I have to say, there is NO defence for being threatening or physically abusive to reviewers. However one may agree or disagree with them, it is a poor fan who would disgrace themselves and their artist with such dreadful behaviour.
With that said, I think the article writer doth protest too much. Hayley herself tweeted:
EVERY time I come home to ChCh to do a concert I wake up the next day to a bad review from David Sell. Mr Sell, I get it, you don't like me.
Which is absolutely remarkable, as I have never seen her Tweet a bad word about anyone before. While it's true that she is not rude or unladylike in that Tweet, her frustration is clear. That kind of comment is not due to only one bad review, you may be sure.
Persecution of a critic for what they write is indefensible, sure, but is it not also indefensible for a critic to persecute an artist?
The entire point of this article appears to me to be a defence of David Sell by implying that some of Hayley's fans are worse than he is. While that may be true, it doesn't excuse David Sell if he is guilty of persecution by review. If he truly hates Hayley that much, isn't it about time his paper sent another reviewer to her concerts?
If David Sell doesn't like her, knows he doesn't like her and knows he never WILL like her, is it not time he stopped writing about her?
Yes Nicola, the article you link to is indeed disturbing - from a newspaper's music editor. It is almost as lacking in balance as David Sell's so-called review. I say 'so-called' because it didn't really review anything, it merely projected someone's dislike for a performer's music and style, somewhat in the manner of an inflammatory internet forum troll. There is at least one specific example of this in each of their reports - and hers may be worse than his.
I am not defending people who send hate mail but that has nothing to do with Hayley or her fans. Such disturbed people appear in all walks of life, all public figures probably have the odd few disturbed "hangers-on" and it is sadly part of modern life. They should be dealt with by the law and not used as below-the-belt punches to try and support an argument.
I may have more to say about the two articles later, either here and/or as a comment on their website. Meanwhile, as this is a continuation of the existing detailed discussion in the Christchurch concert thread, I will move the four posts in the thread you started into there.
Ouch Dave, you did it again. I spent half an hour writing a post, only to find the thread I was posting to no longer existed. Anyway, I hope I have managed ti cut and paste what I intended to say.
Well, they have obviously panicked and wheeled out this Vicki Anderson to lend support. She seems to me to be a bit more intelligent than Mr Sell, but not much. This guy has as you say Elliot, obviously got under Hayley's skin. Those unfair criticisms hurt. And they are unjustified when Hayley knows she gave a great performance, and that the vast majority of the audience went home happy. Especially as he has done it consistently every time Hayley has appeared in Christchurch. I don't blame her for being annoyed. Thanks for adding your comment Peter, I too have commented on this new article, and it remains to see if it gets past the moderators. I ran out of characters in the end. Yes, I know there are some who don't understand Hayley. That is their loss. A singer who can render me speechless in 10 seconds is not "bland" or "boring". As I have said before, Hayley's music is very spiritual in its nature. She can uplift and raise people's spirits like no other artist I know. But some people are spiritually dead, and for them it can only be nothing music, devoid as it largely is of sex, danceablilty and intellectual content. Those who look for those things in Hayley's music won't find it. But those who look for sprituality, and to a lesser extent emotion, will find it. I wouldn't have Hayley any different. With her, I have found the singer who speaks to my soul more powerfully than any musician I have ever come across. Because of her I understand myself better. Because of her I believe I am a better person. A reviewer should be part of and reflect the general opinion of the audience. As far as I know, nobody booed, nobody threw fruit, and nobody walked out. So he quite simply got it wrong and didn't do his job. He was clearly not part of the show, as Hayley's audiences generally are. He did not pick up the vibes, was not carried along by Hayley and the rest of the audience. So he did not experience the show, and was therefore not entitled to write about something he did not understand as if he did understand it.
I think my final word on the matter (Or final for now, at least! ) really comes down to this: If someone asked me to write a review of a concert for an artist or genre I knew I did not like, I would ask them to send someone else on the grounds that there was no possibility I could create a proper review. If forced to review despite my protests, I would start with a disclaimer saying I am not a fan of the act and/or the genre, and still do my best to be fair, regardless. In this way, my readers would at least have proper warning.
This, to me, is integrity.
Deliberately reviewing an artist you know you hate with no attempt to be fair and no disclaimer I would consider beneath me, and unworthy of a gentleman.
While these nonsensical opinion articles are quite hard to stomach at first and bring out the worst of our emotions, I don't think they're necessarily bad for anyone in the long run.
Hayley - I think the saying 'all publicity is good publicity' is quite true. The articles will likely raise awareness of Hayley amongst a few (or many!), some of whom will want to form their own opinions based on their individual tastes.
The paper - Controversial topics = more publicity = more advertising revenue.
The author - Unfortunately the above will likely serve them well also. But also shows they're sell-outs..
It's is also fun for opinionated people like myself and a few others here (who clearly have good taste ) to have the opportunity/ challenge to respond to these imbeciles.
I, umm don't know what to say? That article left me in tears...honestly, how can anyone be this cheap, and rude towards such a person like hayley? I immediately broke into tears when I read the cheapest comment anyone could give Hayley, about the toilet licking thing. I mean, of all the people who I introduced Hayley to in RL, rockers, heavy metalists, pop people, who may not like the music, never hesitated to mention the stunning performance and the quality of her voice, and talent. I never even imagined anyone could do this to Hayley for all that she is. And "I may have interviewed Our Hayley numerous times but I don't feel I know her well enough to comment on whether she's as nice as the rat thought she was or not.", that was really hurting too. It simply bothers me so much to just think about how hayley would feel reading this garbage after working so hard and doing so much...
This has clearly ruined my day, I don't know what to say anymore, but I'm sure these people will get what they deserve for being such jerks <_<....
Post by stevemacdonald on Nov 22, 2011 18:11:51 GMT
I found something that will help. There's an excellent article in last June's Psychology Today that analyses chronic critics and their motives. It's almost too easy to apply this article's main points to the nasty critic we're talking about.
Not only "cheap and rude" but spiteful and most of all VERY unprofessional. I can understand not liking someone but to make that "toilet licking" comment is quite simply disgusting.
As you mention Simba, this critic goes on to say "I may have interviewed our Hayley many times but still don't feel I know her well enough ....." I wonder if she will ever have the chance to interview Hayley again as such vile comments as her 'toilet' reference will surely come back to haunt her.
Me thinks she may have well and truly blotted her copybook this time!