When you try out a name that is new to you and you think you might like, whether an old name or a new name, it doesn't matter, do you proceed with caution and try a comp first, or do you go straight to the catalog for key albums? Do you prefer comps or key albums? If it's a prolific artist that has been reissued a lot, like Cliff Richard, what I do is I get a few comps and maybe a few key albums. With jazz artists I go for key albums, they have been too prolific. With second tier names I mix between comps and key albums. With big names that I like I go catalog.

i almost always have got the comp first and if i like enough of it the completist in me goes out and gets the whole catalog, sometimes returning the comp if there is nothing unique on it.

I used to do that, sell comps if I went for the catalog, or at least part catalog, but nowadays I keep the comps because it's nice to sometimes get a career boiled down to one disc.

I usually go with a good comp first, if one exists, unless I'm particularly curious about a specific catalogue item due to buzz, "classic" reputation, a cover of a favorite song, etc.

Sometimes a well-chosen one or two-disc collection is just enough for me, but other times they only whet the appetite.

Both. Naturally.

If it's someone I'm not overly familiar with, a good comp is usually a great way for me to start. I, like others here, have purchased a comp and then ended up getting the whole catalog. I will be particular about the comp though. I want it to be a good, meaty representation of the artist. The label and cover art are important to me in selecting a comp. And I'm hopeful the liner notes will be worthy as well.

Can't really answer this. Nowadays I try out an artist by listening to audio samples and watching videos. The experimenting is all done by the time I decide to buy -- I know what the music sounds like and whether I'll be wanting every album, a specific few, or a compilation.

Two-disc comps used to always tempt me ... the packed ones with two 75-minute discs ... it just seemed like SO MUCH music.

But I'm more a "key album" person. I'll go online and try to find the critical consensus about an artist's peak period or album, and go for that. (Or I'll just find a list of all their albums and pick the one with the coolest sounding title.)

Me too. I also consider chart history.

Depends if they're more known as a "singles" artist or "albums" artist.

All or nothing

The only time I get a comp is when I know the artist's hits very well and like them well enough but don't feel I need anything else. Otherwise I almost always go for key albums -- my favorite songs are frequently not singles.

Getting the right album is the trick. I sometimes try asking for advice on what to start with but I should try youtube more often.

When I first started collecting it was always a greatest hits that I went for first because I mistakenly thought that these covered all the important songs in artists recording history.Then I realised these were insufficient as they :
* Often omitted key album tracks.
* Missed the point of listening to an album as originally conceived.
* Messed up the chronology of songs (earliest should come first)
* Sound quality-taking songs from different sources to compile a compilation (and not always original masters) can make some of the inclusions sound loud and others noticeably softer.

Some original greatest hits packages are essential though, as they were released back in the day,"Jefferson Airplane's The Worst Of", The Beach Boys "Endless Summer" or Simon and Garfunkels "Greatest Hits" for example.
I'd buy any of them for the cover alone-it's the historical value !!

You also know the argument of singles bands and album bands.

Nowdays I tend to go for the the key albums, or a run of albums in many cases-most recently with Thin Lizzy.I also buy greatest hits to back up favourite artists to get a good sampling of their songs in one session.

Moi aussi. I guess it should be obvious by now that I frequent YouTube for music.

They may have boring generic covers, but Sony's Essential series of 2CD comps are a must for the sound. I got Billy Joel and it's great value and sound, this series has been endorsed by the Hoffmanites.

I have the Johnny Cash and Springsteen titles and I like them both. The Cash set is especially well-chosen, and probably everything I need save a good collection of his Sun material. I think there are a few glaring omissions on the Springsteen, so I'll probably go for a few of his key titles at some point.

Comp first, then, if I like what I'm hearing, key albums, then, if I REALLY like what I'm hearing, everything.

I wonder if anyone's ever done that backwards, start off with everything and then whittle it down to key albums and end up with a comp!

I guess if you were to inherit somebody else's music collection you could do that...

Even though I already had comps from the Epic and Capitol eras, I had to get The Essential Heart because it had them both on the same comp for the first time. And the Capitol stuff sounded better on this comp, IMO.

I saw some of the Essential re-releases with the third disc the other day and almost got that Heart collection. Does anyone know if anything bad (i.e., compression) has been done to these latest isues or are they the same sonically as the originals?

Unchanged except for the additional tracks.