How long do you listen to an artist's studio albums before moving onto their non-album tracks?

Some artists, I'll use Bob Dylan as an example because he's well Bob Dylan. He's got many albums studio albums, countless hours of them but as someone who's new to an artist, if you really like the band and they've got plenty of quality songs that were as good as some album tracks, such as the Bootleg compilation in Dylan's case.

Do you prefer to ease into they artist, learn and appreciate their studio albums for months or even ears before bothering with all the non-album tracks?

 

I do it right away.
As soon as I discover that I like a "new" artist, I must dig into his whole "oeuvre", including all non-album stuff and everything.
But I don't do it fast, it can take many years to scan the "oeuvre".
I also try to do it chronologically.

 

If I really like the artist, I wait about 10 seconds.

 

As long as it takes to listen to an album, especially if the non-album tracks are tacked onto the end.

 

This post assumes that the albums are the primary output of the artist and the singles are secondary, which I think is a dubious proposition.

If I discover a new artist that I really like, I'll want to get ahold of all of their released material eventually, and will just pick it up in the order that I can find it. I might even put a premium on singles and EPs that I come across, since they're likely to be harder to get. By the same token, some obscure b-side or other is likely to be the last thing I manage to track down. I've found far too many times that some of an artist's best work might be squirrelled away on a b-side or obscure compilation to ever be complacent that the canonical albums will give me the full picture.

 

Depends on the artist. With U2 and Cocteau Twins it was virtually straight away. The Cocteau Twins albums were so good that I bought their box set of EPs in a matter of weeks. The set was about $80 but it was absolutely worth it.