Why no Tori Amos

Maybe because she's just too freaky! :)

Why hasnt every body elses favorite album been given "star" treatment? Retorical questions are tough to answer, but here's my guess...it really isnt that good. Not that alot of crap that gets re issued, remastered and given star treatment is, its just that there is not always overwhelming consensus on anything subjective. I bought "Little Earthquakes" when it was first released, and tho I still find it entertaining from time to time, I dont see the need for "star" treatment,tho I have many favorites I wish would receive same, and Im sure you would disagree with me on them.

Marco,
I see where you are coming from but I'm not using history to make a judgement.
The difference to my ears is that if you look at The Beatles and their 50's influences or Dylan and his Guthrie fixation is that they took their music further,created something new indeed raised the musical bar in a creative sense.
However I don't think Tori did that with her Bush influence,clearly some here prefer her music and it doesn't matter to them however to me it verges on parody,I struggle to hear TA and not think 2nd rate Kate Bush and in that sense the history aspect cannot be removed in my mind.
I listened to Hounds Of Love last night and was blown away,imho Tori hasn't even got close to the music on that record,listen to the 9th Wave,the vision,the arrangements and most of all the music,dare I call it genius?
I can't evenn consider Tori on that level but I agree history doesn't always make the difference.

Enjoy some Dylan, and Guthrie too. Listen to some Beatles, and to Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters. Tori and Bush. I give none a higher rung on the ladder of my appreciation, in listening to any one of them, simply for the sake that they came up with something new. So what? Just because it's new and innovative does not necessarily make it enjoyable to me. None of them raised the bar, some simply offered a new sound derived from older ones. A combination of DNA, chance, heritage, talent, hard work, luck.....the same as any of us may have bestowed upon us, or not. Because it happened to be unique at the time perhaps makes them courageous, but not necessarily good, bad, better or worse IMO. Dylan is Dylan, Guthrie is Guthrie. I like tomatoes, and you like pomagranite. I guess I just don't understand the need to put down one artist based upon the fact that they sound like another, and that you prefer the other. Why does it just not stop with I really like Kate Bush because.......blah, blah, original, blah, blah, visionary, blah, blah, etc. Why does that necessarily lead to comments like Tori Amos can't hold Kate Bush's jock strap?! Guthrie eats Dylan-burgers for breakfast. From where comes the need to put down one artist to create the foundation for the pedastal you need to place another upon? Sorry Ben, I just don't get it? Yes, I know those were not quotes from you and I don't mean to point a finger in your direction, but the "talented magpie" seems just as derogatory in some ways, albeit cloaked in a clever and amusing statement. All of this lauding and criticism just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe that's why critics are down there with monkey urine on my list of favorite things in life. Don't get me wrong, I do respect constructive criticism, but some posts on this thread, as well as countless others on this list and others, just don't fall under that category for me. Maybe it's just my time of the month.

Marco

As I stated before, to me it's not when an artist created their work, but what they created. Clapton, Stones, Beatles all borrowed/used music from their idols. IMO they improved it. They modernized the sound of the older blues/rock artists such as Muddy, Robert Johnson, Carl Perkins. While I respect these older artists, I still choose to listen to the more modern version of their songs. Robert Johnson wrote some great tunes, but I don't care for his versions compared to Clapton or the Allman Brothers for instance.
You can like Kate Bush more, or Tori Amos. But, most will decide based on the music not who came first or last. As far as criticism, how is an artist determined to be great if they aren't judged better than most of the rest? In order for there to be good there has to be bad.