Why no Tori Amos

Peaks there is a problem with your logic (not your opinion as that's personal)if Tori Amos had never heard Kate Bush-what would she sound like?
She would have no style musically and indeed vocally she sounds at least inspired by Kate Bush.
So much so it is impossible in my mind to imagine what she would sound like.
One can always prefer an artist inspired by a previous artist but it DOES matter who came first.

Imin2u/Justlisten-I think Tori was appreciated around the time of Little Earthquakes especially here in the UK by the music press,she made the cover of Q magazine about 4 times since then and still gets decent coverage in the press over here.
I have a friend who's a big fan but personally I've never been over impressed by what I've heard.
Why?
She's clearly talented,her voice is quite uniquewhich may explain her lack of mass appeal but to my ears she could hardly be described as original nor at the musical standard of the likes of Kate Bush-it's night and day to me, Bush's work is at a much higher level and truly original to my ears,Tori seems like a talented magpie in comparison.
As regards her audience,it's quite common for many artists to get a decent level of success and neither maintain it nor grow it,it's particularly common in the modern day ,originality is virtually impossible and indeed artists get criticised for either not changing their style or for changing it.
As music fans we make these choices,we stay loyal to certain artists and give up on others and as such there is a lot of good music that goes unoticed because their sell by date has been judged to have passed.
As regards the wider public there is always the odd happening like Alanis Morrisette who simply captures the public imagination.
I think all things considered Tori has achieved the level of acclaim and success that an artist of her type can expect,the fact that she's lost a fair bit of her fan base is a question for those who gave up on her can only answer .

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.

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.

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.

Marco I've had a few glasses of wine tonight,I'll get back to you tomorrow with some thoughts............

Apologies as this thread has now went off topic.

Marco there is a lot of different angles to this,really well written criticism/analysis is an art form in itself.
Admitedly these types of music books are few and far between but I would cite the likes of Greil Marcus Mystery Train and Ian McDonald's fantastic Beatles book Revolution In The Head as two examples of how good the genre can be.

It's a personal thing,part of my personality I suppose however you need to understand it is only for information it does not affect at all the experience of listening to the music.
It amazes me at times on Audiogon how uninformed many members are about what music is available to them, this doesn't neccesarily relate to what is new in the music world but also in many cases the best available recordings/reissues of classic material.
Indeed on my music of the year thread a fellow member didn't even know one of his favourite artists had a new record out.

My take on music Marco is that I try to hear a lot of what is available and test my tastes,see how far I can go and I found a lot of great music that way.
Of course there are many "mistakes" along the way,artists and records rated highly by the press that do nothing for me.
I just love to hear new music and keep myself informed,I do it for myself and have done for the best part of 26 years during which time I've never stopped reading the music press.
You would be wrong also if you thought I considered them to be great all the time,they aren't a lot of the time but that's a different subject in itself.

I would consider you are missing out on a lot of music with your approach.

The historical aspects,biographies are just an off shoot of the fact I enjoy learning about the context in which great music was created,it's very seldom that it adds much to the enjoyment of listening to the music.
To me this is no different from reading anything else,there is good and bad writing.

I'll finish with a story, I kept reading about Nick Drake over the years in the music press,seemed like a lot of hype to me but eventually I bought a compilation of his.
I fell in love with his music,I love it he's now probably one of my favourite artists.
However I get lost in the music when I listen to him now and how I found him is irrelevant but what is undoubtly true if music writers hadn't kept writing about him he'd be lost in obscurity.

Reading about music and putting together a high end system are not the main thing for me.
It's the music that counts.

Marco I'll try to check out that movie.

I understand anyone who has problems with music criticism,I live in the UK and grew up with some of the most eletist tribal nonsense right after punk.
For a while the music press became unreadable in the UK with it's insular take on what was and wasn't cool.
Believe me Marco I like a lot of music that is rated as very uncool.
As such you live through trends you see the bands who were ignored or hated now given the credit they deserved all along,these things go in circles but I lived through a lot of snobbery and indeed a lot of mediocre music that was lauded at the time never washed with me.
You also get the odd bit of nutty revisionism.

Indeed much of the music that is touted as happening right now has it's roots in the kind of music hated by the same people post-punk.
Go figure.

But as a teenager who grew up liking "uncool" music just after punk I haven't forgotten these things so I always take anything I read with a pinch of salt.
You make your own judgement in the end.
Thanks for the discussion.