Why no Tori Amos

Who's on first? Woops. I mean who came first? Really, who came first is important as an influence, however I don't believe it determines who is a better or more worthy artist. It's like the old RS magazines top 100 albums of all time. They had the Sex Pistols "Bullocks" album rated second (2). Ha, ha, ho,ho, hee,hee, I couldn't stop laughing. Maybe SP was very influential in the punk scene, or gave later groups an idea, but their music was not worthy of the second best of ALL TIME. Sometimes those who come later improve on the original. The Beatles were influenced by Elvis, Little Richard, & Carl Perkins etc. All great artists, yet it can be argued that the Beatles were better, or improved on that style of music. Again, the most important criteria isn't who came first.

Marco to qualify my talented magpie statement.

When Kate Bush appeared still in her teens with the number one hit Wuthering Heights she was a once in a lifetime artist,unique and truly original.
Whatever her influences were (mainly classical if I remember rightly)she sounded like nothing you'd ever heard before and she developed that talent up to the highpoint of her career imho which is Hounds Of Love.
In that respect her music is different from Tori Amos who is clearly massively influenced by Kate Bush by admission and by anyone who can hear very similar trademarks in her music which to me is apparent on certain songs.
Of course she was influenced by others and sure she has developed her own style but she simply wasn't an original as
Imin2u notes above.

Bush's music has dated as has most music from the 80's have with their drum and keyboard sounds but large segments of it haven't mostly those parts that use acoustic instruments.

In my world Kate is on another but respect to those who enjoy Tori's work even more.

I like the little bit of Tori Amos that i've heard. When i first heard her though, the first thing that came to mind was "Oh, she's obviously heard and admires Kate Bush". Sean
>

Ben - Thanks for taking the time to coment. By the fact that you need to qualify your statement, I'm thinking that you may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my post. That point was, whatever infleuences either Kate Bush or Tori Amos pull from, and to whatever degree, in listening and enjoying the music of either one, I just don't care one wit about the infleuence nor the history nor the chronology! Who came first, who was most original.....neither of those facts makes either one "better" to my ears or in my experience, and neither of those facts commands more or less respect from me. Each have their infleuences, as does every artist, and whether Kate was more innovative in her time has absolutely no effect whatsoever on my ability to enjoy her music, nor the music of Tori, or anyone else strongly infleuenced by her. That shit is all just a head-trip to me. For me, I like it or I don't, I respect it or I don't, I get it, or I don't. I guess you're talking about respect on a more multi-dimensional level. As I said, history has never been my bag. But, just as you, I do respect your appreciation of it. As far as using history to judge musical talent goes, I just don't feel it is a criteria for judging musical enjoyment of one artist or another, but I realize that I'm saying that from the point of not caring about history, while others like yourself may. I can see and point out many infleuences in much of the art I enjoy, but I'd never think to judge it by it's success or failure in emulating something else. It is what it is, and I prefer to judge it on it's own merits. Understanding the infleuence, history and chronology has never seemed to give me any greater or lesser appreciation for a particular artist. But that's just me I guess.

Marco

PS I do like Hounds of Love too, second to The Dreaming. Of my favorites by Tori would have to be Boys for Pele.

Jax,

It's not just you... I feel/look at it the same way!!