Re: Tori--What do you really think?

[jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu]

Drewcifer, true to his handle, writes:

>To open a topic which could conceivably start the biggest flamewars this
>group has ever seen...

Pah.  Don't pat yourself on the back yet!  ;-)

>Tori Amos.  Now, I realize many people love to pick on her here, but I
>attribute that to sheer annoyance at how often she and Kate are compared and
>to the fact that, well, this is "gaffa".

I beg to differ with this.  Happy Rhodes is far more often compared to
KaTe than Tori is.  The only people who seem to mention Tori 'n KaTe at
the same time are idjits in the music press.  And we don't think highly of
them.

>My personal views are that Tori is *at least* as talented, original, and
>brilliant as Kate Herself.

I honestly don't understand how you can say this on the basis of one album.
It's entirely possible that Tori wrote herself out on this album and used
up her best ideas.  It's also possible that she was in a phase in her life
in which she was able to express her passions and emotions with a musical
eloquence which she will never recapture.  Many say KaTe is doing that
now, writing such banal songs as "Between a Man and a Woman" (a song I 
happen to like).  Of course, this is 5 albums and 12 years later.

I think that _Little Earthquakes_ is a far more impressive debut than
_The Kick Inside_.  But what about the age difference between the artists
at the time of their (solo) debuts?  And what sort of music was KaTe
producing by the time she was Tori's age-o'-debut?  _Never For Ever_?
_The Dreaming_?  (how old *is* Tori, anyway?).  Does this mean that in the
span of 5 years time Tori will be releasing albums that make TD seem
boring and lackluster?  I sort of doubt it.  I'd love to be proven wrong.

>This is because there are times when I'm not in
>the mood to listen to Kate, but I cannot recall any times when I haven't
>been in the mood to listen to Tori.

Enjoyment of music is mostly subjective, but there is a strong hint of
objectivity that can be applied.  I recognize that Bach was a brilliant
composer (and keyboardist, by all accounts...;-) but I'm not often inspired 
to pull out a Bach CD and catch some fugues.  At this stage in your life,
you're more apt to pull out LE than a Kate Bush album.  This may and
probably will change--not necessarily toward Kate Bush, but away from
Tori Amos and _Little Earthquakes_.

I'm always in the mood for Happy Rhodes.  I can listen to her music over
and over again and it always seems fresh and incredible.  Over the last
two+ years I've listened to Happy at least as much as KaTe if not more,
and over the last year I've definitely listened to more Happy than KaTe.
I still think that KaTe is an overall better songwriter.  I think Happy's
got a better voice (the high ends are comparable, but Happy's low end
sets up vibrations that shake your heart loose from its mooring to your
soul), and I prefer her guitar playing to KaTe's piano playing.  But while
Happy has been getting _much_ better at songwriting, as shown on _Warpaint_,
she still can't write as well as KaTe.  Perhaps when _Equipoise_ comes
out early next year, I'll listen to it and decide that Happy has reached
KaTe's level.  Or maybe I won't.  But hey, Happy's only 27, she's got a
few years to catch up.
    
>Tori also pleases me with her albums more; granted, there's only one album 
>so far 

What a screwed up statement.  The basic idea is that you like the sum of
LE more than the sum of any particular Kate Bush album.  Fine.  Groovy.
I think there are several albums as good as if not better than any Kate
Bush album.  I consider Paul Simon's _Graceland_ to be one of the most
perfect albums of all time.  But to say that Paul Simon pleases me
more with his albums than KaTe does, not only when I haven't heard them
all, but also implying that I'm including the ones he hasn't even
written yet is patently absurd.

>whereas there are usually more than 1/12 that I find
>inferior on Kate's albums.

Again, subjective.  I think every song on LE is amazing.  And there are
KaTe albums which have tracks I could do without (TKI and LH both have a 
couple, and there's one on N4E).  But again, you're basing that solely on
one album from Tori.  A statistical sample of one is worthless.  

>I think Tori's a much more talented and original
>pianist

Definitely.  Tori's a *much* better pianist, as she damned well ought to
be with her classical training.  Last spring I was having an e-mail
discussion with a friend who's a KaTefan but not on love-hounds.  He
made some comment about KaTe's piano playing and I said "Sure, it works
for her purposes, but if you want to hear some great piano, listen to
Tori Amos."  KaTe couldn't get away with a song like "Mother" (the best
on the album) or "Precious".  I'm not sure she has the technical ability to 
pull off the dynamics of the songs, let alone to have written them.

>making up in musical invention what she lacks [...]

Ah, but ability (and creativity) on piano are not everything.  KaTe uses
such an incredible variety of instruments and sounds in her arrangements
that she more than makes up for any slight in her piano abilities.
Tori's arrangements just don't seem all that original.  Maybe it's not her
fault, just like TKI wasn't KaTe's fault.  But I really don't think Tori
has demonstrated a total capacity for musical invention higher than KaTe's,
merely a better ability to write on/play piano.

There's an interesting phenomena that relates to modern music that wasn't
nearly as much of an issue with most of what we refer to as classical music.
This is the fact that modern music, like visual art, was often created without
meaning to be reproduced after the fact.  The artist can spend as much
time as necessary (assuming that they, like KaTe have full artistic control)
getting the music recorded precisely the way they want.  There's no need to
worry about how someone else might portray your idea.  I think there's
a tendency to say something like "Tori's arrangements sound good on record,
but the underlying songs are just as good, and this shows through when
she performs with nothing but a piano.  Kate Bush, on the other hand,
relies too much on the sounds and effects that she adds in the studio.  Much
of her music would not translate well to the stage."  To me, this is
irrelevant.  Kate Bush does not write music to be performed on the
stage.  She creates sonic tapestries which she then allows the public to
hear--as is.  

Jeff


-- 
|Jeffrey C. Burka                | "Show what you are / Be strong, be true  |
|                                |  Time for you to / Be who you are."      |
|jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu            |                         --Happy Rhodes   |