|
|
Post by martindn on Jan 11, 2009 22:09:16 GMT
Well, Larry, that opens up the whole issue of how much talent it takes to sing a particular song. I could argue that for an exceptional singer like Hayley, very few songs exist that can fully show off her ability. That is because most songs are written with "average" singers in mind. Hayley I'm sure can perform those songs well, but so perhaps can lots of other singers.In terms of technical ability, power, range and control, there are very few singers on the planet that come close to Hayley.
So how can she make her point when most of the songs available fail to demand anything like the ability she has. If you listen to the whole range of songs that Hayley can perform, her versatility and the quality of the voice that is needed to support it become obvious to any critical listener. But how many listeners are that critical? How many even have the first clue what good technical singing is about. And how many more put other attributes above singing ability, like physical appearance or acting ability.
Even Andrew Lloyd Webber, someone who undoubtedly knows a lot about music, has been known to vote off the best technical singer in the TV talent contests he judges in favour of someone with more "charisma".
So maybe that's where I go wrong. I am a very sound oriented person, and I think that i am more than most people impressed with what sounds nice rather than what looks nice (not that Hayley doesn't look nice too). In ALW's current show, the front runner seems to be a girl with lots of sex appeal, lots of personality, but who's pitch control and vocal range are suspect. This is a singing contest, to pick the performer for the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. But, then in that competition, the quality of the performance probably has nothing to do with the result anyway, as most countries vote for political reasons before anything else.
Even if we had Hayley singing a song written for her by ALW, we would probably still end up coming last or nearly last.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Jan 12, 2009 5:30:38 GMT
I would therefore like to see an objective way you can claim that Shouda Said No is a lesser song than Let Me Lie. If causing people to feel things is one of the purposes of writing music, isnt the song which affect more people the better song on that basis? How can you compare Let Me Lie like that when most people have never heard it? People probably would like that and Summer Rain very much, if they actually had the opportunity to hear them. Taylor's song you mentioned is catchy, but it doesn't make me feel much at all. "Teardrops on My Guitar" is kind of sad, so it does create more feelings. I do kind of like that one. Let Me Lie makes me feel more emotion. Not necessarily because I'm relating to it. I feel the emotion from her voice, and the beauty of her voice and the melody, which makes me feel emotion, too. |
|
|
|
Post by socalboy on Jan 12, 2009 22:58:01 GMT
Hi all:
Because this is a Hayley Westenra forum I want to be careful not to be drawn too far into a Taylor Swift discussion, particularly since I brought her up in the first place for comparison purposes. But I think these various responses to Taylor are relevant to Hayley’s future.
Jon has made many of the points that I would have. Whatever we think of Taylor’s voice (and I have made it clear on two occasions that she can’t possibly sing with Hayley) she is riding high right now in an extremely difficult market for music in general. As to her lyrical skills, I might have selected “White Horse” or the song Libby mentioned, “Teardrops on My Guitar” rather than “Should’ve said no,” but the point is made and this is a very clever gal indeed. We should not confuse the age of her listeners with the skill required. A children’s author writes for an unsophisticated audience but we don’t belittle the difficulty of the task. What Taylor does is remarkable, and she’s done most of it before her 19th birthday. She unfailingly connects with her young audience, writing her own lyrics and music and performing in a way that makes it personal. To paraphrase the old cliché, if it were easy everyone would be doing it instead of singing in the shower.
I think Jon is also right that for Hayley this may be more challenging. She is slightly older, has evolved as a singer rather than songwriter and mostly performs in a genre with a different demographic. Perhaps more importantly, she seems not to have experienced the kind of teenage angst that characterizes Taylor’s themes. But this is a thread about potential, and Hayley needs to explore her creative dimensions. Rather than toying with her image, her label might be advised to encourage and facilitate a hook up with an established songwriter/collaborator. It’s never too late. The Dixie Chicks mostly sang other people’s music until their last album where they teamed up with several composers to co-write personal songs inspired by the Bush incident. The album won five Grammys.
And Hayley does have something Taylor doesn’t – the vocal range and capacity to belt out anthem-like ballads. There is always a market for this whether it be crossover or genre specific.
It seems a bit funny to be talking about Hayley as if she’s a ripened veteran at 21, but it’s a fickle business that sometimes requires a willingness to bob and weave with the times. And I always feel a bit odd writing about what Hayley should and shouldn’t be doing, because every time I read what she has to say I’m reminded that she’s the smartest one in the room.
|
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Jan 13, 2009 2:08:57 GMT
Socalboy,
I don't know how this comparison between Taylor and Hayley started; but i think it is impossible to compare these two artists.
C'mon if twenty one is too old than I must be ready for the grave. Tony Bennett is still a powerhouse at eighty.
My contention is that Hayley and Taylor exist on two different planes, and to compare them is not possible. Hayley has a much more difficult row to hoe than Taylor. Hayley is chosen to perform in a far more competitive part of the world in a far more different and difficult type of music. To her credit she has done amazingly well. Her talent knows no bounds. But also consider the fact that Hayley has chosen what she wants to do musically and is pursuing it .
So I think the Hayley, Taylor discussion has run it's course.
Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by socalboy on Jan 13, 2009 2:21:33 GMT
Hayley is chosen to perform in a far more competitive part of the world Hi Larry: You've lost me here. Would you care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Jan 13, 2009 2:28:44 GMT
Hi Socalboy,
I meant that the difference between the U S and Europe is such that a singer like Hayley has far less genres to choose from with her vocal style. Hayley has chosen a more difficult path to success than a U S country artist would have.
Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 13, 2009 13:04:39 GMT
Hi socalboy.
I :wink: think your most recent response to be informativr and well balanced.
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Jan 13, 2009 19:01:12 GMT
Socalboy, I don't know how this comparison between Taylor and Hayley started; but i think it is impossible to compare these two artists. C'mon if twenty one is too old than I must be ready for the grave. Tony Bennett is still a powerhouse at eighty. My contention is that Hayley and Taylor exist on two different planes, and to compare them is not possible. Hayley has a much more difficult row to hoe than Taylor. Hayley is chosen to perform in a far more competitive part of the world in a far more different and difficult type of music. To her credit she has done amazingly well. Her talent knows no bounds. But also consider the fact that Hayley has chosen what she wants to do musically and is pursuing it . So I think the Hayley, Taylor discussion has run it's course. Larry Hi Larry, I suppose it depends on how you define competitive, but the US has 40 times the area and six times the population of the UK. It would be very difficult for the UK to be more competitive than the US on that basis alone. There are certainly thousands of wannabes in the US for every one who makes it - and Hayley got her start as a standout young singer in a population of only 4 million. It is simply much easier to get heard under those circumstances. Also, while there are certainly exceptions like Mr Bennett, if you take a sales point, say 1 million sales of an album, and check how old the artist was when they first "hit" you will find that the average age will be generally younger than Hayley is now. I made note of this before in another thread, so wont detail it again except to say that nearly all very successful singers of the past 20 years have already succeeded by age 23 or so - the exceptions are almost always people who do well in talent contests. |
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Jan 13, 2009 22:02:35 GMT
Socalboy,
I wouldn't classify Hayley as a wannabe. Also I'm not sure about the talent contest thing. Many artists take longer to catch on. I consider Hayley to be successful right now if she never again steps foot in the U S.
Larry
|
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Jan 13, 2009 22:56:14 GMT
I think there are lots of people of all ages that become popular. I think Katherine Jenkins was 23 when she made her first album. I'm sure age is not a bar. Perhaps the reason why so many singers are young, is that to become a good one it seems you have to start very young and be very dedicated. Hayley had almost 10 years experience as a singer when her international career was launched, Katherine almost 20 years!
If you have dedicated your life to singing, and have never earned your living at anything else, you WILL need to make a name for yourself quite young, or go on the dole!
Martin,
|
|
|
|
Post by socalboy on Jan 14, 2009 0:04:55 GMT
Socalboy, I wouldn't classify Hayley as a wannabe. Also I'm not sure about the talent contest thing. Many artists take longer to catch on. I consider Hayley to be successful right now if she never again steps foot in the U S. Larry Larry: Hayley a wannabe? I'm not sure where you got that from my posts. If you're referring to what Jon said, it seems to me he was putting in perspective the odds of succeeding as a musical artist in the U.S., but I will let him speak for himself. I do know that he - as I - holds Hayley in the highest esteem, otherwise we wouldn't be here. |
|
|
|
Post by larryhauck on Jan 14, 2009 22:04:15 GMT
I didn't mean to offend either of you gentlemen. Sometimes people interpret a post to mean something different than it was stated. If this is the case than I sincerely apologize to both of you.
I certainly don't doubt your desire for Hayley to succeed.
Larry
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,699
|
Post by Dave on Jan 21, 2009 18:48:36 GMT
If I may, I might add that Hayley has had one album which sold very well and still managed in all liklihood to lose money - followed by several albums which have been modestly successful given a much lower profile. Just to add a little to the discussion on that subject, earlier in this thread, there is an interesting quote from the outspoken British pop singer Lily Allen today on this very subject and which seems to be relevant to Hayley's situation as regards her record contract and record company. It might also explain why Hayley has always been somewhat disinterested in how well she is doing in the music charts... and the more I learn about the subject, the more uneasy I feel about it. DigitalSpy ArticleFrom what I know, she is lucky to have made as much as £50,000... from an album with similar sales to Hayley's debut International album... but I suspect that it's a lot less than most of her fans believe. Notice the pointed finger at "someone else". To end on a positive note, here is an interesting idea from The Lefsetz Letter: Give away the album free, with the concert ticket!   Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Jan 21, 2009 19:21:49 GMT
Hi Dave,
Based on my very limited knowledge, it wouldn't surprise me if that was broadly true, but surely, those television shows would not have paid her to use her material if she wasn't a successful recording artist. I accept what she is saying but I think her revenue is partly generated by record sales, albeit indirectly.
Roger
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Jan 22, 2009 1:15:45 GMT
Hi Dave and Roger,
From my somewhat limited perspective, there are no real surprises in this revelation. I think there is a minium number of album sales necessary to sustain a recording contract - which is whatever number the record company deems adequate to feed the beast. More sales than that are probably of some considerable but indirect use to the artist, but only because sales and popularity are symbiotically linked. If I am more popular, I will tend to sell more concert tickets, and play at bigger venues. If I sell more records, I become more popular.
The bottom line is that the success of a career (the commercial success anyway) is most directly affected by the simple relative popularity of the artist. For example, while there is an obvious connection, the reason that television shows feature Lily's music isnt her sales - it is the fact that her music has a broad audience.
Jon
|
|
