Re: Charlotte Church

[Martin]

milewalker said:

If it werent for Charlotte, I very much doubt that this website and forum would exist. To be fair there might be a website and forum - but there is also a huge question in my mind. This is purely speculative of course, because are limits to the degree to which one can "reframe" history....

If Charlotte Church had not been, would Hayley Westenra be - at least in the incarnation we now perceive her?

Jon

Hi Jon
I think I know what you are suggesting here and that is, if it wasn't for Charlotte would Decca or indeed any other recording company have signed up Hayley back in 2002 knowing what success CC had enjoyed as a teenage classical star?

My answer is simple - yes, without doubt.

True talent always succeeds and even if it wasn't Decca then another company would have recognised the potential and signed Hayley. There is also the little fact that Hayley with the support of her family was determined to become a successful singer. Let's also not forget the efforts of Bedlam in making it happen.

The rest is history!

Martin

[milewalker]

Martin

If true talent always succeeded, how do you explain Becky Taylor? Why isnt Yulia Towsend a bigger star than she is? There are literally thousands of talented people out there who for one reason or another get absolutely nowhere in the entertainment business - or do nothing more than eke out a living below the level of public radar.

In Hayley's case, a whole lot of history happened long before Bedlam even existed as a company. I actually have no doubt that Hayley would have eventually made a name for herself at some level, at least within New Zealand, but I also believe that achieving anything like her current standing in the same time frame would have been much, much more difficult. One big reason for this is the relative isolation of New Zealand

Lets look at my own personal experience in how I discovered Hayley. It was back in the late fall of 2000, when someone posted about the release of "Hayley Westenra" on the CC forum I was active in at the time. Some pretty big and recognizible fan names were also present - either on that site, or on competing sites. There was Lindsay, who formed one of the first New Zealand websites dedicated to her, and Gerrit, with whom I had the pleasure of co-moderating his CC community for several years. Then of course were the two "fathers" of this site, Simon and Keith, whose association with each other was because of Simon's UK website for CC.

The upshot of all of this is that Hayley fell on fallow ground. There were several thousand people in the world outside of New Zealand who already knew of her, and who were importing her early work some time before Decca signed her to the international contract. That isnt enough to sustain an international career, of course, but it is sufficient to jumpstart one. The infrastructure for her international exposure was already in place.

As it happens, because of the success enjoyed by CC, every record company in the world was looking for the next one. I know this, because I was following the phenomenon at the time. EMI signed Becky Taylor (even though they apparantly had no idea whatsoever what to do with her), and Universal New Zealand signed Hayley.

I am not saying in any case, that this is the only reason Hayley succeeded - but it takes more than talent, it also takes luck, and being in the right place at the right time. In Hayley's case, Charlotte opened doors (and minds) that had been closed for about 60 years. Maybe, given enough time Hayley could have opened some of them herself - but the bottom line is that she didnt have to.

Jon

[stevemacdonald]

milewalker said:

If Charlotte Church had not been, would Hayley Westenra be - at least in the incarnation we now perceive her?

As the best-selling female classical artist of 1999, 2000 and 2001 Charlotte obviously paved the way for other young sopranos to enter the commercial arena. EMI and Decca clearly saw the potential in Becky and Hayley to "compete" with Charlotte.

However, successful as she undoubtedly was, Charlotte had tons of detractors, including Boston Pops' conductor Keith Lockhart who famously termed her career "music abuse" -- this the same guy who gave only glowing praise for Hayley. Methinks Decca and EMI wanted to offer an alternative to Charlotte that would satisfy not only the general consumer of this type of music but the critic as well. Becky and Hayley came along with arguably superior voices and better all-around musicality, and so they were snapped up.

In her career's infancy Hayley wowed not only a high percentage of CC fans, a substantial number of whom preferred her straightaway, she also had her share of admirers who, for whatever reasons, disliked Charlotte with a passion. After she was signed and had major exposure she amassed a wonderful following all her own. Charlotte's example was both essential and cautionary for Hayley and Decca.

Becky would have gone down a storm in the USA had her debut not occurred on September 11th, 2001. It can not be overstated how severely that stunted her situation here. I think EMI were smartly eying the CC model of massive opportunity in the States. But it was not to be. If only.

[milewalker]

In her career's infancy Hayley wowed not only a high percentage of CC fans, a substantial number of whom preferred her straightaway, she also had her share of admirers who, for whatever reasons, disliked Charlotte with a passion........

.....Becky would have gone down a storm in the USA had her debut not occurred on September 11th, 2001. It can not be overstated how severely that stunted her situation here. I think EMI were smartly eying the CC model of massive opportunity in the States. But it was not to be. If only.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the response. In large part I agree with you, though I might make the observation that whether one loved or hated Charlotte, she still provided a point of comparison - a way of allowing other young singers to be defined.

I am less sanguine about Becky however. (For the record, I consider her to be roughly in Hayley's league as a singer btw - in fact it wouldnt shock me if a group of mainstream listeners might actually prefer Becky). For reasons I still dont comprehend fully, she never took the UK by storm, which means that the CC model had already broken down before she got here. I also dont think the song selection on her first album was all that inspired. Having said this, her unfortunate timing certainly didnt help matters.

Some combination of these factors kept the ground from being fallow for Becky as it was for Hayley. She didnt succeed, but I still think she got her shot in large part because of Charlotte.

Charlotte's example was both essential and cautionary for Hayley and Decca.

I couldnt have said that better myself ....one big advantage of being the second one down the path is being able to avoid whatever pitfalls the first one encountered.

Jon

[fusilier23]

I agree with some of what was said here. However, there is a question in my mind as to whether CC would have gotten quite as large a success as she did initially had two other things not happened: first Aled Jones opening the way for the boy-choir sound to become popular, which he did before CC was even in preschool, second, Sarah Brightman and Andrea Bocelli opening the way for the revival of classical crossover with big PBS specials. Aled Jones sold just as well as CC in the UK, but he never caught on in the US outside the PBS crowd who saw "The Choir." Had he been given his own PBS concert special in the US, might things have gone a different way and CC have been seen as simply "a female Aled Jones?" We'll never know. Had he never hit his level of success, or had Andrea and Sarah's specials fizzled, who's to say the ground CC hit might not have been as fertile? We'll also never know that. But they are legitimate questions.

I have to concede that talent alone isn't enough, particularly in the music world where the winner takes all. It's as much about marketing as talent. However, neither Charlotte nor her parents are marketing geniuses. The main credit for her explosion onto the scene like a soprano supernova goes to Jonathan Shalit, for it was he who negotiated the initial five-album deal with Sony and most of the promotional appearances that put her on the map.

Seeing this success, it's reasonable that the other record industry companies might want to try to get their piece of this initially profitable pie. It's also reasonable to believe that the companies, Sony, included, saw it as nothing more than a commodity or fad to be exploited as long as it lasted, after all, they are businesses before they are anything else. In fact it is known that Sony did try to get Hayley as well, perhaps knowing that CC was getting close to passing her sell-by date, but she had already signed with Universal by the time they got to her.

EMI didn't seem to know what to do with Becky, perhaps they thought the sound and the presence of another cute young girl would sell themselves. I doubt it, though, they didn't get to where they are by simply throwing mud at the wall and hoping it stuck. Maybe 9/11 had something to do with Becky not taking off, with the West wounded and getting ready for war a young singer of innocent-sounding songs was the last thing anyone cared about. CC's foolish comments in the wake of 9/11 probably didn't help the situation, as it was easy to lump them both together or confuse them and dismiss them as twitty kids who didn't know what they were talking about.

I do think Charlotte's path did provide some valuable lessons to both Hayley and Universal as to what to do and what NOT to do if the goal is continued presence. I believe those lessons might have figured into certain decisions, notably:

1. Not to push Hayley into pieces she wasn't ready for vocally;

2. Not to rush her into huge concerts she might not have had the stamina for yet. Either 1 or 2 would have resulted in burning her voice out early.

3. To wait to put her in the US and UK markets until she was physically and emotionally mature, and not to rely on extreme youth and cutesy mannerisms to sell her, which have limited shelf life.

4. To allow her enough artistic freedom so she wouldn't feel resentful and rebel.

5. To allow her enough financial freedom so that there would not be battles over money.

To say Charlotte didn't influence the way Hayley's career went initially is to ignore the facts. However, it should not be lost on the reader that Hayley really only hit her stride in the UK in 2003, and only even entered the US market in 2004. By 2003 CC was famous more as a tabloid fixture than a musician in the UK, and by 2004 she was for all practical purposes forgotten in the US (she appeared once in the US in all of 2003-04). To say Hayley built directly on Charlotte's success is not totally true. In light of the whole picture, to say that but for Charlotte Hayley might not have succeeded is speculation that could be deemed unfair both to Hayley's talent and to her, her family, and her management team, all of whom worked very hard to get her where she is.

[milewalker]

Steven,

Lets put it this way - Aled Jones didnt hurt Charlotte's chances certainly, neither did the British tradition of boy soparano's in general. However, no girl had ever done what Charlotte did for at least 50 years. (You mentioned Durbin yourself above I believe.) I dont think Bocelli and Brightman are more than marginally relevant to this discussion. You might give Enya a bit of credit as well for Celtic angle as well.

While Hayley certainly "hit her stride" in the UK in 2003, this completely igores everything that went before to get her there. Hayley had to make the decision to start singing. Bartlett had to make the decision to promote her locally. Universal New Zealand had to make the decision to sign her to a contract. Decca had to make the decision to pick her up internationally. None of these decisions (with the exception of Hayley beginning to sing) were made in a vacuum. Charlotte was a palpable presence by the time those decisions were being made.

It should also not be lost on the reader that, as you note yourself, Hayley happened to hit the UK right at the time when the Charlotte tabloid frenzy hit full fury. There is more than talent, and promotion Steven. There is also being in the right place at the right time - with the right album title The ground in the UK couldnt have been better for Hayley. Not only did Charlotte plow the field, she abandoned the farm.

I am by no means trying to denigrate all of the hard work Hayley put into this for many reasons - chief among them that her voice is what it is now and that didnt happen by accident. Given the oppurtunity, Hayley has certainly made the most of it. But I also dont want to denigrate the contribution that Charlotte made to young singers of crossover music if for no other reason than she proved that it could be marketable.

Jon

[fusilier23]

Jon,

I have to disagree, I think Bocelli and Brightman, who threw open the door to classical crossover vocal music becoming popular again in 1997, are very relevant to this discussion. I think Brightman, who made the pure, sweet but brittle soprano tone popular in Phantom, is especially relevant. Without them CC's PBS special might never have happened, and without it she would never have gotten on the map in the US, where the vast majority of her albums were sold. Perhaps Enya does deserve a bit of credit for popularizing the sound that coupled Celtic and New Age as well, and we might give a nod to the Irish Tenors also for bringing Celtic music to big specials on PBS. I'm not sure Deanna Durbin is all that relevant to this discussion, I mentioned her only as someone who had enjoyed great success, but cut it short very early. I do not believe her to be a great or pioneering vocalist, in fact I think she was largely a Judy Garland tintype. Her continuing influence is nil, everyone has heard Judy's "Over The Rainbow" and "Trolley Song," but the fact that Deanna's films aren't shown on ACM or TMC speaks volumes about the quality of her work, I believe.

Charlotte certainly was a presence in the music world still when some of these early decisions were made, but that presence started to wane after 2000 when it was obvious her voice had had it, and her influence ended in 2002 when she started to implode personally. I think your timetable is slightly off. The majority of the really influential tab coverage of CC was in 2002, with all the hand-wringing over Steven Johnson, but that fire largely burned itself out shortly after the beginning of 2003, and wouldn't reignite till 2004 when CC hit 18 and started public misbehavior which we needn't revisit. By then Hayley was firmly established in the UK and had already moved on to the US.

Your statement that luck and opportunity count as much as talent and promotion has some merit, many's the success story that begins with a chance discovery (ie Natalie Portman simply spotted in a pizza parlor). However, I find the implication that Hayley somehow slid into Charlotte's spot, again, to be cheapening of Hayley's efforts. More troubling is the implication that Hayley was in the right place at the right time with the right album title, which could be reasonably interpreted to say that Pure was given that title to lasso CC's disappointed fans who were all too eager, maybe even desperate, to grab onto the wings of another "angel." Yes, some of us are converted CC fans, myself included, but there was no cynical effort to scoop us up.

[milewalker]

Hi Steven

We may have to agree to disagree on some points here, I think. As I said in my first post above, there are limits to the degree in which we can recast history. I have given the matter some study and thought and have reached certain provisional conclusions - that doesnt make them more than theories of course.

I did take the trouble to actually count (more or less) the number of stories -(this isnt as bizarre as it sounds because it is very much like what I do for a living, and didnt take that long. I like to deal with as many facts as I can) If the number of stories which hit my mailbox through several alerts counts for anything, 2003 was actually the peak year, followed closely by 2004, with 2002 coming in third. (She actually didnt get as much coverage until the GCSE in May).

I do think there is support for this from another angle though

It has often been noted that the UK sales of Odyssey declined dramatically from those of Pure - somehere around 80% I think (Hayley is hardly the only artist to increase and decrease promotion, and a much more typical figure would be from 35-50%)- and I simply never bought into the idea that all of this was due to lesser promotion. I think a number of factors inflated the sales of Pure - promotion was the biggest one certainly, but other things were happening there as well. My theory is that one of those factors was that she simply outgrew the innocense. It is Odyssey which represents her actual true level of sales - and is more commesurate with her apparant level of talent at this time.

I think that the rather impressive following Hayley now has is certainly a tribute to her developing talent - which I why I dont think that any of this diminishes her in the least. Using a football analogy, I think that Decca/Hayley is like a running back who found a hole in the defense and exploited it to the biggest degree they could. That has nothing at all to do with the actual talent of the running back.

Jon - with minor tech difficulties pertaining to this post

[fusilier23]

That's ok, we've been disagreeing a while, and sometimes it's better just to agree to disagree rather than fight and hurl insults at each other. The raw number of stories may or may not be indicative of something, however, if i remember the chronology aright, most of the real drama was during 2002 when there was all the nonsense about her smoking and going astray and in 2004 when she hooked up with Kyle Johnson and began what I can only call her most severe misbehavior, although I will not rehash the sordid details here. Most of 2003 was just pictures and repetitive stories of the same speculative stuff, with a spike when "I'll Be There" needed to be flogged, although that flogging didn't do it much good.

The slump between Pure and Odyssey could be attributed to a lot of things, sophomore slump, the fact that it was not really all that unique, and many other things. But only about a year and a quarter passed between the releases here: spring/summer of 2004 and fall of 05. Hayley was 17 when Pure hit, she was 18 when Odyssey hit, and her stage and off-stage personalities had not changed much if at all. She certainly hadn't been involved in anything scandalous. Not only that, but she was never totally "innocent" the way CC was portrayed in her younger days. Hayley was always just genuinely nice. I think trying to pin the change on a phantom loss of innocence is a bit of a stretch.

[milewalker]

I have never been particularly good at hurling insults Steven For the most part I simply dont take the world that seriously. I suppose that your point depends on ones own personal definition of what constitutes "drama". That is a bit too subjective for my taste, though to each his own. I perfer numbers because they are objective. We can argue about what they mean of course, but at least the number is what it is.

There is a huge difference between the age of 16 and 18. The best way to frame that difference within your universe might be to consider the way that age is codified into law. We have decided by consensus that an 18 year old has legal judgement that a 16 year old does not - though of course people are not one size fits all. Put another way, a 16 year old is still a child legally in most respects An 18 year old is an adult in most respects. Logically therefore, the transition from child to adult must therefore occur in most peoples eyes precisely in the age range you mentioned. It may not have as much to do with the actual capabilities of the young person involved as it does with mass perception.

It is an idealized view of course, but to a great degree most of us equate childhood with innocense. You are abosolutely correct that Hayley's presentation was much more subtle than Charlotte's was - perhaps because she was already old enough that it could only be taken so far. But I would ask you this. If a 16 year old girl were to release an album called "Impure" wouldnt the name reflect inevitably on the artist? Wouldnt you expect it to draw one type of fan and not another? Why then is it so hard to see the opposite?

Respectfully submitted
Jon

[fusilier23]

Indeed, we can leave the insult-hurling to some other folks who shall remain nameless. I know the leaders of this site wouldn't like it, and more importantly Hayley wouldn't. Numbers are objective, true, 10 is 10 until you add or subtract, but statistics, well, there's a reason Mark Twain (I think) said there were lies, d--n lies, and statistics.

You are correct, largely, that we in the US have drawn the line by democratic consensus , legally between childhood and adulthood at 18, save for the ability to legally purchase and consume alcohol, so a lot of us shrug our shoulders at 18-year-old "hanky-panky," and don't assume anyone of that age to be "innocent." Where that comparison breaks down, though, is that the Europeans have, again by democratic consensus, drawn the line for ahem, relations purposes at 16. So there's no way Hayley, who was 16 and 17 at the time Pure was released in Europe, would be thought of as "innocent" under your theory. Yet the Europeans bought her album in droves.

Some of us do equate childhood with innocence, although you are right, it is largely an ideal, especially now with the internet and easy access to anything. But it is an ideal a lot of adults cling to, forgetting as we hit adulthood some of what we did as kids and how wrong it was.

The short answer to your last question is yes, it does reflect, and presumably it's designed to do so. However, it's been my experience that good and conventional are easy to forget, therefore a title like Pure is easy to brush past, and bad or transgressive tends to be remembered very easily. If a 16-year-old girl was to propose an album titled "Impure," presumably with commensurate content, I submit to you it would not be released in the US, especially not in the current climate. As I posted earlier in this thread, the US viewing and listening public appear to be at the point where they are not going to tolerate that kind of attitude or behavior any longer. I gave some examples, but the latest example is that you don't hear anyone speaking out for Jamie Spears, pregnant at 16 by a partner not much more than 18 who missed the cutoff under which he would have been charged with a crime by a few weeks. No one is saying it's their business so leave them alone. No one is saying those who are speaking out are unenlightened or Bible-thumpers or any of those canards. No one is saying that in Europe this wouldn't be a big deal so we shouldn't worry either. The record companies' radar is up, they know if they released a record like that it would hurt their bottom line, possibly significantly .

[Richard]

Hello everybody.

Could I remind you all that this thread is on the Other Music board, and should be used only for discussion about Charlotte Church's musical career. Please discuss Hayley and her career in the appropriate threads and remember, most people are tired of the constant comparisons between the two, including Hayley who reads this forum.

Many thanks,

Richard

[milewalker]

With all due respect Richard, I am confused.

1. Steven and I are debating the legacy of Charlotte Church's musical career- how exactly is this not relevant on a Charlotte Church thread?

2. There is a relationship between Charlotte and Hayley - in fact there are a number of them. My original point was wondering if this website would even exist if Charlotte wasnt there first. (There would have been no Simon, and no Keith). I dont think even Steven would deny that the relationship exists on some level - we are merely debating degrees. This is reality. If people are "tired" of it, and for that matter even if Hayley dislikes it, that is their problem - not mine.

3. If you really wish to make a separation between a singer's music and a singer's life, I will be happy to point this out in posts every time it happens regardling Hayley

Respectifully submitted

Jon

[roger]

milewalker said:

If people are "tired" of it, and for that matter even if Hayley dislikes it, that is their problem - not mine.

If that is how you feel, Jon, I can only colnclude that you have no respect whatsoever for Hayley's feelings.

Roger

[milewalker]

I have the utmost respect for Hayley's feelings Roger. However, I have even more respect for the truth - or seeking the truth in any case.

Obviously, truth itself is an ideal - and I certainly have no monopoly on it. Having said this, I do feel that discussions like this are useful to that end

Jon