Well, I would actually put Jordan on the opposite end of the spectrum from Erikson with respect to exposition. We hear about a dozen times what "The Dragon" is before it ever becomes relevant to the story. Whitecloaks are likewise explained ad nauseum before we ever meet the first one. Whitecloaks also basically drop off the face of the planet without any explanation by book 5 or 6.
In Erikson, a dude with a characteristic white cloak would've just shown up, muttered some vague hate speech concerning one of the dozen magic systems in the world, killed a major character and promptly left the series forever. It's just up to the reader to wonder and guess what he was all about, and then either be surprised in that guess or not when someone like him shows up again to kill someone else.
Martin is a bit different. Sure, you are exposed to many different viewpoints at once, but the only one of the characters who hasn't met all of the others is Dany. (And her sections anyway were originally written as their own novella.) For me, this makes questions such as who I'm rooting for and what outcome I want much easier to answer. Most of the viewpoint characters come from one family. Viewed this way, Martin is less frustrating to me than some other reads that are considered easier, like the Way of Kings. That book has only two viewpoint characters, but their actions don't affect the other immediately in such a way that would allow a reader to reposit all reader empathy into one single pool. Martin's work does, at least initially. I prefer the sort of clarity in the way Martin did it, but some find it more difficult to read.
So when recommending to someone who enjoyed LOTR but is relatively inexperienced otherwise, I'd say Jordan first, Martin second and Erikson last. But any one of these I think you can skip if you really don't like them.
