Why no Tori Amos

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.

Wildoats - my point about criticism is that good and bad are entirely relative to the individual. They are on a sliding scale and not absolute. What bugs me is when people phrase things in the form of absolutes as if their opinions are not just opinions but should be held to some higher standard. My question was not why someone would say something like I like brown because _______ , and I don't like orange because_____________ . It's when someone starts to say things like brown blows orange away because orange really sucks. What's with orange anyway, it's not dark and rich like brown....why it's just a thin, pasty brown with no character at all. It's a brown wanabee, how sad!

Yes, it is a matter of semantics, but the energy behind those semantics, the effort to discredit one color to raise another to a status that implies it should be reveared by all, really bugs me for some reason. In my opinion the comparison to colors is perfect because it's just as silly, IMO, to making the same kind of statements regarding human beings, vegetables, high-end stereo gear, or any damn thing. Yes, there would be no black without white, but neither exists outside the human mind. Good and bad are entirely relative to being human and our (rather pathetic) need to categorize and judge and make meaning out of everything. All that shit takes us out of the moment, away from the present and sticks us firmly in our heads. Music, to me, is about anything but being in ones head, it is a pure experience of the moment. It has no requirements other than just being there, no experience is necessary. No knowledge of history, culture, nor music itself is needed to enjoy music. It is truly the universal language.

Marco

PS I can certainly understand clearly why, if Ben listens to Tori and constantly is hearing what he considers to be someone trying to poorly imitate someone elses music, that getting caught up in that head-trip would keep one from enjoying virtually anything. So that part of your explanation, Ben, I do understand. What I don't understand is the way you choose to state it. I have listened to both extensively, and am aware of the infleuences of one to the other, and can hear the similarities, but I don't think I listen with any sort of expectations at all of either one. I just enjoy them for what each are. I have no more need to state something like Tori smokes Kate, as I would to declare SET is superior to all other forms of amplification, as I know both statements are not at all constructive, nor truthful (though they may have some truth to me [neither really does], I know they would not be a universal truth). Those kind of statements are entirely relative so what's the point? Seems like a kind of public masturbation in some ways to me. The importance of being 'right' so that one may validate their own existence. I'm certainly not above all that as I'm just as human as all of us, and have the same hopeless need to make meaning out of everything. But I have found that the more I can just be in the moment and outside my head, the more I tend to enjoy life. So I do strive to maintain some perspective with the knowledge that I am indeed prone to going back to my head over and over, and that it is more fun when I'm not there at all.