|
Post by roger on Apr 11, 2007 22:37:15 GMT
There are many press reviews on this forum. Those which are favourable, we tend to support. Those which are not, we are inclined to dismiss with the application of a quantity of salt. This poll does not relate to Hayley's CDs as I imagine we don't need third party opinions to know we want to buy them! So...
If you were undecided as to whether or not to buy a CD (regardless of the artist), might you be influenced one way or the other by a review that appeared in the press?
Roger
|
|
|
Post by toronado on Apr 12, 2007 2:06:14 GMT
I can't tell you the last time I read a press review for anything other than mere curiosity. There are just so many ways to sample the music for yourself these days before you decide if you want to buy an album. Most websites have samples, many artists have a decent amount of material on YouTube, you can sample a lot of songs on iTunes. I think I've regretted more purchases by relying on press reviews than I have by simply deciding by whatever samples I can find.
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 12, 2007 4:08:34 GMT
I voted yes.
Obviously it depends on the review. There are times when I have actually bought something on the basis of a bad review. It doesnt only apply to CD's of course. There is a particular movie critic in my home town and I know from about 20 years of experience that if he doesnt like something there is a very good chance that I will
Jon
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Apr 12, 2007 8:09:01 GMT
Excellent question, Roger. I voted "yes" because although I certainly know that most of the reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt, I read them with interest and if they are for instance all negative, I will probably bear the thought in mind and be reluctant to buy the reviewed product. But when I do decide to buy it, I will have my own opinion on it and not be influenced by the taste of someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 12, 2007 8:12:30 GMT
Hello Roger and everybody! I've never been influenced by press reviews. My opinions often differ from other people's, so I always make up my own mind. Having said that, I take great interest in reviews by other fans, because I'm more likely to be in agreement. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifBest Wishes, Richard
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 12, 2007 13:19:35 GMT
Hi everyone. First, I want to make it very clear that I am fully supportive of Roger's initiative on this issue. It addresses a thorny subjective openly and frankly which is why I haven't taken part! At the very simplistic level I am the one person pollsters hate to meet--I give them MY answers to the questions posed which rarely fit into one of their preconceived little tick boxes and so I bemuse them totally. Are you influenced by press reviews? My answer is, 'I bear them in mind.' Now, is that a 'Yes' or a 'No'? The answer is 'it depends'. In this case we may assume, by implication, we are reviewing press reports on Hayley. In our different ways we would all consider ourselves 'experts' on Hayley and her singing. We are therefore influenced entirely upon our direct experience of Hayley. Let us take the principle that lies behind the question. If I have limited knowledge of the subject then I will seek those reviews that might be considered authoritative on reviewing that subject and look to the background of the writer, his particular credentials and therefore the angle with which he is likely to review that subject. I look to the authority of the publication in that field and the type of readership it is intending to attract. Therefore, arguably, to which pre-conceived slant they will be acquiring their journalists. The reputation of the journal determining the degree to which their writers are likely to be objective or submissively subjective [to editorial requirements] in their opinions. Clearly, in the world of music, we have amongst our gathering some considerable 'authorities' in their own right, one of whom in my view would be undoubtedly Dave. I hope he may feel my wittering here worthy of comment, hopefully to expand the debate, but possibly simply of condemnation from his ivory tower of greater knowledge than I possess. So be it. You can't stick your head above the parapet without expecting someone to throw an egg at you! So, without putting words in Roger's mouth or presuming to interpret the intention behind his questionnaire, I would like this thread to entertain a wide-ranging debate on the nature and principle of criticism, with particular reference of course to Hayley and possibly--and this is Roger's thread, so its for him to say--other artists with whom we have expressed support. I would like to expand on a very constructive platform. Being Hayleywowed, as I have commented elsewhere, is not necessarily helping Hayley. People expect us to be supportive and polish out any blemishes. Meeting head on any negative (or overly gushing) criticism, rationalising it, explaining the authority of the writer and the type of journal and audience for which the journalist is writing, helps to neutralise negativity, raise doubts as to its appropriateness and raise our value as an authority worth referring to, as being objectively Hayleywowed, so rendering her a far more effective promotional service. In a recent post, Milewalker, made the comment that controversy, if properly handled, was not a bad thing. Enough. My apologies if I have allowed myself to wax overly long. I'm late for lunch and should not have made a main meal out of my hors d'oeuvre ! Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 12, 2007 14:16:04 GMT
An interesting point Toronado which I did not take into account earlier. Is anyone of worth interested in other people's views on anything when it is so easy on the internet to obtain direct information and hear for oneself?
Converesely, since newspapers are still read--or they simply would not exist even with advertising support (as freebies)--do reviews not influence people to start the journey? Either because the review is so appalling they think, could it be that awful really and conversely if too gushing?
Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by grant on Apr 12, 2007 14:27:07 GMT
In answer to Roger's initial question, I am most certainly not influenced by reviews. If I am considering purchasing a CD I would more than likely be doing so on the basis of hearing some/all the tracks on it. In most cases, reviews are only one persons opinion and we have read some of the tripe written recently about "Treasure" - if that's the standard across the industry - heaven help anyone who does trust a review! Grant
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by Dave on Apr 12, 2007 15:21:46 GMT
...Dave. I hope he may feel my wittering here worthy of comment, hopefully to expand the debate, but possibly simply of condemnation from his ivory tower of greater knowledge than I possess. Ivory tower? I jolly well hope not! Dave
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 12, 2007 20:52:07 GMT
Converesely, since newspapers are still read--or they simply would not exist even with advertising support (as freebies)--do reviews not influence people to start the journey? Either because the review is so appalling they think, could it be that awful really and conversely if too gushing? I have always felt that even a horrible review is better than no review at all - particularly if the artist or the music isnt well known. The reason for this is that it does provide exposure - and even if only 1 person out of 100 goes on to buy the release that is better than nothing. It isnt very likely that anyone would go on line to look for information about an artist they never heard of, or download samples from an album they didnt even know existed. Having said this of course, a review which is perceived as both balanced and favorable is much better. I am not surprised that many fans simply tend to discount them - the nuance being missed is that the review really isnt written for them. (Well, very rarely anyway). There is little point in telling a devout Hayley fan how good or bad the reviewer thinks she is. There is a major purpose served however, in telling that to the rest of the world. Jon
|
|
|
Post by roger on Apr 12, 2007 21:01:15 GMT
So, without putting words in Roger's mouth or presuming to interpret the intention behind his questionnaire, I would like this thread to entertain a wide-ranging debate on the nature and principle of criticism, with particular reference of course to Hayley and possibly--and this is Roger's thread, so its for him to say--other artists with whom we have expressed support. Peter S. By all means, carry on and develop the thread in any way you see fit. It doesn't necessarily have to be with particular reference to Hayley as we are in the Other Music board. Roger
|
|
|
Post by gerrit on Apr 12, 2007 21:47:50 GMT
I have voted No. I am not swayed by press reviews about an artist. I am not even swayed by exuberant fan reviews. I am more swayed by the possibility of other versions of albums appearing later on, and by the nature of those versions.
I haven't bought Hayley's last album yet, and won't do so for quite a while. I think I will buy one version eventually (the version whose track list appeals to me most). I haven't bought Andrea Ross's album, but will buy one eventually. There are other albums which I won't buy because I don't like marketing ploys behind an eventual second version. I will buy the next albums released by Katherine Jenkins, Yulia Townsend, Holly Holyoake, Zoe Mace and Saara Aalto, but not necessarily immmediately on release. In those case though where the album is released by an as yet unsigned artist, I'll buy, simply because I am interested in the person releasing the album.
Gerrit
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by Dave on Apr 13, 2007 17:27:14 GMT
I voted no. I only buy albums after hearing - at the very least - samples of every track. Reviews are useless from my point of view except as a pointer to listen to the albums samples... and it makes no difference whether the reviews rate an album 1 or 10 out of 10, I still listen to the samples (at the very least). So from my point of view, all reviews are good reviews 'coz they prompt me to listen to an album that I may not otherwise have considered. But I discovered Hayley not from a review or even the charts (!) but by reading a comment in an Eva Cassidy forum, which I decided to follow up. The rest is history! Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 13, 2007 20:12:05 GMT
II haven't bought Hayley's last album yet, and won't do so for quite a while. I think I will buy one version eventually (the version whose track list appeals to me most). I haven't bought Andrea Ross's album, but will buy one eventually. There are other albums which I won't buy because I don't like marketing ploys behind an eventual second version. I will buy the next albums released by Katherine Jenkins, Yulia Townsend, Holly Holyoake, Zoe Mace and Saara Aalto, but not necessarily immmediately on release. Hi Gerrit, I hear where you are coming from. What concerns me however is that a fair part of the buzz surrounding a release by an artist with decent sales levels is the chart placement itself. When an artist like Hayley hits the UK pop top 10 for example, that is newsworthy in and of itself - and therefore tends to stimulate more sales. In the case of Hayley and the US I know of a couple of people who bought Pure on the basis of its UK chart placements alone. What I wonder is who gets hurt more by the people who choose as you have done - the artist or the record company Jon
|
|
|
Post by gerrit on Apr 13, 2007 23:26:00 GMT
Hi Jon,
The person who gets hurt least by this strategy is me personally, strictly from a financial point of view. I don't think either the record company or the artist is hurt substantially by my purchase strategy as I doubt many people adopt it anyway.
The people who are hurt most by the sale strategies of the record companies are those of limited means who are genuine fans with limited means, who buy an album in good faith, only to find out 3 months later they could have had much better value for money if they had waited - because there was a re-release with either bonus tracks, or even a bonus DVD that was available at virtually the same price as the original product.
I have personal contacts with a teenage girl, who bought two albums of one and the same artist too early. She is a genuine fan, and her parents allowed her a budget to buy a limited number of CDs of artists she liked. Had she waited about 5 months on both occasions, she could have had the same two albums, but each with a bonus album, AT THE SAME PRICE.
It is a matter of personal protest against both the record companies AND the artists who allow this to happen, that ordinary fans are disadvantaged and ripped off by these strategies.
Let me analyse a few artists.
Hayley Westenra: Pure: about 7 or 8 different versions exist, with multiple releases of different versions in the same country. I can accept slightly different versions for different markets, but I baulk at re-releases with different tracks (or even a bonus mini CD or DVD) aimed at the same market. Odyssey: Here too the British market has seen the release of two different versions, and I believe a number of different versions exist yet again for other markets. I have only purchased one version of Odyssey. Moreover, I have mentioned it before, the total number of different tracks on ALL versions of Pure and on ALL versions of Odyssey could easily have been turned into THREE completely different albums. And that would have been far better service to the fans. Treasure: There is already this distinction between Treasure and Celtic Treasure - so how many different versions of Treasure are we going to get? I think I will buy a version of either eventually - but I may well be at the time Hayley's next album is announced.
I have three different versions of Pure (which, as far as I can ascertain give me a complete coverage of all the songs that appeared on any version of Pure). But I shall never bother to purchase anything more than one version of Odyssey, and one version of Treasure. And I shall certainly wait a long time before purchasing any version of Treasure anyway.
I believe a compilation album titled "Hayley Westenra" (which included tracks from the albums Pure and Odyssey) was released in numerous countries, including Australia and Holland) somewhere in 2006. I consider that to be a premature "Greatest Hits" album.
Yulia Townsend: Into The West: Two main versions exist, the second version being identical to the first, but including a bonus mini-CD with three Christmas songs, released about half a year later. Montage: Two main versions exist, the second version being identical to the first, but including a bonus mini-DVD.
On both occasions, I decided to wait making any purchase. In the case of "Into The West" I was in the fortunate circumstances of not having to buy the album, as I received the second version as a free gift from the record company. However, on both occasions, an album was re-released in identical form at the same price, with a significant bonus. Definitely not something that I like.
Katherine Jenkins: Premiere: as far as I know, no other version of Premiere was released. Second Nature: a different version was released under the title La Diva, for different markets (US and Australia). It contains one duet with a different partner than on Second Nature. Living A Dream: Apart from the standard version, a special version including two bonus tracks was released. The peculiar thing is, the two versions were released simultaneously, so people were given a clear choice. Serenade: As far as I know, no other version of this album has been released.
Comparing these three artists, Katherine Jenkins' release policy appeals to me substantially more, strictly from the fans point of view, compared with the two others. And Hayley's release policy doesn't appeal to me AT ALL.
Honestly, why should I care about who gets hurt more by my purchase policy, the record company or the artist? Both the record company AND the artist deserve to get hurt because of the way they ripp off ordinary fans.
Artists should be much more considerate of the way their record company policies hurt ordinary fans. And if I ever get to meet Hayley again, I shall not hesitate trying to put that point across to her.
Of the three artists I discussed here, the release policy of Hayley's record company has been the worst by a mile. And if Hayley agrees to that release policy, she is equally responsible for it.
Gerrit
|
|