Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by Dave on Apr 14, 2007 0:38:19 GMT
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 Hi Gerrit, While I can understand your concerns about this I do not agree with some of your conclusions, especially your final sentence that I quoted above. One thing to remember is that release policies affect only a small minority of the fanbase - the vast majority of CD buyers will only buy one version, either for themselves or as a present for someone else. If they don't buy the initial release, they may be attracted to a re-release but in most cases they will not buy both. And in the case of a fanbase, by definition it (we!) will already be aware of the record company's release policy for the artist so they have a clear choice at the outset as to whether they will buy one or more versions. I think every 'member' of Hayley's UK and NZ fanbases will expect a Special Edition of Treasure to be released in those Countries in time for the Christmas market... and none of us has to buy both. If we must have the extra tracks, we can buy the tracks as downloads... that is at least an option these days. Then there's the question of how record companies make the bulk of their money from an album. Well it isn't from the hard core fanbase, the people who will buy every version of an album. It is from the general record buying public, almost all of whom are likely to buy only one copy. The idea of the re-releases is primarily to try and catch a whole new set of CD buyers from the general public with the new version - as many as possible of the people who like the artist or genre, but who did not buy the original version. That certainly worked for Decca with Odyssey, as the Special Edition has sold nearly as many copies as the original edition. Yes, some of the fanbase may buy both versions but that isn't the main idea of the re-release as there simply aren't enough of us. With the overseas variants, an even smaller minority will be affected because the vast majority of people who buy the album won't have any idea of what's available overseas, even less will they consider buying a copy. Only the hardcore fanbase does that... and as I said, record companies cannot rely on fanbases alone to make their (and the artist's) money. Decca/Universal seem to have adopted a policy with Hayley of letting the local Universal distributor in each major Country determine the final tracklisting, artwork and subsequent re-release policy - in order to maximise (they hope) the Worldwide sales. Personally I have my doubts about this policy but it's their money and their business so they ought to know what they are doing. However, I think Hayley is unlikely to have much say in all this. Why? Because the record company almost certainly still have a large chunk of their original investment to recoup so they will call the shots. This may seem unfair as it's Decca who made the original decisions and overspent (IMHO) - but that's the music business for you. Comparing the situation with other singers such as Katherine doesn't help much because a) Katherine is above all else a UK recording artist and doesn't have the same level of International sales as Hayley - nor does she seem to need it. And b) UCJ may well have already recouped their initial investment on Katherine, in which case she is in a much stronger position than Hayley to influence their release policies. Hayley's situation is perhaps a bit unusual - but fortunately, she looks like having a long career ahead of her (if she wants it) and one day, she will be in a much stronger position to stand up against the record company's release policies if she wishes to - and one day, I suspect, she will do. To expect her to be able to call the shots now is, perhaps, a little naive. In any case, her Manager is the proper person to put such a point to, is he not? Well that's my take on it anyway. Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by gerrit on Apr 14, 2007 1:39:34 GMT
Hi Dave,
My re-take on this is my contact with the one teenager I mentioned. She is an ordinary fan, who has been duped by the miserable, money-grabbing release policy of record companies releasing material of her favourite singers.
And I for one shall not cease to bring this point across.
I am all for the future possibility of buying individual tracks via Internet. I am worried though that record companies may attempt to rip off the current population of 55-years upwards by releasing multiple versions of the same album, just because that age population may not quite be as up-to-date with technological developments.
A VERY cynical Gerrit
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,689
|
Post by Dave on Apr 14, 2007 1:48:48 GMT
Hi Gerrit,
I wasn't saying that I agree with what you see as the 'sharp' business practices adopted by Decca, I was just trying to explain why, as I see it, they have done this. But I can see why it annoys you and indeed, I think we are all somewhat irritated by it.
But I did defend Hayley and I will continue to do so as I am quite certain that this is none of her doing and that she has very limited influence on the release policies adopted by Decca/Universal for her albums.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Apr 14, 2007 2:02:44 GMT
I voted YES. If not for press reviews I would never have heard of so many great artists.
I love reading music reviews by the New York Post's Dan Aquilante -- the only trustworthy critic I can name. He's always enthusiastic, open-minded and upbeat, and doesn't subscribe to the conventional wisdom that a critic's job is to find fault.
On the other hand, USA Today's Elysa Gardner is an abomination! One can predict almost exactly how she'll review any given artist on the basis of her snobbish taste. I knew she would pan Hayley's "Pure" a week before her review ran. Sadly, she wields a lot of influence in the States and a glowing snippet from her helps move a lot of CDs.
|
|
|
Post by gerrit on Apr 14, 2007 2:11:41 GMT
Hi Dave,
I am not talking about only Decca's 'sharp' business practices. I am talking about record company 'sharp' business practices in general. And I for one will attempt to highlight them from now on.
The fact remains though that in my view Decca/UCJ's business practices related to Hayley have been rather sharper than many other company's practices (certainly sharper than those related to Yulia or Katherine). I also feel that Sony/BMG's business practices related to Yulia have been rather sharper than Decca/UCJ's practices related to Katherine.
It is just that I will speak disparagingly about these sharp business practices from now on - no matter which artist.
If that assists in reducing the returns on such sharp practices to the record company (no matter which artist), then I have achieved my objective.
What I want is that record companies stop ripping off ordinary customers/fans with limited means. To me, those ordinary customers/fans are more important than the artist, and way more important than the record companies.
Gerrit
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 14, 2007 12:09:34 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 Of course, how thoughtless of me! This is a down-to-earth guy with roots firmly planted amongst the ivy that grows up the tower! Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 14, 2007 12:48:13 GMT
... 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 I think you make a very good point there, Jon. Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 14, 2007 14:12:49 GMT
I voted no. ...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 Well that is probably a unique intro to Hayley. Most people, I seem to recall, suddenly hear THE VOICE and latch on to its owner. Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 14, 2007 14:41:21 GMT
Thank you Dave for your reply No.15 on this. I found your background information very interesting. Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by roger on Apr 14, 2007 17:28:23 GMT
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. Gerrit Hi Gerrit, I am sure we are all aware of the extent of your feelings about this issue with which I basically agree, but your proposed course of action is not one which I would recommend. By all means, speak to the record companies and, if the opportunity arises, to the artists' manager but not to the artists themselves. It is not their job to become involved in marketing policy and they should certainly not have to defend it during the time that they are giving freely to meet and greet their fans. Roger
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 16, 2007 8:18:44 GMT
I am not convinced that Hayley even has complete control over what she is singing - much less over things like what songs appear on which albums in what country. Getting a song like "Summer Fly" on a crossover CD may be just about the extent of what she can do - and she may have to choose her battles very carefully to accomplish that.
Jon
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 16, 2007 8:22:47 GMT
[quote author=stevemacdonald board=Othermusic thread=1176331035 post=1176516164fault.
On the other hand, USA Today's Elysa Gardner is an abomination! One can predict almost exactly how she'll review any given artist on the basis of her snobbish taste. I knew she would pan Hayley's "Pure" a week before her review ran. Sadly, she wields a lot of influence in the States and a glowing snippet from her helps move a lot of CDs.
[/quote]
This raises another "critical issue" I think. For whatever reason, Hayley has been spared the wrath of the cultural cogniscenti here for the most part - who presumably dont feel threatened by her yet. If she ever goes on tour in concert halls in America - well lets just say that we are likely to read some very surprising things.
Jon - contributing to topic drift since 1999
|
|
|
Post by gerrit on Apr 16, 2007 18:50:22 GMT
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. Gerrit Hi Gerrit, I am sure we are all aware of the extent of your feelings about this issue with which I basically agree, but your proposed course of action is not one which I would recommend. By all means, speak to the record companies and, if the opportunity arises, to the artists' manager but not to the artists themselves. It is not their job to become involved in marketing policy and they should certainly not have to defend it during the time that they are giving freely to meet and greet their fans. Roger Hi Roger, I take your point. I have also had some private feedback endorsing my comments in general - but pointing out that individual artists are not likely to have much influence on the marketing policies of their record company. Thanks for your feedback - I'll tread a bit more carefully when meeting artists than I suggested in previous posts . Gerrit
|
|