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.

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.

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.

I can be satisfied with my gear because it sounds good to me. I can also audition other equipment if the need or desire arises. Mostly because I can listen to a large amount of very good equipment in a not too long of a time.

However, I need help with music. Not because I don't know what I like, but because there is so much out there. If I here mostly bad things about a piece, I'll go listen to the ones I hear mostly good things about. There just isn't time to listen to everything and there has to be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Other people's critiques help me do that. That is the main value I get from reading other peoples opinions. Without that I'm alone in the vast wilderness without a compass.