Why no Tori Amos

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.

Marco again I hear where you are coming from.

As part of the explination we need to look at the original post which was at least partly based in the media reaction to Tori or the lack of it that's perhaps why we've headed down this way.
I started off trying to put that question in context.

I think it's important to state I do not consider my opinion any more important than anyone else's,I truly believe that at a fundamental level.
Arguably it gets more complicated depending on how much you value how informed the person is making that argument.
This is one of the reasons I mostly stick to music threads on this forum because although I have opinions on cables,burn in etc. based on my experience it's clear to me it's less informed than more experienced audiophiles,of course I'll chip in if I think I've got a valid point to make.

Needless to say there is points made from time to time on various threads that seem uninformed,I think I got one on my records of the year,the person who was clearly intelligent really felt no need to qualify his statements (basically my musical taste was naff),in the same thread another 'goner whom I respect a lot said there was little he felt compelled to hear or like in my list.
What can you do?
Such is life,I can't get too precious about it all,all that matters to me is that I shared something positive inevitably you won't please everyone.
Audiogon is about opinion inevitably that will happen on all different kinds of levels.

As regards your stance on crticism intself I admire that stance,I take the same viewpoint that an opinion is only an opinon BUT I am totally at the other end of the spectrum regarding criticism,I read a lot of it,an awful lot of it (3 or 4 music mags every month and a constant stream of music related books etc.).
However I read it for knowledge and for information and I try hard to take it all with a large pinch of salt but I enjoy reading about music so I do it,I doubt it influences anything much that I listen other than letting me know it existed and that I read an opinion on it.
I also realise I'm quite unique,it's what floats my boat but it's clearly not for everyone.
And I really do not try to be snobbish about it,we are quite similar I think in that sense,music is only music.
Entertainment to some,art to others.

As regards your value system again I admire that stance but I cannot listen to music without evaluating it and of course that is personal.
Ultimately I decide in some sense the artists I take very seriously,the ones I enjoy in a light hearted sense,the music that seems 2nd rate,the overrated,the underrated etc.etc.
It doesn't matter much outside my own world nor do I expect it to.

To get away from this rambling I made this kind of assessment (rightly or wrongly)about Tori Amos a long time ago and since I'm opinonated and passionate about music I will voice that opinion because that is what these forums are about,debate.

I've maybe been a little unkind about Tori Amos with some of my descriptions but that's how I regard her,a talented quirky individual but that doesn't make it a fact.
Nor does the fact I spend too much time thinking and reading about music.
I apologise if I can you that impression that I consider myself superior.
However I will argue till the cows come home based on what I believe in.

Both of you Jax2, and Ben campbell make your points well. However Jax2, I do agree with Ben campbell that this site is about debate. Passionate fire-breathing debate when it comes to opinions on music/artists. To be a music lover you have to feel passionate about it.

Where I would, i think, agree with Jax2 to some extent is that I would criticize a piece of music or artist but not the person who posted the opinion I disagree with. I'm not saying that Ben campbell did that, he didn't.

I totally agree with frank discussion on the merits of individual artists/groups. In fact I like a good discussion/argument with other passionate people on music or artists. A personal philosophy is attack ideas not the person who delivers the message. This would be a boring site indeed if people didn't give honest opinions and criticism.

How is one to learn who is good or bad if people don't frankly discuss the merits. It is equally as valid to criticize as it is to praise. One cannot exist without the other or it would be pointless. Every artist or piece of music is not good.

If a person is honest, they would say their taste in music is good (the best?). That doesn't mean it is, but honestly when I think I'm right, I think I'm right. If you disagree your wrong. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than anyone. It's just my opinion. I am open to change or exploration if a good argument is presented. I have changed my views on artists before. Usually I've either grown up into liking their style of music, or they made something better. Sometimes someone even convinces me to give them a try.