The Official Radiohead Thread

[Goofle]

Am I the only person who doesn't think it makes a difference/care what order you listen to a bands albums?

[debaserr]

I think it matters. What if someone heard OKC first and quit on the band?

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Goofle11

Am I the only person who doesn't think it makes a difference/care what order you listen to a bands albums?

Yes. Would you really put, say, Metallica's shitty later day albums on par with the stuff they were releasing in the 80s?

[Surell]

I didn't mean it matters, just that it was my process. When I first heard Kid A, it was in the wrong situation (a long car ride and i was just so young) and thought it was boring/way to repetitive. OKC was more accessible and kept me around, though.

So, in a sense, it can be essential. My Cap'n Beefheart introduction was "Diddy Wah Diddy" and I thought "this ain't so weird."

[Howard the Duck]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Haha. My personal flowchart went a little like this:

Pablo Honey [hated it] -------> The Bends [wasn't interested because of Pablo Honey aftertaste] -------> OK Computer [liked "Karma Police" but was disappointed to discover the album wasn't very good] -------> Kid A [finally a reasonably good Radiohead album] -------> Amnesiac [ooh, two good albums in a row! I hope these guys continue making good music] -------> Hail to the Thief [damnit, why did they choose to go back to dull mode?] -------> In Rainbows [downloaded it, listened to it once] -------> Radiohead has continued producing albums?

mine:-

Creep (loved it) -> Pablo Honey (crap) -> The Bends (good) -> My Iron Lung (outtakes) (okay but a bit boring) -> singles from OKC (gave up on them, not into this minimalist ambient sh!t) -> singles from HTTT (much much better) -> Kid A (above average, don't really dig the Autechre influences) -> Amnesiac (great, much better than just "Kid A" outtakes) -> In Rainbows (disliked at first, grew on me) -> King of Limbs (not bad)

[Goofle]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Yes. Would you really put, say, Metallica's shitty later day albums on par with the stuff they were releasing in the 80s?

That's not exactly the same point is it?

Funny you used that band as an example though as I heard their newer stuff first, and then went back after hearing how much better they were supposed to be.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Goofle11

That's not exactly the same point is it?

How is it not?

[Goofle]

Because you are comparing their works, I am talking about the order in which you listen to a bands albums.

I don't think it matters which album you go for from an artist. Fair enough if you only listen to their worst album, you are going to come away with an unfair impression, but if you are dedicated enough to listen to all of a band's albums, I can't see how the order would make a difference.

If anything, you should go chronologically, which is what I usually do.

[Paedantic Basterd]

I think it's important, especially when confronting an artist with a discography of seven or more albums. Three albums? Meh, not so much. But an artist with a substantial discography needs to make the right impression on anyone for them to persevere through it.

Speaking personally, if I have a poor experience with one of an artist's 15 albums, while I might be open minded to trying the rest, it's definitely not a high priority for me, and may take years for me to get around to giving another shot.

Additionally, I've many artists in my own collection who I'd have loved 5-6 years ago if only I'd started in the right place! 5 years ago I rejected Of Montreal based on a handful of tracks from Skeletal Lamping and Cherry Peel, for instance.

[Goofle]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I think it's important, especially when confronting an artist with a discography of seven or more albums. Three albums? Meh, not so much. But an artist with a substantial discography needs to make the right impression on anyone for them to persevere through it.

Speaking personally, if I have a poor experience with one of an artist's 15 albums, while I might be open minded to trying the rest, it's definitely not a high priority for me, and may take years for me to get around to giving another shot.

Additionally, I've many artists in my own collection who I'd have loved 5-6 years ago if only I'd started in the right place! 5 years ago I rejected Of Montreal based on a handful of tracks from Skeletal Lamping and Cherry Peel, for instance.

That's different to what I am saying. I think my point was badly put to be honest.

What I mean is, if I listen to OK Computer before The Bends, I am not going to like one or the other any more or less than if I had switched it round.

Yeah, maybe a bad album puts you off, but do you think if you had listened to one of their better records first you would have different feelings towards the album you disliked? Or would you still value it the same way?

I think I would still have the same feelings towards each album no matter which order I play them so as long as you were going to listen to them all anyway, it doesn't really matter which order in my view.