To add to (not replace) the valuable advice others have given...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 
I'm a Rock fan (especially classic stuff), but somehow managed to dislike Springsteen, can take or leave Neil Young (I do like Cinnamon Girl however), and never got into Dylan (besides the Traveling Wilburys). What am I missing?
Tall order, I know.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 
There's probably no hope for me then on the Springsteen front. It's his early mainstream stuff that I'm most exposed to. And his latterday work just depresses me. And not in a good "Johnny Cash" kinda way. Maybe I will consider the live album. Thanks.
|
On Springsteen - I think we need to draw a firm line between what constitutes Springsteen's early mainstream stuff and his mid-80s mainstream stuff. If you're burnt out on the "mainstream" stuff like "Born in the U.S.A.," "Glory Days," and "Dancing in the Dark," this doesn't mean you'll be burnt out on Born to Run (which gets lots of play, sure, but it's a completely different animal and works much better in context than on the radio), the Wild, the Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle (which is really only represented on the radio via the occasional "Rosalita"), or Darkness on the Edge of Town (likewise, with "Badlands").
But since you mention Johnny Cash in a positive way, I'd point you to Nebraska, one of the most stripped-down, uncompromising, radio-unfriendly albums ever by a rock artist of his stature.
Dylan - the mid-60s rocky stuff, as raptor mentioned. But again, that Johnny Cash comment makes me think you're not necessarily looking for rockin' - just good. Blood on the Tracks would also make a great starting point.
Neil Young - the dude's catalog is chock full of landmines so you have to be careful. Decade is a superb collection of his 70s work and, unlike many of his albums, shows how diverse the guy can be (Young tends to settle into a style for entire albums, with a few more varied exceptions, like Freedom and Rust Never Sleeps). There are, naturally, some of the classic rock hits you're probably tired of on there, but tons of other stuff that'll probably surprise you.
If you want Young in guitar-heavy mode, you could do a lot worse than Zuma or Ragged Glory (or the live Weld, which came from the Ragged Glory tour and has energetic, expanded, and even crunchier versions of RG songs plus lots of old stuff). There's nothing like "Old Man" or "Heart of Gold" on those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriegaffe 
Ok, can some one convince me on the Arcade Fire.
My basic exposure is they seem like a 'hipster band' that Pitchfork likes. From what I've heard it seems like a jangly bunch of pretentious crap. I also was unmoved by the Where The Wild Things Are trailer.
I basically haven't given them the time of day.
|
If "hipster" = irony and detached amusement, the Arcade Fire are the ultimate anti-hipster band. It's all heart-on-the-sleeve sentimentality, like old school U2.
Based on your tone, I suspect you're not going to be convinced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattioli 
As for me, someone try to sell me on Led Zeppelin. "Ramble On" makes me want to punch kittens.
|
As others have mentioned, Zeppelin covered a lot of territory. I don't think anyone's mentioned the quieter, prettier stuff like "Rain Song," "Going to California," and "Tangerine," so I'll mention those as yet another way in. Oh, yeah - try not to pay too much attention to the lyrics, but do pay attention to the artistry and nuance in the playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth 
I need somebody to convince me on Van Morrison and Tom Waits.
|
Van Morrison's easy - try Astral Weeks. Generally assumed to be one of his best albums (if not his single best), but seldom played on the radio. It's a lush combination of folk and jazz that has virtually nothing in common with, say, "Brown-Eyed Girl" or "Domino."
Waits - again, as others have said, he's evolved quite a bit over his career. The one relative constant is that his voice is a hurdle (although probably moreso the later you go in his catalog). I recommend Rain Dogs as a starting point, since it combines some of that fine, detailed storytelling that people love from his early work, but it eschews the straightforward bluesy stuff for a skronky, thumpy aesthetic that would become his general approach for the next couple decades.