|
|
Post by postscript on Jan 26, 2009 20:03:42 GMT
I have presumed to cross threads in my response to the above quote as I believe the way this debate is going extends beyond the thread (Hayley's next album) to which the quote above relates here. I can see potential for one of Richard's lovely 'off topic' signs! I would suggest the argument is widening to the longer term, away from the specific short-term in which it started. What the foregoing implies is that Hayley should be marketed simply as 'Hayley' without any restriction what ever in terms of genre. She forms her own collection of vocals in the widest meaning of the term. The immediate question is, is she sufficiently established to buck the system? Will Decca allow her to buck the established classification and the basis on which the industry operates--for the industry's benefit NOT the punters! Are we raising the game and saying it is time the punters pulled the strings and their professionals, no longer the business money-men? Is this a way in which Hayley could make a statement, through performance, I'm Hayley DON'T CLASSIFY ME! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 4, 2009 13:31:22 GMT
Hi everyone. How true is the report that Decca is closing? How authoritative is the email that came to me via Google? here.
If not true the history is interesting. Peter S.  |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 4, 2009 21:26:52 GMT
I didn't think it was very complimentary to Hayley and the other so-called "crossover" artists though!
I can't see that enlarging Hayley's audience potential! (to get back on topic).
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 5, 2009 7:48:24 GMT
I always wondered how many copies are sold in the classical chart, I mused that it couldn't be many, but as low as 500? I was expecting double, at least. But then again, the article does not source the claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 8, 2009 19:13:17 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. Hayley had already succeeded by the time she was 17. It depends how you define success, of course, but the greater size of the US means that if you define it in terms of sales the benchmark will be higher. The main reason Hayley has not done so well in the US is because she is not American. If she had been American and Josh Groban had been a New Zealander, where would they both be now? It may be easier, in a sense, to be noticed in New Zealand, but it is no easier -- perhaps harder -- to get the big record companies to bite. "Pure" may have, technically, lost money in itself, but that is an immensely shortsighted way of looking at it. Would Hayley be figuring in the NZ trade department ads in Japan if it hadn't been for "Pure"? Would she be in the Lexus and Toyota ads? Would she have appeared on the soundtrack of The Merchant of Venice, without Pure? On the Debbie Wiseman projects? the compilation disks? The Shadows in the Sky film? On American Dreams? Of course I could go on. She has appeared on about the same number of soundtracks and TV programs at the age of 21 as Te Kanawa has in her entire 40 year career! (More than Kathy Jenkins and Bic Runga combined). By the time she was 16 she had recorded at least two songs that are almost already pop classics (Pokarekare Ana and Dark Waltz) and another has appeared on a compilation of pop classics featuring the biggest names and some of the most famous names in pop. The number of compilations and other artists albums she has appeared on is hard to count. A duet with Hayley on one of his albums seems to be almost mandatory for any up and coming young (UK based) tenor to claim he's made it. If Groban wanted to make a direct swat at the UK/European market (unlikely since it's so small) a Hayley/Josh duet would become very likely. True, on Google since 2004 Bic Runga has a greater search volume than Hayley, and she may do better in the US, but which is the more successful? But it is silly to compare them, and Flight of the Conchords has done better than both over the last few years in the US and Te Kanawa ranks about 10th of New Zealand singers on Google. Still, I think you grossly underrate her "success", Jon. BTW the "personal" song is more likely to do well in the short term, and the general in the long term. My clumsily written lament about how I bust up with my boyfriend and what a two-timing so and so he was may be top of the charts for a couple of weeks but Danny Boy, or Amazing Grace, will still be selling next month and the month after. Hayley and Co have the luxury of being able to make a living out of putting out essentially the same album again and again for a life time, Bic and Britany have to keep coming up with new material and new gimmicks.  |
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 8, 2009 19:55:46 GMT
To the extent of my limited knowledge of Taylor (I have seen a couple of videos) she seems to write catchy songs about teen romance. There is nothing wrong with this, but because of what Taylor writes about she is able to make a connection with her peers that Hayley will never make writing a song like Let Me Lie, or contributing to Melancholy Interlude, regardless of how good she becomes at writing that type of music. It simply isnt personal enough to make that sort of connection. I do agree with this. At least with Let Me Lie, Hayley has pulled from her own personal experience to create lyrics. Without wishing to get into the details of her private life, it seems Hayley has been far too busy working to really acquire a lot of real-life experience in the way of love. I don't wish to start a debate regarding her love life, since the line is fine regarding what is our business & what is not, but that is what she has willingly indicated in interviews. She has sang songs which have more relatable lyrics, though not necessarily set to the right music to create big hits. What You Never Know comes to mind. I feel lyrics like that would do well in a US market, if only they were set to catchier music, something that would appeal to pop music stations. A couple years ago, my computer crashed & I lost tons of music purchased through iTunes. Someone online shared her Hayley collection with me (I asked her to share only what I'd already paid for), and when I listened to Across the Universe of Time, it was a completely different version than what I had. I was in the process of moving at the time & never got around to getting back in touch with the person who gave it to me to see where it came from, but it was an upbeat, dance remix of the song. It sounded like the catchy songs you hear in clubs, the ones that young girls get stuck in their heads & share with all their friends. (I have heard a very similar version, though not precisely the same, on HWI somewhere, but I'm sure I'd be looking for a day if I tried to find it again.) My girlfriend heard it & said, "I like THAT ONE!" She & I almost always disagree on music. She likes Top 40; I like classical crossover. Two years later, she's still asking me to play that song, whereas Hayley's other music, she seems to have only mildly grown used to. I mention this because I think it points out that there are two ways things can be done: 1) lyrics can be made more relatable to a younger crowd, or 2) music can be altered to fit pop charts. To keep from losing her current fan base, she could do as Celine Dion has done with a few songs: offer both the radio version & the ballad version on her CD. I love the remix of Across the Universe of Time for its mainstream appeal, but I really treasure the original for the crossover sound. I think most of her fans would embrace both. We are on very delicate ground, but I will simply say that I believe you are grossly overrating the importance of what you describe as "real-life" experience. You are not alone in the view of course -- one of the arguments about Shakespeare's plays not being written by Shakespeare is that he didn't have the experience of courts, etc, to have written so well about them. But I do not accept that those who have a lot of "real-life experience" somehow have sharper more penetrating and deeper insights into the hearts and minds of their fellow men and women than those who don't. It can often be the opposite. Your argument, I believe, leads to an untenable conclusion - that the promiscuous will develop greater sensibilities and insight than the more continent. Even if we have lived all our lives in a cave and never seen a member of the opposite sex, we all have an understanding of love and lust, and how well we can express or articulate those basic emotions has little or nothing to do with our degree of "experience", however broadly or narrowly the term is used. A lack of "life-experience" didn't stop Emily Bronte writing "Wuthering Heights"... |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 8, 2009 21:40:49 GMT
A duet with Hayley on one of his albums seems to be almost mandatory for any up and coming young (UK based) tenor to claim he's made it. If Groban wanted to make a direct swat at the UK/European market (unlikely since it's so small) a Hayley/Josh duet would become very likely. It's not unlikely, because he has been "making a swat" at the UK/European market lately! For about the past year, in fact. For starters, he appeared at the Classical Brits, and he has been on numerous UK talk shows. Also, he mentioned on an Irish show that after his album comes out in the summer (maybe June?), he will begin his tour in the UK/Europe. Yes, a duet with Hayley will help both of them. I know some British gentlemen on this board aren't really keen on that, but they never seem to realize how much it would really help Hayley in the U.S. They just dwell on how they aren't impressed with him, and how Hayley is a better singer than he is. Since when has that stopped her before? She's waaaay better than JA, but does she refuse to sing with him? No. She's not that arrogant. |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 8, 2009 22:21:42 GMT
Is this a matter of opinion? I'm just not sure if I agree. Jonathan has a lot more colours and textures to his voice. Whether that makes him a better singer or not I couldn't possibly say, but I think vocally and materially JA is capable of more. I think it all depends on what the audience value more. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm genuinely curious. Is there something I do not understand about singing that someone can say that someone is definitely better than someone else? As to Josh, he is definitely in the UK. He was even on 'Nevermind the Buzzcocks!' (try to catch the episode on YouTube, it's hilarious!) I saw him in concert last year too in Birmingham. He is also charting well, especially with his 'Collection' album. I think it still IS in our album chart. He was also on the Andrew Lloyd Webber talent reality show (for casting a new Joseph). He's also (I'm listing, aren't I?) used as a soundtrack for the X-Factor for his rendition of 'You Raise Me Up'. Considering he never had a hit with that here, and Westlife got to number one with it, you have to wonder why X Factor would use his version instead of Westlife's. Not to mention that Westlife is managed by one of the judges! Yes, Josh is well and truly trying his best over here, and more and more people are getting to know who he is.  And: people on this board do not like Josh?  Oh dear. He is a very talented man, in my opinion. He plays multiple instruments, writes many of his own songs (since Awake), is quite the comedian and was extremely creative and selective about his last album, down to choosing who he co-wrote material with and who he performed with. He has a beautiful tone and texture to his voice that I find very hard to resist, too. And he is sooooo emotive. I'll stop gushing. |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 8, 2009 23:48:01 GMT
Hi Libby and Nicola,
Well, I am one of those who is not over impressed by Josh Groban, although I have not heard a lot of him. I didn't like his performance on the Classical |Brits, which sounded out of tune to me. I thought his Christmas album Noel was OK, but no better than Aled's Christmas album which features a lovely duet with Hayley. Many, especially American singers, seem to sing out of tune deliberately. This is I think expected of those who perform "jazz", but jazz is something that I have never liked or understood. Perhaps that is just me. I don't like to hear singer miss notes, wheter deliberately or not - it just makes me cringe. I see no reason to prefer Josh to some of our home grown tenors like JA or Aled Jones.
As for how we judge singers, that is very subjective. We can judge them technically of course, power, range and control and perhaps diction. Very few singers get anywhere near Hayley for control in particular, and she hits the notes so precisely it is actually thrilling to hear if you have an ear for such things. When someone misses notes, or the pitch varies during the note, you never quite know if they are doing it deliberately or if it is just poor control.
But there are many other intangibles that affect how we judge a voice, for example Hayley's exceptions "purity", I don't know how you can measure that, but we all know what it means. Then there are issues like phrasing, softness vs harshness and so on. It is difficult to quantify and put these all together if we try to analyse why we like some singers more than others. So even if a singer reaches near perfection technically, as Hayley does, it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will like them. What matters is your own ears and how you hear different singers, and perhaps no two of us are alike in that respect. Some may be more willing to forgive technical faults if they like the voice or the performer in other ways. But perhaps listening to Hayley has made me more critical of such things.
Martin
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Feb 9, 2009 0:07:03 GMT
But I do not accept that those who have a lot of "real-life experience" somehow have sharper more penetrating and deeper insights into the hearts and minds of their fellow men and women than those who don't. It can often be the opposite. Your argument, I believe, leads to an untenable conclusion - that the promiscuous will develop greater sensibilities and insight than the more continent. Even if we have lived all our lives in a cave and never seen a member of the opposite sex, we all have an understanding of love and lust, and how well we can express or articulate those basic emotions has little or nothing to do with our degree of "experience", however broadly or narrowly the term is used. A lack of "life-experience" didn't stop Emily Bronte writing "Wuthering Heights"... Hi Kate, Welcome aboard..... Leaving aside certain issues of what we would know if we had lived in a cave..... what we would not know of is love and loss. You cannot lose something you never had - and in my humble opinion this would undermine your ability to express it. Even if for some reason it didnt, it would likely undermine the perception of your audience that you could express it. And this is the problem with your argument - any communication is a two way street. In the case of music, the artist must certanly be saying something - but it must also be in a language that the listener can relate to, and the listener must want to listen. I was not in any case arguing about the pros or cons of either extreme. I would think that those who practised moderation might be more likely to understand and communicate something of both worlds, and perhaps more importantly might find an audience to relate to as well. After all, very few of us are altogether saints or altogether sinners |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 9, 2009 0:26:09 GMT
Is this a matter of opinion? As to Josh, he is definitely in the UK. Josh is well and truly trying his best over here, and more and more people are getting to know who he is. And: people on this board do not like Josh? Oh dear. He is a very talented man, in my opinion. He plays multiple instruments, writes many of his own songs (since Awake), is quite the comedian and was extremely creative and selective about his last album, down to choosing who he co-wrote material with and who he performed with. He has a beautiful tone and texture to his voice that I find very hard to resist, too. And he is sooooo emotive. Yes, that is my opinion. Hayley's voice has perfect pitch, is very beautiful and pleasant to listen to. Jonathan is certainly capable of singing, but his voice, particularly in higher notes, is not very pleasant to my ears. It's very harsh. I have nothing against him at all; I'm sure he's a very nice guy. You just won't see me buying any of his albums. A duet with Hayley is all I'll listen to. But my point is that it is arrogant for a singer to refrain from duetting with another singer just because some people think they are better singers than that person. Yes, there are people here who seem to be prejudiced against Josh. I can specifically name at least 3 (but I won't). They say things like what little they've heard of Josh didn't impress them. One has even said, after hearing a live performance on youtube, that he can't carry a tune very well! They think Josh will drown her out with his "foghorn" voice  Oh, and that it'll put Hayley in the tabloids.   Of course, 3 people don't speak for the whole board, but whenever I've mentioned how I want Josh to sing with Hayley, I'm met with negative remarks about Josh, giving me the impression that British people don't like Josh. But then, this board is predominately male, and I'm aware that Josh has lots of female fans in the UK and Europe. Hayley singing with Josh would be a good way to enlarge Hayley's audience potential in the US, whether everyone approves of Josh Groban or not. There, now I'm not off-topic, Richard!  |
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 9, 2009 0:59:25 GMT
Is this a matter of opinion? As to Josh, he is definitely in the UK. Josh is well and truly trying his best over here, and more and more people are getting to know who he is. And: people on this board do not like Josh? Oh dear. He is a very talented man, in my opinion. He plays multiple instruments, writes many of his own songs (since Awake), is quite the comedian and was extremely creative and selective about his last album, down to choosing who he co-wrote material with and who he performed with. He has a beautiful tone and texture to his voice that I find very hard to resist, too. And he is sooooo emotive. Yes, that is my opinion. Hayley's voice has perfect pitch, is very beautiful and pleasant to listen to. Jonathan is certainly capable of singing, but his voice, particularly in higher notes, is not very pleasant to my ears. It's very harsh. I have nothing against him at all; I'm sure he's a very nice guy. You just won't see me buying any of his albums. A duet with Hayley is all I'll listen to. But my point is that it is arrogant for a singer to refrain from duetting with another singer just because some people think they are better singers than that person. Yes, there are people here who seem to be prejudiced against Josh. I can specifically name at least 3 (but I won't). They say things like what little they've heard of Josh didn't impress them. One has even said, after hearing a live performance on youtube, that he can't carry a tune very well! They think Josh will drown her out with his "foghorn" voice Oh, and that it'll put Hayley in the tabloids. Of course, 3 people don't speak for the whole board, but whenever I've mentioned how I want Josh to sing with Hayley, I'm met with negative remarks about Josh, giving me the impression that British people don't like Josh. But then, this board is predominately male, and I'm aware that Josh has lots of female fans in the UK and Europe. Hayley singing with Josh would be a good way to enlarge Hayley's audience potential in the US, whether everyone approves of Josh Groban or not. There, now I'm not off-topic, Richard!  You must be joking? Josh drown Hayley out? Have they heard Josh straining on the US National Anthem and other songs? I just don't believe it. Jonathan Ansell could blow Josh off the face of the planet. Jonathan is one hundred times more powerful than Josh. When they were looking for a young opera singer to partner Jonathan, the senior judge said he was looking for a woman with a particularly strong voice, or she wouldn't be able to foot it with Jonathan. The only one of the 8 opera sopranos who trialed for the part who had anything like the power of Hayley was the one who won. Hayley would drown out Josh -- she had to hold back with Lee Mead. Jonathan is the only young tenor who has the power to foot it with Hayley all out. That is why they sing so well together, they can both go all out. Dominingo and Terfel are the only male singers who I'd say came with in a bull's roar of Jonathan Ansell for sheer power. Josh has a nicely masculine voice, but powerful, no. American critics have described Hayley as "clarion" voiced; I haven't heard any say that Josh is very powerful. Make that four who aren't overly impressed with Groban. He is over-emotive, over-rated, and now, more's the pity, he's over here. I think the pairing would be unbalanced because Hayley's clarion voice would drown out Josh, and how it would get her in the tabloids, I just don't understand. I doubt the British tabloids would find Josh very interesting. Compared with the material the British tabloids deal with, Josh Groban would be like a cold shower and a sermon. Is there something I don't know about him involving squads of cheerleaders or women's basketball teams, or both? Do you have links? Pics? |
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 9, 2009 1:47:52 GMT
But I do not accept that those who have a lot of "real-life experience" somehow have sharper more penetrating and deeper insights into the hearts and minds of their fellow men and women than those who don't. It can often be the opposite. Your argument, I believe, leads to an untenable conclusion - that the promiscuous will develop greater sensibilities and insight than the more continent. Even if we have lived all our lives in a cave and never seen a member of the opposite sex, we all have an understanding of love and lust, and how well we can express or articulate those basic emotions has little or nothing to do with our degree of "experience", however broadly or narrowly the term is used. A lack of "life-experience" didn't stop Emily Bronte writing "Wuthering Heights"... Hi Kate, Welcome aboard..... Leaving aside certain issues of what we would know if we had lived in a cave..... what we would not know of is love and loss. You cannot lose something you never had - and in my humble opinion this would undermine your ability to express it. Even if for some reason it didnt, it would likely undermine the perception of your audience that you could express it. And this is the problem with your argument - any communication is a two way street. In the case of music, the artist must certanly be saying something - but it must also be in a language that the listener can relate to, and the listener must want to listen. I was not in any case arguing about the pros or cons of either extreme. I would think that those who practised moderation might be more likely to understand and communicate something of both worlds, and perhaps more importantly might find an audience to relate to as well. After all, very few of us are altogether saints or altogether sinners I know you are wrong Jon, because I knew all about love and loss five or six years before I ever experienced it, and my immediate post -pubescent imaginings were more poignant and stronger than the "real thing" ever has been. I know you are wrong Jon, because so many great novelists and writers and artists have powerfully and profoundly expressed the emotions of love and loss and other feelings without having experienced them in the way you suggest. Oh, yes, yes, yes, you can love something you have never had, and lose that love -- without the object of the love ever knowing about it -- even without the object of that love ever being more than a figment of the imagination. You are obviously no artist Jon, and never will be. I don't mean that unkindly, but I'm sure there are some here who understand what I am saying. When all said and done, Jon, the suffering of loss, and the feeling of love is in the mind, the head, it is not a physical function, it is psychological. It is tapping into that psychological well that makes an actor or artist able to communicate the emotional displacement that occurs. Whether you can imagine, empathize, or communicate that emotion has little -- probably nothing -- to do with whether you have had various physical experiences. The psychopath can "experience" just about anything without any feeling or emotion; the neurotic's feelings and emotions are triggered without any "experience" -- it's all in the mind, all in the mind. I ask you again, how did Emily Bronte write Wuthering Heights? How, for that matter, did Jane Austen write Pride and Prejudice? I can scarcely believe you said what you did... do you truly believe that a teenager cannot understand what it is to love or lose before actually doing so in a more "real" sense? If we did not understand love without experiencing it in the way you use the term, we would never desire it; if we could not understand the pain of loss without it occurring the way you suggest, we would never fear it. If what you say was true, ninety percent odd of the world's art wouldn't exist. Yes, Jon, we are all human, mortal, and guilty. And some of us can experience the feelings of love and loss without the physical triggers. That you associate "experience" with being a saint or sinner shows the poverty of your thinking on the issue. What makes us saints or sinners is not what we do, but what we want to do... You sound like those who claimed that the introduction of easily obtainable contraceptives would lower the morality of young women. A rather cynical view of morality -- a morality based on fear is no morality at all. Finally, if we couldn't imagine love and loss that we hadn't experienced, literature would mean nothing to us. Do you think that all of those who have identified with Mr Darcy or Elizabeth have had or need identical "life-experiences" to understand the feelings? What about those who have identified with Heathcliff and Cathy? |
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 9, 2009 1:56:22 GMT
A duet with Hayley on one of his albums seems to be almost mandatory for any up and coming young (UK based) tenor to claim he's made it. If Groban wanted to make a direct swat at the UK/European market (unlikely since it's so small) a Hayley/Josh duet would become very likely. It's not unlikely, because he has been "making a swat" at the UK/European market lately! For about the past year, in fact. For starters, he appeared at the Classical Brits, and he has been on numerous UK talk shows. Also, he mentioned on an Irish show that after his album comes out in the summer (maybe June?), he will begin his tour in the UK/Europe. Yes, a duet with Hayley will help both of them. I know some British gentlemen on this board aren't really keen on that, but they never seem to realize how much it would really help Hayley in the U.S. They just dwell on how they aren't impressed with him, and how Hayley is a better singer than he is. Since when has that stopped her before? She's waaaay better than JA, but does she refuse to sing with him? No. She's not that arrogant. That Hayley is waaaay better than JA is very much an opinion. I'd say she's on a par, but Jonathan is one of the few singers who I would be prepared to say might actually, in all- round ability, even be a little better than Hayley. Jonathan, I'd say is better at opera than Hayley, and he's pretty useful at pop and the big ballads that Hayley excels at. I think you grossly underrate Jonathan; I think he is really something rather special. |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 9, 2009 7:56:05 GMT
As a writer and a fan of literature and music, I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Kate. But, I can't see what this debate has to do with anything. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. Libby: I think the UK is being misrepresented! Everyone I know loves Josh. Even my MALE best friend, who insists that I put him on all the time and keeps asking when his next concert is. I think Josh has a gorgeous voice. Of course, he can't sing opera at all, but the expectation that he can is due to the mistagging him as classical crossover. Pop. The guy is pop. And what a fantastic pop singer he is. <3 Thank you for answering my question, Martin. I thought that it was the case, but the certainty in which Libby expressed her opinion caught me by surprise. I guess, for me, it takes more than hitting notes perfectly. I don't want singers, I want artists. I think Jon is capable of a lot more than Hayley because he can do a lot more with his voice. I wouldn't suggest that he can *sing* technically better than Hayley, but the technicality is just not what I'm interested in. Singing shouldn't be mathematical or scientific. This thread seems a bit frosty and off-topic, so I'll leave it now. |
|
Oh dear. He is a very talented man, in my opinion. He plays multiple instruments, writes many of his own songs (since Awake), is quite the comedian and was extremely creative and selective about his last album, down to choosing who he co-wrote material with and who he performed with. He has a beautiful tone and texture to his voice that I find very hard to resist, too. And he is sooooo emotive. 
Oh, and that it'll put Hayley in the tabloids. 
