|
Post by martindn on Nov 21, 2008 0:09:48 GMT
OK Part 2.
I once wrote that "Hayley couldn't be more exposed if she walked onto the stage naked", when thinking about the honesty of her musical performances, especially when she sings a capella. Any error wold stick out like a sore thumb.and yet she carries it off, time after time. I beleive what we see, when Hayley performs, is a very honest view of who she is. She does not really try to hide behind a manufactured image as many artists do. Instead, she simply walks out and sings. So she doesn't need to appear on the stage naked, or even half naked as seems to be being suggested, She is all about music and her music is in no way false. It is about who she is, it is what she dedicates her life to, and how she prefers to be seen. A "tarty" Hayley would not be true to life. It is not the sort of person that she is. It would be a false image. What is more, Hayley is saying that she would not be comfortable with it. So how would we feel as fans, confronted with a Hayley projecting that sort of image? I admit that when I see Hayley perform, I can't take my eyes off her (and I'm sure I am not the only one here, having looked around a bit at concerts - OK I do take my eyes off her sometimes). She is just a very compelling performer, and anyone who appears on a stage does so in order to be watched, Yes, her music which is sound is the most important thing, but her facial expressions and lovely graceful movement are also compelling, and add to the beauty of the experience. But if I thought that Hayley was uncomfortable about the way she dressed, then I too would feel uncomfortable about watching her so intently. I would want to avert my eyes and would feel embarrassed for her, which would lessen my enjoyment of her performance. When I think about my favorite images of Hayley, my current favourite is Grant's picture of Hayley throwing poppies into the fountains in Trafalgar Square on Armistice Day. I find it very moving and very beautiful somehow, and yet in it Hayley is wearing a heavy overcoat. It is hard to imagine anything less "tarty". The one I don't much like is the one in the white dress on the inside cover of the ROD tour programme, which shows a lot more of her. The more I think about it the more convinced I become that Hayley has her stage clothes exactly right. She wears attractive dresses that look good, yet do not distract the (male) members of her audience from her music.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by grant on Nov 21, 2008 0:29:20 GMT
It may be a little naive I know, but what has how Hayley dresses on stage and TV got to do with her record company? Hi Martin I think the argument is that whilst her dress sense is 'spot on' for dear old blighty and many other places where Hayley is already popular, it doesn't suit the tastes of others. I've noticed the expression "Americanised" being used in some comments made (I think from New Zealand) and whilst I don't fully understand what the writer of that particular comment was aluding to, I guess it boils down to different tastes. Therefore, the assumption is that by meeting the requirements of those varying tastes, her popularity will increase and Decca will make more money err, sorry, sell more records. The debate here, of course, is how to appeal to those tastes and there are many possibilities, some of which are obviously unpopular with Hayley and consequently, with members of this forum. Best wishes Grant
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Nov 21, 2008 1:19:30 GMT
Ok, I've had a good think about this issue now. And there is going to be quite a lot to say, so this is part one. And I have a few perhaps controversial points (I can hear the mods groaning now!). It may be a little naive I know, but what has how Hayley dresses on stage and TV got to do with her record company? Record companies sell records. That's music! CDs. They have no visual content. You usually have no idea what the artist was wearing when the music was recorded. As far as the visual aspect of an artists work is concerned, there might be photo shoots for the album artwork, but apart from that the visual aspect, certainly at concert and TV performances, is something they (rightly should) have no influence over. To a record company all concert and TV appearances are is free advertising! So it is highly arrogant of Decca, in my opinion (somebody tell me why I'm wrong) to assume that they own Hayley and can control the non-recording aspects of her career. I though about why I buy records. I have accumulated quite a lot of them over the years. And what is it that pesuaded me to buy them and choose those particular ones? In every case, I think it was becuse I liked the music, and wanted to be able to hear more of it. It was never ever because of the way that the artist dressed. Quite simply, it was never a consideration. So are there record buyers around that buy music for reasons unrelated to the actual music? Perhaps there are. Those perhaps who want to be trendy. But are record companies then in the business of selling music to people who don't like music, or at least don't care about it? I suspect they will sell to anybody who will buy, for any reason they can think of. To me, Hayley is first and foremost all about music. OK I have come to respect her as a fine human being too, but it was the music that primarily attracted me and continues to attract me to her. I think that most people here would agree! That is why I am a fan, I love to hear her sing! What she wears, and how she presents herself is very secondary, and not apparent when you buy a record. It is her voice and her music that compels me to buy her records. And I'm sure that is the way Hayley wants it to be. I think that in Hayley's case, anyone who buys her records for any other reason (except perhaps family or friendship loyalty) has picked the wrong artist. It worries me a lot that her records company don't seem to understand that. Are they really that inept? Martin Hi Martin, I have one (well two) very simple questions for you. If it is all about the music, and only the music, why exactly is it that there are thousands of pictures, and hundreds of videos of Hayley available here on this site? In fact, this website is so visually oriented that people even occasionally complain that there are too many pictures. The point I am trying to make is that Hayley already has an image - and to the converted it is already a very powerful one. Images, as the word implies, are visual. If it really were only about the music, wouldnt it be much more efficient in terms of time not to mention bandwidth for the site to simply feature high quality mp3's? Jon
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Nov 21, 2008 2:09:18 GMT
Hi Jon,
I think I mentioned myself in part two of my post, that I find Hayley's stage presence compelling. There is a visual element certainly to her live performances, and no doubt to her TV appearances. The fact that I find her visually as well as auraly compelling perhaps means that for me at least she has got the visual side of her performances right. But here we are talking about audio CDs. These are what her record company sell, BTW I said that the visual element of her performances was secondary, which means less important, not non-existant. If you look at most of the photos on this site, some of which I have taken myself, you will see close up pictures of Hayley's face, and the rich varieties of her facial expressions, Most of these are not"glamour photos" by any stretch of the imagination. They show Hayley's wonderful ability to express emotion and interpret a song, which is one of the reasons why her live peformances are so special. I first came across Hayley at a live performance, perhaps almost uniquely on this forum. I sometimes wonder if I would have loved her so much if my first experience of her music had been on record. But records are what Decca sells. Not videos or photos. And the product is the product. Her records stand or fall, in the end by what they sound like. A live peformance is a different experience where the visual aspect becomes an important part of it. But for a musician, it is still the music that comes first, especially for someone a musically talented as Hayley.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Nov 21, 2008 3:21:39 GMT
Hi again Martin,
Leaving the direct implications of a visual image aside for the moment......there are obviously many times when the music itself is not the primary consideration for the purchase of an album
My wife has bought 4 Miley Cyrus records for my grandchildren for the simple reason that they like her. It is probable that Mary has heard Miley sing at some point or another, but her personal feelings about the music had no relevance at all. While neither my wife or myself are culturally conservative, it is entirely possible that another grandparent bought Miley as opposed to Britney solely on the basis of image.
----------------
I think that there is one thing which is clearly more important to the sale of a CD than the music on it - name recognition. I cant imagine a case where I would buy a CD from an artist I didnt know existed. If I have heard the name twice, I am more likely to buy it than if I only heard it once. If I have heard the name 100 times, I am many times more likely to buy it. This is true even if the quality of the music on the CD is the principal reason I buy it because I the more I hear about an artist, the greater the chance I will eventually check her music out.
The real issue is media profile. A high profile is simply another way of saying that someone has a great deal of name recognition. The image of an artist is therefore a means to an end. I wouldnt personally evaluate this in terms of a good image or a bad one - because one can find examples of both. But it does help a lot if people find something about the artist exciting.
Jon
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Nov 21, 2008 9:24:14 GMT
Hi again Martin, Leaving the direct implications of a visual image aside for the moment......there are obviously many times when the music itself is not the primary consideration for the purchase of an album My wife has bought 4 Miley Cyrus records for my grandchildren for the simple reason that they like her. It is probable that Mary has heard Miley sing at some point or another, but her personal feelings about the music had no relevance at all. While neither my wife or myself are culturally conservative, it is entirely possible that another grandparent bought Miley as opposed to Britney solely on the basis of image. ---------------- I think that there is one thing which is clearly more important to the sale of a CD than the music on it - name recognition. I cant imagine a case where I would buy a CD from an artist I didnt know existed. If I have heard the name twice, I am more likely to buy it than if I only heard it once. If I have heard the name 100 times, I am many times more likely to buy it. This is true even if the quality of the music on the CD is the principal reason I buy it because I the more I hear about an artist, the greater the chance I will eventually check her music out. The real issue is media profile. A high profile is simply another way of saying that someone has a great deal of name recognition. The image of an artist is therefore a means to an end. I wouldnt personally evaluate this in terms of a good image or a bad one - because one can find examples of both. But it does help a lot if people find something about the artist exciting. Jon A singer or celebrity's "image" is obviously broader than the literal meaning of the word. It is part of Miss Westenra's image that she would stand up to her record company over an issue like this. Does this whole incident not reinforce Miss Westenra's image and increase her media profile at a most fortunate time being that her new CD is now on sale? I have heard it said that she sometimes she shows quite a lot of skin but without looking tacky, like at the Classical Brits. I do not see why her record company would want her to change. It will help a lot if people find something about the artist intresting. These stories willl make people want to see what she looks like and how she dresses and they may look at CD covers to find out. Then they might buy one. Maybe the record company is not so silly.
|
|
|
Post by drew on Nov 21, 2008 10:24:06 GMT
An interesting article on MSN this morning: Celebrity ChicI quote a couple of paragraphs: Follow the photo links to see how the products of some professional stylists are analysed. Hayley, we love you just the way you are.
|
|
|
Post by comet on Nov 21, 2008 12:44:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by comet on Nov 21, 2008 13:06:21 GMT
OK Part 2. I once wrote that "Hayley couldn't be more exposed if she walked onto the stage naked", when thinking about the honesty of her musical performances, especially when she sings a capella. Any error wold stick out like a sore thumb.and yet she carries it off, time after time. I beleive what we see, when Hayley performs, is a very honest view of who she is. She does not really try to hide behind a manufactured image as many artists do. Instead, she simply walks out and sings. Martin I have always felt to sing in public is to reveal the soul of the person singing, It is to expose oneself more than the aforementioned way. I am NOT talking about trivial, bouncy, sing along pop songs, anyone can sing along with those with some backing music and other singers to support you when you weaken, But to have the confidence to silence thousands of people and to know they are listening to you only, they are concentrating on EVERY sound you make and every move, and indeed on how you are dressed. To sing songs about the serious questions in life and death with a sincerity that cannot be fake all the time That is about as exposed as you can be. If Hayley went as Vanessa Mae and others do, We the fans would probably be accused of buying her CDs simply for the pictures on the cover, Can you imagine walking up to the counter in HMV with a picture on the cover of a scantily clad female artist or singer and the girl at the checkout looks at it and then back at you as if you are some sort of dirty old man..With a smug... Huh ! Carry on as you are Hayley, we are all proud of you for WHO you are.........
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Nov 21, 2008 16:42:39 GMT
I remember reading about Hayley being happy with her image many times over the years. Just look at this article dating back to 2004. She's come a long way professionally, but little has changed about her attitude and I don't think it'll shift much more. After all, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". However.... an image makeover might just get her out of her comfort zone enough to take her music to new levels of creativity and edginess. Her existing fans may end up loving it even more. Pop stars reinvent themselves all the time as a matter of course. Why not crossover stars, too?
|
|
|
Post by chantelle on Nov 21, 2008 19:24:50 GMT
Just a quick thought... Image, in regards to photos and photoshoots, isn't just about the clothes. It's also about the pose, and the "look" on the photographee's face. Hayley could wear the exact same dress, and either make it look young and fresh, as she does now, or by simply posing in a different way and wearing a "come hither" expression on her face instantly "tart it up." So it's not just about fashion sense-- her record company could be trying to control something as 'simple' as how she smiles for photoshoots!
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Nov 22, 2008 1:04:39 GMT
The one I don't much like is the one in the white dress on the inside cover of the ROD tour programme, which shows a lot more of her. I think I know which one you're referring too (although I would say it's a very pale tan or beige, or maybe "champagne" would be the right word), and I don't like it either. It's like you said, it makes me uncomfortable to look at it, because it's so unlike Hayley's usual style, and looks horribly uncomfortable. I'm wondering if that outfit has anything to do with this controversy with Decca. Of course, it's not that bad; she definitely could've done worse. I just don't like how bare and pale it makes her look; it's just not "Hayley" to me. I like her hair up, though. I definitely liked the other ones of her in the red, and the black and white one better, from the RoD programme.
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Nov 28, 2008 23:10:34 GMT
Hi Libby,
Yes I agree, I like the other photos better. That whitish one as you say, just isn't Hayley to me. I wonder how she felt about it.
Martin
|
|
|
Post by Cherany on Jan 4, 2009 11:14:58 GMT
Pop stars reinvent themselves all the time as a matter of course. Why not crossover stars, too? For many, it's because they lack talent & must do something in order to keep people interested. While Hayley may need to do more to reach certain groups, she certainly doesn't need any work in the talent department. I'm not really sure how I feel about the wardrobe issue. On one hand, I've never felt the formal gowns were dowdy. In fact, I often see her sporting quite a bit of cleavage. On the other hand, I've seen her look rather bland in jeans and plain tees & wondered why she didn't jazz things up a notch. Is the debate over her wearing more casual clothing, like jeans, instead of full-length gowns, or are we talking about more revealing "formal" wear, such as the sequin dental floss often seen on pop stars? I don't think either would help her image, so I'm rather confused here. To those who think she could do with an image shift, could you explain a little better what you think she should be wearing?
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jan 4, 2009 11:30:27 GMT
Hi Cherany,
We understand that Hayley's record company put some pressure on her to update her image as was reported in the Daily Telegraph. The assumption is that this was an attempt to sell more albums. It would appear that the majority of our members (and probably the majority of her loyal fans around the world) do not agree. I suspect, therefore, that most of us would not want any significant image shift.
Roger
|
|