc.

I actually totally loved Source Tags and Codes when it came out and listened to it every day for hours. I haven't listened to it in like a year--maybe I will now.

― mrjosh (mrjosh), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

What it comes down to is that there are two objects and, whatever your reasoning is, you should get the one that you really want.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't get any AYWKUBTTOTD records at all.

Seconded.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

don't try and pronounce the acronym either, even if you're a fan.

― fauxhemian (fauxhemian), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:14 (twenty-one years ago)

A Wicca Butt Tautted?

― bprofane (AaronHz), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I pretty much try to stick with what's regarded as the best or a good 'entry point' record when I'm checking out an artist for the first time, whether or not it's their current one. a lot of times someone's newest album requires or benefits from the context of their back catalog.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

unless I hear a song I really like off of a particular record and just want that one.

― Al (sitcom), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I buy the one that has the little check mark on AMG.

― bprofane (AaronHz), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Tim Ellison, you're right, but it's more complicated than that. The question of "how should we appreciate music?" is raised.

Do we think of music existing in a void, a la the new critical approach to literature? Should we consider and place value in music as isolated entities, devoid of context? Or, do we appreciate music within a wider context, a la new historicism. Is the surrounding dialogue a part of our perception of music? Should it be?

For me it is, and that's why I like to be current. Is that "right" though?

― Mickey (modestmickey), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I usually buy what's widely considered their best, and go from there.

― Andrew (enneff), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Mickey, being current is important to you, then. Which is fine, of course, but the question remains as to whether you bought the object that you really wanted or whether you're being pedantic with yourself.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:41 (twenty-one years ago)

omg I dunno :(

― Mickey (modestmickey), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Never! I like getting things in chronological order, whether it be books, albums, etc. I like seeing an artist evolve (or devolve).

― baktovis, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I also agree. do not buy that Trail of dead cd...

― owen reading, Tuesday, 25 January 2005 01:46 (twenty-one years ago)

See also 'trying to pick the fastest supermarket checkout line'

― dave q (listerine), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 02:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, the issue is relative. If you're living in the '90s, you might want to check out Kind of Blue or On the Corner instead of Miles Davis' current album. The dialogue about his then-current album might not mean much of anything to you.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Sure, I sometimes do this. When an artist releases something new, then all the press and word-of-mouth talk will be about the new material, so I'll want to know what's happening.

And if they're touring, then I'll want to hear their most recent stuff so I'll know what to expect if I see their show.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 03:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't get any AYWKUBTTOTD records at all

Thirded-ed.

(ST&C has a brilliant opening track, but it's not quite worth the cost of the entire CD. you should just d/l it or buy it off iTunes. It's called "It Was There That I Saw You.")

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 03:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm kind of proud of the fact that I never, ever do this. I try to stay somewhat current, but I certainly don't feel any need to be up-to-the-minute. In fact, sometimes I'd rather wait a bit until the fuss dies down before I hear the album that all the fuss is about, so I can get a clear-headed reaction to it.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 03:58 (twenty-one years ago)

No way! Always buy the first one first.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 06:10 (twenty-one years ago)

If I'm buying from the merch table at a show, I'll always get the most recent release.

― briania (briania), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 07:11 (twenty-one years ago)

regarding initial post

ITA=I Totally Agree. IADT=I Always Do That.

― earinfections (Nick Twisp), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

If anything I tend to do the opposite: not necessarily "the one that has the little check mark on AMG" but if I become intrigued by a band / artist because of reviews of their most recent album, I'll investigate their back catalogue and if there's an earlier one that appearts to be generally acknowledged as better than the most recent one, I'll most likely buy that one - particularly if it's available cheaper than the curent one.

This is partly because I have this strange little theory that journalists frequently don't have enough time to listen to a new album properly before they're required to review it, so they regularly fail to realise how great an album is until it's too late; and then subsequently attempt to redress this error and atone for their sins by lavishing on the relevant artist's next album, all the praise that, with the benefit of hindsight, they realise they should have lavished on the previous one.

Of course it should go without saying that this theory is almost certainly a complete pile of crap.

― Stewart Osborne (Stewart Osborne), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 10:12 (twenty-one years ago)

BUY BOTH, for heaven's sake. That's what I do. And then listen to neither.

AYWKWNBTHTIABAITNROIUSBNAHTTTTTOD suck.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

TS: Buying the most recent album to be hip and down with the kids, or buying the first album so you can pretend that you always liked them, and now they've really sold out, man.

― emil.y (emil.y), Tuesday, 25 January 2005 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

BUYING THE MERZBOX OMGWTFLOL

― bprofane (AaronHz), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

and then subsequently attempt to redress this error and atone for their sins by lavishing on the relevant artist's next album, all the praise that, with the benefit of hindsight, they realise they should have lavished on the previous one.

Case in point: Pitchfork's strong review today of the utterly boring new Sharon Jones record, which pales in comparison to her awesome first record, which Pitchfork has never mentioned.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 26 January 2005 01:28 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.