Getting into an artist

Then I'd just scrounge around on Youtube. And there probably aren't a lot of musicians like that.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:50:17 PM by inane242

Point taken. That album is actually what got me into The Beatles.

Well, there's no wrong way to get into the Beatles, because all their albums are awesome. (Rolling Stone rated Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band the greatest album of all time, so that's a good place to start.)

If you're really into an artist, an archive binge should not be tiresome. But I always buy an artist's albums one at a time and really try to appreciate each one before getting the next.

edited 27th Jan '12 11:26:13 AM by jewelleddragon

That reminds me: I do not take the opinions of Rolling Stone into consideration when getting into an artist.

Professional reviews in general get taken with a grain of salt.

Rolling Stone is hooey. Pitchfork is good, because you can tell the bad reviews by their snobbish tone.

Pretty much every review on Pitchfork is snobbish.

I used to pretty much invert reviews found in the Rolling Stone Record Guide; usually bad-reviewed albums appealed to me and vice-versa. Doubly so if it was that asshole Dave Marsh reviewing the album. I actually built my early prog-rock collection using this system. Your Mileage May Vary.

I have to say, even with research, delving into certain artists’ catalogues can still be daunting. I still have yet to own any Sun Ra discs as a result.

There are good ones. Like the review for Jackie-O Motherfucker's EarthSoundSystem, which managed to describe exactly why that album is so disappointing.

meh, Pitchfork's snobbishness is overstated a lot.

I'm not into music reviews.... lol, either I like it, a friend likes it and I tolerate it, or I don't like it.

I think it's good to read a variety of reviews, though—at least one positive, one negative, and one middle-of-the-road review (if possible to find 'em all)—to get a balanced look at the critical opinion. And then look up fan reactions too.

The only reviewers I follow are Todd In The Shadows Rap Critic and Mues though Mues and Todd tend to disagree meaning I get variety.

edited 12th Feb '12 1:01:56 PM by KingNerd

Maybe also read fan reviews, like if it's a whole cd, read the ones on amazon or something. Since there're a lot more fans than professional reviewers, it should be easy to find a good range.

Also, pay attention to why people have the opinions they do on the music. That way you can tell what the artist's like in loads more detail.

Usually I get a live album, or if they don't have one, a greatest hits album. If they have neither, Youtube is my friend.

The live album is your first priority? Wow.

I've never been a fan of live albums.

I almost always avoid live albums, unless it's an artist I'm already very much into.

It depends on the artist. Sometimes the live albums are the last one to listen to, once you already really like them, but in some cases they're brilliant.

But yeah, I'm with everyone who says don't get the live album first.

I'd say maybe make a live album a priority if they're the kind of band that has a reputation for sounding better live. Like, for example, The Who is one of those bands where not checking out anything live from them would be criminal. However, it really is a good idea to know the studio versions beforehand...

Gah, I'm posting too much.

But some bands who have greatest hits cds have one or two live songs on them, usually versions that have a very good reputation.

Amen. Even I think they're bullshit, and I'm a classic rock elitist.

Now for the studio album vs. live album discussion, a friend of mine once said that 'live versions amplify the quality of the music. Good music gets better live, and bad music gets worse.'

Personally, I think it depends on the performer, and on the style of music. Live recordings will generally sound more energetic, but they have less room for complex and intricate arrangements (for an example of how much difference in arrangement there can be between studio and live recordings, compare this to this). Hence, music that's mostly about energy and raw emotion will tend to sound better live, while complex and subtle music will tend to sound better in the studio.

The Doors are a VERY rare example of a band that excelled at both: in the studio, they crafted subtly arranged, haunting, atmospheric soundscapes. On their live album Absolutely Live, they're a loud, raw rock & roll band.

edited 29th Mar '12 1:50:45 PM by MidnightRambler

I remember when Rolling Stone wrote that article on Joanna Newsom. that was hilarious.

With the difference between hearing them live and on their albums, I'd say the group that gives the greatest contrast for me is The Who. Sure, they do have an energy to them on their albums, but compare it to their live recordings, where they're positively unhinged. You can tell how much they're holding back on their studio recordings (especially on a song like "I'm Free" or "See Me, Feel Me").

Meanwhile, on their albums, Pete Townshend tends to give really intricate arrangements (at least, after their mod rock phase ended) that seem to be tossed away in favor of a jam in live shows.

edited 30th Mar '12 10:44:24 AM by 0dd1