Music: Album or CD from your favourite band that you'd give to someone to make them a fan of the band?

[peate]

 

[davemess]

Richard Thompson - Acoustic Classics - Bit of a cheat this one, its almost a greatest hits album but all the tracks have been re-recorded acoustically.

Jason Isbell - Southeastern - Could have gone with any of his last 3 albums but this one is probably the best of the bunch. Worth listening to for "Elephant" alone.

Warren Zevon - Warren Zevon - The quality of the writing is just unreal.

 

[davemess]

There are those who sour on Bob Dylan through those awful "best of" releases, so I'd urge them to listen to this.

Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts might be my favourite Dylan song. Somebody needs to make that movie.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts might be my favourite Dylan song. Somebody needs to make that movie.

Funny you should mention ...

Bob Dylan’s ‘Blood on the Tracks’ Album Getting Movie Treatment

 

[davemess]

Funny you should mention ...

Bob Dylan’s ‘Blood on the Tracks’ Album Getting Movie Treatment

Wonder how they are going to do a movie with the whole album, sure there are themes that run through the album but not really a specific story (Its not Tommy or The Wall).

There are a couple of tracks that have enough story to make a movie, maybe they just pick one song for the story and use the other tracks as music?

 

[Shareefruck]

I've pretty much given up on trying to recommend albums based on accessibility, and there's something about the idea of that in general that I don't feel too great about. Maybe it isn't actually, but I kind of feel like I'm being condescending to someone, and if it doesn't work, it would be a shame that their impression of the band is based on the most accessible thing rather than necessarily the best thing (from my perspective).

I think I'd rather just recommend the thing I like most, warn them about accessibility as a caveat, and if it's a more impenetrable work, I'll leave that for them to puzzle over, either overcome or not, and decide if they want to try the more accessible thing after that.

So basically, if you were unlucky enough to ask me to recommend an album to get into The Velvet Underground with, I wouldn't go with the most accessible album (The Velvet Underground) or the most representative album (The Velvet Underground and Nico). I'd go straight to my favorite, White Light White Heat (probably the harshest and most difficult to jump right into), and risk stubbornly putting you off the band immediately and permanently.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Wonder how they are going to do a movie with the whole album, sure there are themes that run through the album but not really a specific story (Its not Tommy or The Wall).

There are a couple of tracks that have enough story to make a movie, maybe they just pick one song for the story and use the other tracks as music?

Who knows. I see merit in the idea of using an entire album as inspiration, but man I can see it going off the rails too.

 

[the squared circle]

I'd argue Blizzard for Ozzy. Crazy Train is his catchiest song and Randy Rhoads can draw almost anyone in

Blizzard is a perfect album, top to bottom.

 

[Sniper99]

Tragically Hip, Up To Here, Fully Completely, Road Apples Hell the whole discography pretty much

 

[Roo Returns]

I'm a believer that to get the average person into a band, start with their biggest most well known record that got them know. So a Queen, A Night At The Opera. Other examples;

Red Hot Chili Peppers-Blood Sugar Sex Magik
Metallica-Master of Puppets
Talking Heads-Remain In Light
The Clash-London Calling
XTX-Skylarking

etc.

If you're a real music fan or I know you'll actually do the actual work, I might recommend other albums first.

 

[Ozz]

I'd argue Blizzard for Ozzy. Crazy Train is his catchiest song and Randy Rhoads can draw almost anyone in

I figure most would, obviously, but all the hits from Blizzard are on Live & Loud and then some...and his energy/aggression is through the stratosphere, which gets bonus points from me. I don't think one can argue that the other 4 songs from Blizzard are a difference-maker. I personally like them, even listened to "No Bone Movies" of all songs this morning, but let's be real. My pick is not at all to discount Randy, either.

I will admit that it's borderline cheating to pick a live album that is essentially his absolute greatest hits collection with zero fluff. Bonus: Black Sabbath reunites for the first time in many years to play their titular track.

 

[beowulf]

I figure most would, obviously, but all the hits from Blizzard are on Live & Loud and then some...and his energy/aggression is through the stratosphere, which gets bonus points from me. I don't think one can argue that the other 4 songs from Blizzard are a difference-maker. I personally like them, even listened to "No Bone Movies" of all songs this morning, but let's be real. My pick is not at all to discount Randy, either.

I will admit that it's borderline cheating to pick a live album that is essentially his absolute greatest hits collection with zero fluff. Bonus: Black Sabbath reunites for the first time in many years to play their titular track.

For me, Live & Loud is not even the best Ozzy live, Tribute takes the cake thanks for Randy Rhoads. Don't get my wrong, Zakk Wylde is a great guitarist but Randy is just at another level. Add the studio out-take of Randy recording Dee and none of Ozzy's other live albums beat it.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

Matthew Good Band - Beautiful Midnight

 

[Ozz]

For me, Live & Loud is not even the best Ozzy live, Tribute takes the cake thanks for Randy Rhoads. Don't get my wrong, Zakk Wylde is a great guitarist but Randy is just at another level. Add the studio out-take of Randy recording Dee and none of Ozzy's other live albums beat it.

Can't argue or fault that, I anticipated it Tribute is great too!

The question was which 1 album do you share, so I chose the 1 that covered more of his career

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I've pretty much given up on trying to recommend albums based on accessibility, and there's something about the idea of that in general that I don't feel too great about. Maybe it isn't actually, but I kind of feel like I'm being condescending to someone, and if it doesn't work, it would be a shame that their impression of the band is based on the most accessible thing rather than necessarily the best thing (from my perspective). It's not like accessibility is a negative quality. It's positive. Seems like people are just so insecure/defensive they think you're calling them dumb when you say so.

I think I'd rather just recommend the thing I like most, warn them about accessibility as a caveat, and if it's a more impenetrable work, I'll leave that for them to puzzle over, either overcome or not, and decide if they want to try the more accessible thing after that.

So basically, if you were unlucky enough to ask me to recommend an album to get into The Velvet Underground with, I wouldn't go with the most accessible album (The Velvet Underground) or the most representative album (The Velvet Underground and Nico). I'd go straight to my favorite, White Light White Heat (probably the harshest and most difficult to jump right into), and risk stubbornly putting you off the band immediately and permanently.

I understand the logic but I feel like you're setting up the recipient of the recommendation up for failure. What's stopping you from recommending The Velvet Underground and then notifying the existence of other, more difficult works if the easier stuff clicks with them? I understand the condescendence aspect of it too - My girlfriend doesn't like it when I recommend something to her and then contextualize it with " It's accessible " - but the truth of the matter is, if the person hasn't shown an inclination towards more challenging works, especially when the more challenging recommendations have fallen flat on their faces (as has happened with me) why keep trying until the person has atleast shown a liking towards the more accesible material of a given artist? (again, like my GF with VU and Beefheart)

I mean, I'll use Beefheart as an example - although my introduction was different. I heard Peon, listened to it for about 36 hours straight and then dived into the other stuff - but if I had started with Trout Mask Replica (which I still struggle with) and had to give a judgement based on that, I'd have been royally f***ed.

 

[Scott Stevens]

so good front to back. I would use the deluxe edition but since it has the same cover as regular version although the car cover which is the common cover is an alternate to the original cover:

also:
Gin Blossoms’ ‘New Miserable Experience’ at 25 – Rolling Stone

I cannot agree with you more. This is one of my favourite albums ever, from any band. It’s one that will never leave my car so long as I still drive one with a CD player. You never know when your handfree Bluetooth thingy is gonna die without the charger on a road trip and you need to lean on a cd for a few consecutive front to back plays.

 

[Shareefruck]

I understand the logic but I feel like you're setting up the recipient of the recommendation up for failure. What's stopping you from recommending The Velvet Underground and then notifying the existence of other, more difficult works if the easier stuff clicks with them? I understand the condescendence aspect of it too - My girlfriend doesn't like it when I recommend something to her and then contextualize it with " It's accessible " - but the truth of the matter is, if the person hasn't shown an inclination towards more challenging works, especially when the more challenging recommendations have fallen flat on their faces (as has happened with me) why keep trying until the person has atleast shown a liking towards the more accesible material of a given artist? (again, like my GF with VU and Beefheart)

I mean, I'll use Beefheart as an example - although my introduction was different. I heard Peon, listened to it for about 36 hours straight and then dived into the other stuff - but if I had started with Trout Mask Replica (which I still struggle with) and had to give a judgement based on that, I'd have been royally ****ed.

I don't disagree with any of that, and by no means am I arguing that it's a method that yields results more efficiently, but it's become kind of a principle/self satisfaction thing for me, where the outcome matters less than the sentiment. I kind of equate it to voting with your heart rather than meta-gaming the vote, or buying someone a gift you want them to have rather than guessing at a gift that you think they'll like. I just feel better about doing it that way because it feels like a more genuine and less condescending mode of communication. Even if it sets them up for failure, at least their view of what I think they're missing out on will remain accurate and entirely representative of my enthusiasm.

For myself personally, I kind of prefer that approach anyways. I struggled a lot with Trout Mask Replica before trying anything else, but I appreciated that I had (more or less) the correct impression of the band's merits in sight the whole time (rather than if I had started with something like Safe as Milk), even when I didn't get it or like it. On the other hand, I had an easier time getting into The Velvet Underground by trying Loaded before anything else, but when I finally got into the other stuff, I actually kind of resented that misleading detour.

Regarding what's stopping me from pushing easy stuff first and then pushing awareness of difficult stuff later", personally, I find it really frustrating to go through the motions of being recommended stuff that's more accessible, not falling entirely in love with it, and then hearing someone insist that what you tried doesn't really count because it's not actually supposed to be as good as another thing that you should now try instead. It's like...... "Just tell me your endgame and let me decide if I should take the easier route to get there."

 

[Chandrashekhar Limit]

Tame Impala - Currents

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't disagree with any of that, and by no means am I arguing that it's a method that yields results more efficiently, but it's become kind of a principle/self satisfaction thing for me, where the outcome matters less than the sentiment. I kind of equate it to voting with your heart rather than meta-gaming the vote, or buying someone a gift you want them to have rather than guessing at a gift that you think they'll like. I just feel better about doing it that way because it feels like a more genuine and less condescending mode of communication. Even if it sets them up for failure, at least their view of what I think they're missing out on will remain accurate and entirely representative of my enthusiasm.

For myself personally, I kind of prefer that approach anyways. I struggled a lot with Trout Mask Replica before trying anything else, but I appreciated that I had (more or less) the correct impression of the band's merits in sight the whole time, even when I didn't like it. On the other hand, I had an easier time getting into The Velvet Underground by trying Loaded before anything else, but when I finally got into the other stuff, I actually kind of resented that misleading detour.

Regarding "What's stopping you from recommending The Velvet Underground and then notifying the existence of other, more difficult works if the easier stuff clicks with them", I find it really frustrating to go through the motions of being recommended stuff that's more accessible, not being entirely in love with it, and then hearing someone insist that what you tried doesn't really count because it's not actually supposed to be as good as another thing that you should now try instead. It's like "Just tell me your endgame and let me decide if I want to take the easier route."

Isn't that kind of a selfish endeavor though? It just feels like you're not taking into account the person's experience with art, throwing the hardest shit at them and saying " okay, well, sink or swim. " I think that approach is just as condescending as what was talked about before, while being less considerate towards someone else's experience. I kind of see it as bringing along a rookie quarterback. There's nothing wrong with getting familiar/adjusted to an easier playbook before bringing them along to the more complex stuff. If someone wants to consider that insulting, fine, but it's anything but or at least it comes from a more understanding position.

It'd be like me getting mad at my friend for not showing me the basics of fixing a car before getting into the more intricate details. My friend doesn't want me to just throw money at the problem - which is what easy art essentially is - but is instead working with me at a slower than he's become accustomed to through years of experience. I can be mad/feel insulted but at the end of the day, I'm the one losing out if I dismiss it because I refuse to believe that I'm not as intuitive/skilled as someone who's put the work in. And this doesn't make the person who put the work in better/smarter. It just means they concentrated on something different and are willing to show the way/work out the kinks with someone. Obviously art isn't as technical/facts-based as fixing a car but the ethos stays the same. In this sense, the stereotype of the art snob (which exists) has really ruined things for the average person.

 

[Shareefruck]

Isn't that kind of a selfish endeavor though? It just feels like you're not taking into account the person's experience with art, throwing the hardest **** at them and saying " okay, well, sink or swim. " I think that approach is just as condescending as what was talked about before, while being less considerate towards someone else's experience. I kind of see it as bringing along a rookie quarterback. There's nothing wrong with getting familiar/adjusted to an easier playbook before bringing them along to the more complex stuff. If someone wants to consider that insulting, fine, but it's anything but or at least it comes from a more understanding position.

It'd be like me getting mad at my friend for not showing me the basics of fixing a car before getting into the more intricate details. My friend doesn't want me to just throw money at the problem - which is what easy art essentially is - but is instead working with me at a slower than he's become accustomed to through years of experience. I can be mad/feel insulted but at the end of the day, I'm the one losing out if I dismiss it because I refuse to believe that I'm not as intuitive/skilled as someone who's put the work in. And this doesn't make the person who put the work in better/smarter. It just means they concentrated on something different and are willing to show the way/work out the kinks with someone. Obviously art isn't as technical/facts-based as fixing a car but the ethos stays the same. In this sense, the stereotype of the art snob (which exists) has really ruined things for the average person.

If you're an expert on the subject and they come to you as a beginner trying to understand and get into a band, clearly willing to do the legwork, then yeah, I think your analogy somewhat applies, and it might be more sensible to have a multi-step plan in mind that would help them slowly and reliably reach that desired end goal. I struggle to equate this with the ethos of learning to fix a car (because gradual learning in this case isn't necessary and is much more ambiguous/unpredictable), but I agree that this isn't condescending.

If this is not the case, and you're instead actively recommending something to a random person who may or may not have asked for recommendations and may or may not have some existing ability/desire to appreciate it, hinting "here, let me teach you step one of a five step plan, starting easy because you probably aren't ready-- Trust me, it'll be good for you in the long run" does feel a bit condescending and presumptuous to me.

I guess ultimately, what I'm saying is that I'm starting to lose interest in the idea of actively making recommendations altogether with the intention of causing change (considerate as that may be), and instead prefer to just expose opinions for the sake of awareness and let people self evaluate and make of them what they will.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

If you're an expert on the subject and they come to you as a beginner trying to understand and get into a band, clearly willing to do the legwork, then yeah, I think your analogy somewhat applies, and it might be more sensible to have a multi-step plan in mind that would help them slowly and reliably reach that desired end goal. I struggle to equate this with the ethos of learning to fix a car (because gradual learning in this case isn't necessary and is much more ambiguous/unpredictable), but I agree that this isn't condescending.

If this is not the case, and you're instead actively recommending something to a random person who may or may not have asked for recommendations and may or may not have some existing ability/desire to appreciate it, hinting "here, let me teach you step one of a five step plan, starting easy because you probably aren't ready-- Trust me, it'll be good for you in the long run" does feel a bit condescending and presumptuous to me.

I guess ultimately, what I'm saying is that I'm starting to lose interest in the idea of actively making recommendations altogether with the intention of causing change (considerate as that may be), and instead prefer to just expose opinions for the sake of awareness and let people self evaluate and make of them what they will.

I don't even think it's about being an expert - I'm not a musical or film or literature expert - but more about having put in the time to develop my ears/sensibilities. While the process isn't as black and white as fixing a car, and I agree that it's more ambiguous, I also don't think many people can just go straight for the hardest thing and appreciate right away. While it wasn't a conscious effort on my end in trying to listen to more challenging music, there's no way 16 year-old me (or 21 year-old me) could jump straight from what I was listening to at the time (which was a lot of solid albeit unspectacular music/nothing that I would still rank amongst my absolute favorites) to stuff like White Light/White Heat, Lick My Decals Off, Baby, or Bitches Brew without struggling a lot more than what I actually did while gradually making my way up.

While art is a lot more instinctive thab fixing a car, I do think that it's a process when it comes to appreciation for a lot of people. Lots of people don't want to put the work in and that's fine but I do think it's considerate to at least take that into consideration when recommending something. In an ideal world I'd appreciate your approach but I've had some successes the first approach (for example my girlfriend watched Kubrick's Lolita and loved it, which in turn allowed her to maybe swing for the fences a little more. While I wouldn't call Lolita difficult, I don't think it's a conventional/accesible flick either considering the aversion lots of people have towards old movies).

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't even think it's about being an expert - I'm not a musical or film or literature expert - but more about having put in the time to develop my ears/sensibilities. While the process isn't as black and white as fixing a car, and I agree that it's more ambiguous, I also don't think many people can just go straight for the hardest thing and appreciate right away. While it wasn't a conscious effort on my end in trying to listen to more challenging music, there's no way 16 year-old me (or 21 year-old me) could jump straight from what I was listening to at the time (which was a lot of solid albeit unspectacular music/nothing that I would still rank amongst my absolute favorites) to stuff like White Light/White Heat, Lick My Decals Off, Baby, or *****es Brew without struggling a lot more than what I actually did while gradually making my way up.

While art is a lot more instinctive thab fixing a car, I do think that it's a process when it comes to appreciation for a lot of people. Lots of people don't want to put the work in and that's fine but I do think it's considerate to at least take that into consideration when recommending something. In an ideal world I'd appreciate your approach but I've had some successes the first approach (for example my girlfriend watched Kubrick's Lolita and loved it, which in turn allowed her to maybe swing for the fences a little more. While I wouldn't call Lolita difficult, I don't think it's a conventional/accesible flick either considering the aversion lots of people have towards old movies).

For most of that, I don't disagree. Yours is a more rational/successful approach for sure. I just personally dislike the feeling/spirit of doing it that way.

While I agree that you can't jump right into something challenging and expect to get it right away, I don't know that you necessarily need to get into the easier stuff first before it will click (for many people, sure, but not everyone). Personally, I enjoy puzzling over stuff like that and occasionally revisiting them. It took me a lot of time/attempts to get into Trout Mask Replica, but I'm skeptical that getting into Safe As Milk or Shiny Beast first would have sped up that process (even though I agree that THEY themselves would have been easier to get into). I liked that TMR was always this crazy thing in the back of my head while trying other things. Getting into Loaded first didn't help me warm up to White Light White Heat any faster either, I don't think.

On top of that, we're talking about extremes here. The challenging-but-rewarding thing from most bands is usually more palatable than these ones. Jumping right into Sgt. Pepper's or Kid A isn't really something that sounds all that crazy to me, personally, and there's a decent chance that they can be more intriguing for a new listener than A Hard Day's Night or The Bends. It just depends on the person (this is what I think differs drastically from the fixing a car analogy, where understanding of the basics is actually a prerequisite). Even though the latter might be on average more likely to connect, I really don't like the trade-off/presumptuousness/indirectness of that kind of compromise.

 

[TNT87]

 

[Skip Bayless]

 

[CHGoalie27]

Metallica- Garage Inc.

It has a song for everyone.

Then I hit em with Justice.