|
|
Post by milewalker on Dec 21, 2007 3:46:30 GMT
Of course it was Belinda - though that obviously doesnt explain why I like her previous album better does it?
For the record, with the exception of flipping these two, I personally like every subsequent album more than I did the one before it. This is simply because she is maturing as a singer - not only her voice btw, but she also has interpretive skills now that no young teen has.
As every child phenom finds, the bar raises as you get older. To her credit, Hayley has not only overcome that, but has actually raised the bar. Were I to say anything less, I think I would be demeaning her current work.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Dec 22, 2007 1:57:04 GMT
Yes, exactly. Personally I prefer Hayley's later recordings. Her voice is still maturing and in my opinion, getting better all the time. She blew me away at 16, the first time I heard her (which was live), and since then both her voice and the recordings have improved,
I think it is time we had something for Christmas that is newer than MGTY.
I find myself listening to Aled Jones' Christmas album of a couple of years ago which features a wonderful duet with Hayley on Silent Night. But even there, her voice sounds noticeably less mature than it is now.
I don't accept that Christmas albums don't sell in the UK either. The reason for that is usually the dire quality that we have come to expect. A good Christmas album might well be a slow burner, but it will sell. How many copies do you think have been sold over the years of the Phil Spector Christmas Album, recorded in the early 1960s, or of Bing Crosby's "White Christmas", which for many years was the best selling single of all time!
Good music sells, for sure. But yes, it needs publicity which can help enormously., But good music has sometimes sold despite the lack of publicity. Perhaps in the UK the Sex Pistols are an example, selling well despite being banned by mainstream radio stations (not that I regard them as "good music", but they caught the public's imagination at the time). Ditto Frankie Goes to Hollywood, and even Pink Floyd's first single was banned by the BBC, but still made the top ten.
Christmas, in its true meaning,is a uniquely spiritual time, and Hayley is a uniquely spiritual singer. She stirs the soul, not the loins. ISTM that those Christmas songs were made for Hayley to sing. Plus a few new ones, if necessary I'm sure Hayley could compose a few herself. I'm sure she would do them brilliantly. After all, how many songs can you name that Hayley sings that have ever been performed better by anyone else? That figure, in my book, is very close to zero. Even songs like "Wuthering Heights" and "Both Sides Now", that you think belong to someone else for all time, when you listen to them, you find Hayley is better technically at least.
And yes, Hayley has a problem in the UK with radio stations too. Classic FM will only play her music so long as it remains "classical". Katherine's latest album is not played, it is too poppy. Neither, I'm sure would Prayer be played if released in the UK. Radio 2 is not interested in Hayley in their prime time slots, I know, I've tried. Celtic Woman fell on stony ground here for much the same reasons.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Dec 22, 2007 3:40:16 GMT
The only quibble I have with what in my opinion is an excellent post Martin, is the line about stirring the soul.....This may very well be true on a site like this one - I doubt very much if it is entirely representative of all of the people who may potentially buy an album from her. If you look into the commentary on You Tube for example, you will find that she does attract her share of physical admirers. I am not familiar enough with the markets in the UK to venture a firm opinion on why Christmas albums dont sell as well there as they do in the US - but I suspect it may have something to do with a rather fundamental difference in the two countries. My understanding is that the UK is a somewhat more secular society in general than is the US - at least there are surveys which suggest so. It depends on how the question is framed of course, but the average American is about twice as likely as the average Brit to attend a church at least once a month. I had better quickly add that I dont consider this either a flaw or particualrly praiseworthy - but if true, it does stand to reason that religious or Christian themed material will do a little better over here in general. Jon PS - If you could define "good music" in a purely objective way, I might be able to give you my opinion as to whether or not it would sell  After all a case could be made that in the markets it is exactly the reverse - if the majority (or the greater plurality) rules, then isnt the best music also what is selling more? |
|
|
|
Post by graemek on Dec 22, 2007 10:53:33 GMT
Hi All One small oft forgotten point I'd like to add : Christmas was started by Jesus the Messiah being born. A lot of people of the time were thrilled at that but not the Jewish "establishment" including king Herod who almost immediately set out to kill the baby. As Jesus life progressed his popularity increased with the ordinary guys but he became a nuisance to the State Rulers from Rome & the Jewish religious leaders & political leaders. When the popularity poll was arranged between Barabbas & Jesus, the people (or at least the vote) chose Barabbas. Jesus was then hurriedly crucified.....he rose though! So we have Hayley, not only choosing to risk unpopularity (=lack of sales) by singing some very obviously Christian Songs but also risking loss of sales by leaning towards the classical area which, I understand (from Dave I think) only commands 5% anyhow. Conclusion: 1.Popular does not equal good. 2.The majority is almost always wrong. Only by bearing these things in mind can we develop a realistic view of Hayley's situation.....To me it leaves her in an even more remarkable light that she's come as far as she has....she's quite a girl. Graeme  |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Dec 22, 2007 21:26:00 GMT
Hi Milewalker,
Yes, you are right, the "fashionable" view in the UK is not Christian, it is atheist. We get a relentless tide of anti-Christian propaganda in the media, and it takes its toll.
But in the end, people are spiritual beings whether they acknowledge it or not. They can be moved by music and beauty. The enjoyment of music has no purpose in the Darwinian so-called scientific scheme of things. It is a window into a word that atheists prefer to pretend doesn't exist. I think Hayley has a mission here. I intend no lack of respect to any atheists reading this, but have you ever wondered WHY you enjoy Hayley's music, or any other beautiful art. It surely does nothing to enhance your chances of survival!
It is amazing how many of Hayley's fans are Christian. I wonder whether it is the enhanced spiritual awareness that comes from a faith in Christ that makes us more sensitive to her music.
Greame - I think one reason why Hayley chooses to sing so many "classical" songs is that these show off her wonderful voice most effectively. A lot of pop songs are relatively undemanding, not requiring much vocal range or control (although a powerful voice is often an asset). They often seem to be devised to cover up vocal defects that Hayley simply does not have.
If she sang those songs, her talent would become largely irrelevant and she would be thrown to the world of fashion and media hype, rather than vocal quality.
Last week in the UK, on a TV talent contest the two finalists sang duets with other better known singers, Katherine Jenkins and Kylie Minogue. I have my opinions on which of those is the better singer, yet their record sales would indicate the reverse. And on Katherine's website, there was even a post that suggested that the votes were based on the popularity of the supporting professional, rather than the quality of the singing.
There is no guarantee that Hayley would succeed in the "pop" market, after all she doesn't take drugs or drink herself stupid, thank the Lord. It seems that something like that might be required in that market, you only have to look at poor Amy Winehouse!
Talking of powerful voices, Celine Dion is singing on the TV as I type this.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Dec 23, 2007 0:15:47 GMT
Heh - I dont think I was clear about that final point. This isnt the thread for it of course, but I was merely wondering what "good music" was. I have the distinct impression for example, that what we now speak of as classical music is nothing more (but also nothing less) than the best of the popular music of its time. I can say that it is the "best" in a sense because the fact that it is still played today means that it passed the test of time. Take a look at current "pop" music in 50 years - you will certainly find some of it still being played Good singing is more than just being able to hit a wider range of notes accurately. It is also the ability to form an emotional connection with people through the use of vocalised music. It is the latter reason that I personally wonder if the most popular music isnt also the best. Isnt the person who can achieve that with the larger audience better on that basis? Let me put it this way - a whole lot of very responsible and balanced people prefer the voice of Avril Lavigne to Hayley Westenra. My wife happens to be one of them - she doesnt dislike Hayley. I can say with confidence that I prefer Hayley over the voice of almost anyone currently on the world stage - I would be very reluctant to conclude on that basis alone that Hayley was the better of the two singers. Graemek - if the majority is almost always wrong, exactly how do democratic countries survive? Arent things like the rule of law the product of popular movements? You would be hard put to find a singer in the US more popular than Josh Groban is right now - in fact I think he is one of the top 5 singers here in terms of sales since 2001. He has done this without a lot of the traditional backing that pop singers get - there are no associated scandals. He gets some radio play on adult contempory stations, but if he has been mentioned on Entertainment Tonight this year I missed it.....He has been able to establish that connection with the audience I mentioned above - and it transcends the type of music he sings. Jon - with apologies to the moderators for the topic drift I was trying to point out one very specific reason why Christmas music fared better in the US - and by extention why Hayley might do well with such a release here under the right circumstances. I certainly wasnt trying to start a cultural or religious discussion in this thread! |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Dec 26, 2007 22:35:54 GMT
Of course, what I hadn't realised is that Hayley DID have a presence this Christmas - if you are in Ireland that is. It would have been nice to have something like the Dublin Christmas concert broadcast on the BBC, as well as on RTE.
Yes I agree there is much more to good music than technical ability. In fact it might make an interesting discussion (in a new thread) to analyse what it is that gives music (and Hayley in particular) its appeal. I will confine myself to one off-topic comment - I usually am put off by a poor technical standard of singing, ie singing flat or otherwise out of tune irrespective of the other merits of the music or the performers. I find myself listening and picking faults, rather than enjoying the music.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Dec 29, 2007 9:22:42 GMT
Hi all, This is not strictly Christmas publicity but the Anchorage Daily News listed a top 10 of 'different' Christmas songs and Hayley's 'Mary Did you Know' is #6. [/color] 7. It Came Upon a Midnight Clear -- Sixpence None the Richer 8. God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen -- Jethro Tull 9. Last Night I Went Out With Santa Claus -- Big Bad Voodoo Daddy 10. O Come O Come Emmanuel -- Sufjan Stevens [/size][/quote] Stephany |
|
After all a case could be made that in the markets it is exactly the reverse - if the majority (or the greater plurality) rules, then isnt the best music also what is selling more?
