|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 9, 2009 12:54:40 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, whether 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 Hi Martin. I think your 'chat' above is very interesting and in the main I agree with a great amount of it. However, there are one or two aspects with which I would like to express a slight difference perhaps more of emphasis than necessarily direct fact. Hearing is necessarily subjective and in fact I have been meaning to get my hearing examined clinically for the first time ever. I feel it essential if one is to presume to criticise artists so good as to be names and then express dislike of their vocal tone. This subjectivity is in fact regardless of one's 'technically correct' hearing ability because mood and temperament are another part of that subjectivity of pleasing. Would any artist deliberately sing 'out of tune' rather than actually being 'out of tune'? There is an aspect of orchestral playing where one set of violinists may be off-key as part of the art of playing orchestrally. This touches on an insight going back many years and I may have got the interpretation wrong (Dave, any comment?). Maybe the seeming 'out of tune' is due to an emphasis on a minor key or where the half-tones are pre-eminent? Such music is a true test of a singer. Relating this to jazz is where I may have been once. Like you jazz does not appeal to me, however, recently being acquainted with those of jazz mastery I have had my eyes/ears? opened to the medium. I attended a concert recently when I listened to some of the finest jazz musicians in the country. My 'authority' for that statement is The Observer and Johnny Dankworth CBE. Not only were they masters of their instruments but also of orchestration. In playing a suite based on Cinema Paradiso, they managed to make four instruments sound like a small orchestra. This is why I can listen to the Cassini version of Ave Maria when Hayley sings it. She is using it as a medium to express her command of the technical mastery of the voice skills required. I think that when one is privileged to hear live on so many occasions a superb voice under the command of a superb artist, one's appreciation becomes increasingly critical, which is why I want to check out the means by which I presume to make judgement. While we are praising Hayley, let us also note that she does have her ups and downs which are not always under her control. I am thinking of that rendition on 'Songs of Praise' where many seem to have been disappointed. We discussed on that thread whether in fact she was miming to an earlier (two to three years old?) recording. There was a distinct lack of enunciation there, something that I had mentioned to her many years back in the early days and since when she seemed to have improved [and I am not in any way attributing that to my interference!]. What that incident (SoP) brings out is the need to control what is made available. It is not always a good thing for an artist's earlier recordings to remain available when she has advanced so much since then and is seeking to widen her audience. Especially when on a 'new' medium and likely to being introduced to a mew audience. [I'm aware Hayley has been on SoP previously but the SoP is a variable audience, bringing in for a particular location whose who are not regular listeners.] Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 9, 2009 13:04:57 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. ... 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!  Hi Libby. I think an important point is raised here, which has been mentioned elsewhere regarding Hayley being supportive of new/other artists. Were the opportunity to present itself, does she sing with someone whom many do not regard as 'the best' because they appeal to a large audience and therefore she gains more exposure, or does she hold fast to her determination to make the most of herself she can and therefore only expose herself in company with those whom most would regard as being at least as good as she is or even better? There is the dilemma of widening one's 'natural' exposure. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by kate37 on Feb 10, 2009 3:15:01 GMT
... 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! Hi Libby. I think an important point is raised here, which has been mentioned elsewhere regarding Hayley being supportive of new/other artists. Were the opportunity to present itself, does she sing with someone whom many do not regard as 'the best' because they appeal to a large audience and therefore she gains more exposure, or does she hold fast to her determination to make the most of herself she can and therefore only expose herself in company with those whom most would regard as being at least as good as she is or even better? There is the dilemma of widening one's 'natural' exposure. Peter S. Well, as said before, the opinions about who is "the best" are so subjective that it would be arrogant for Hayley or anyone else to make judgments about who is on a par with Hayley and who is not. Like it or not, Hayley operates in the popular realm and she lives or dies on sales and popularity. Within those parameters she has some scope, of course -- helping that young singer (Holly Holyoake, was it?) is a case in point. A cynic may say that the impression of altruism will help her popularity anyway, although I don't personally think for a moment that it is a ruse. I'm certain that Hayley is altruistic and although very determined and professional has a cheerfully good-natured, typically antipodean, scepticism of her own about the hype and publicity that goes with the business. I doubt that Hayley would even stop to think for a moment about whether the person she is dueting with is considered as "good" as she is. Her management and the record company are not going to think in those terms either. They are more likely thinking in terms of how compelling a marketing package can be created. A duet with Josh Groban would, on the face of it, certainly be of benefit to Hayley, but Josh's management has to be convinced that it is of benefit to him, and that could get back to how Hayley is perceived in the US. I didn't realise that he was having such a swat at the UK market, but given what Libby has said, then it seems to me that a duet with Hayley would be in his interest. Perhaps they are just building suspense and are going to spring it on us sometime somewhere. The management on both sides must have had the notion cross their minds and the difficulties would seem to me to be largely of timing and logistics -- where, when, and what song? Even if it is controversial in some quarters that is not a problem either, controversy breeds publicity, which helps create revenue. It is possible that the respective managements have discussed it but see there being no hurry. They might even see it as a type of ace in the hand that should be held back to when it is going to be most effective. |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 10, 2009 23:11:33 GMT
Hi Peter and Kate,
Is Wuthering Heights sung deliberately out of tune? I certainly used to think so, and if it is, since Hayley's version is pretty much a carbon copy of Kate's Hayley at least must be deliberately singing out of tune. This might explain why I was never very keen on that song, and only Hayley's recent passionate renditions have changed that.
Also, on the subject of unequal duet parners, if one singer is very much "better" (whatever that means) than the other, then better singer will show up the weakness of the lesser one. So it would not be in the interests of that lesser singer to undertake that duet. This has already been mentioned in respect of power, and perhaps a lack of range of one of the performers could be countered by suitable choice of material, but lack of control I think is something you can't do much about and stands out like a sore thumb. There are tricks that some singers use to disguise these problems, like excessive vibrato to prevent screeching, speaking rather than singing notes they don't like or substituting another easier note. If a singer that is limited in this sort of way is to sing a duet with one who isn't, then the better singer has to lower their standards, otherwise it sounds terrible. The better singer might prefer not to do this, since singing below their natural standard will not increase their audience potential, and may not be enjoyed by the fans who know what that singer can do.
This has also been pointed out with respect to power, and Hayley "holding back" when duetting with less powerful singers, and when she does that, those of us who enjoy hearing her sing with her full power will be disappointed. But the same goes for range and control too. This prevents the better singer from expressing themselves as they would wish, for fear of showing up the weaker singer. Many would not enjoy singing like that.
I think for a duet to work, the voices need to match well too, even if both singers have similar technical ability. Perhaps that is why on "All I Ask of You", to my ears Hayley's duets with Jonathan and Aled (at Lincoln last year) sound much better that the one with Lee Mead.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 12, 2009 22:43:55 GMT
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. 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. Hey, I'm not the one who said he'd drown her out, I completely disagree. And you're right, Josh Groban is never found in the tabloids, because he never does anything "interesting" enough for them. I'm just telling you what one person's complaint about a Hayley/Josh duet was. It's certainly ridiculous; the Charlotte and Josh duet never got them in the tabloids, so why would duetting with Hayley be any different? Well, last I heard, Josh still seems to be firmly planted on the earth.  I'm not going to argue over whose voice is more powerful, because that's not the only thing that makes someone a good singer. Josh's voice is also very smooth and pleasant sounding, and JA's is not, which is why I enjoy Josh's voice more. If you don't think Josh's voice is powerful, then you must never have heard him singUn Giorno Per Noi or Remember When it Rained. Of course February Song doesn't show much power, so if that's the only song you've ever heard him sing, I'd understand how you'd be unaware of his power. I don't know how powerful JA's voice is, because I rarely listen to it. So, I can't say that JA doesn't have a powerful voice, and I never said he didn't. The reason I don't enjoy his voice has nothing to do with power, it's the way it sounds. I just don't enjoy the way it sounds. Singing powerfully doesn't mean his voice sounds good to me. Josh is not over-emotive any more than Hayley is UN-emotive. Good grief, people complain that Hayley shows no emotion, but if Josh shows some, it's way too much.  I guess it's not fair to say Hayley is better than JA, but I said it because I like Hayley's voice so much better. I don't know or care about the technicalities. And at least Hayley and Josh always remember their lyrics. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 12, 2009 23:00:43 GMT
Libby,
You can only pass comments like that based on your own subjective enjoyment of those singers. You know what you like, and that's fine, nobody knows what you like to listen to better than you do.
The fact that other people have different preferences is not meant in any way to be critical of yours. Everybody's opinion is equally valid.
To be fair, you can never say that singer A is better than singer B unless that opnion is based on something measurable like range and power, and even then you would have to believe that more range or more power was a good thing that was more important than the aspects that you can't measure.. There are many things that can't be measured that affect our enjoyment of a performance too. What you can say is that "I like singer A better than singer B". If enough people agree with you, there might be a consensus that A is better than B.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Jul 4, 2009 11:59:48 GMT
Hi All.
There may be a better thread than this, so apologies Mods, if you know that to be the case but I'm really picking up on an earlier but related post I made to this thread as my excuse for posting this.
Essentially I am catching up on some background reading. Included is a review of Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson (Editor-in-Chief of Wired magazine and author of The long Tail. This proposed that the digital world would enable the publication of niche books which otherwise would not see the light of day. My earlier post in this thread commented on this.
In his latest book, which is essentially about behavourial economics, he makes three statements of interest to Hayley's management (in the wider context of the music industry generally).
1. Piracy is a form of zero-cost marketing which brings [musician's] work to the largest possible audience.
2. In a competitive market price falls to marginal cost.
3. Once you shift from moving boxes of CDs to transmitting bytes, Free is inevitable.
The 'free' concept dates back to the 1870s when bars offered free food to those buying alcoholic drinks (today's 'Happy Hour' presumably?). Gillette have given away razors to encourage sales of blades. The recent 'Best of Brits' free disk with a UK national paper a current example and current advertising encouraging free or very cheap phones in return for an extended monthly fee.
Effectively it is an update on Moore's Law that the number of chips on a transistor doubles every two years as the price halves. Anderson argues that as the price of data storage, bandwidth and processing power reduce towards zero so the price of digital goods will follow.
He concludes that there are only two markets: free and everything else and any price, however small, reduces people's propensity to buy. 'Give a product away and it can go viral, charge a single cent and you are scratching for customers.'
Roger Perry, chairman of publishing group Future wrote his review in Management Today July issue. 'Free is the best price but not the only one, you have to add value for money in other ways. This applies to anything digital.' Recorded music may be free but concert costs are increasing. So, should the orientation of music marketing be to issue recorded music for free to increase the audience potential for the live concert?
From what I recollect of our previous discussions across posts in several threads, There isn't much that Anderson is saying that we have not actually raised as possible scenarios here? Perhaps Dave has a better grasp on that sweeping question?
Roger Perry concludes his review with the following paragraph. 'The book is not for free. The UK list price will be £18.99 which, of course, no-one will pay. There are many books about the working of the new economy but Anderson seems to be one of the most reliable and skilful guides. Free is worth the money.
Peter S.
|
|
Jillian
Global Moderator
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by Jillian on Jul 4, 2009 12:14:57 GMT
Hi Peter,
I rather imagine that concerts would by far and away be the most lucrative area of Hayley's career. If an artist doesn't have writing credits on a song, the royalties are never as high.
I'm not sure there is much more Hayley could do in this area as she tours endlessly. As for giving away music for free -- well, I don't see the need. Afterall those who want to pay will pay and those who don't can get it for free anyway without there being a giving away scheme.
However, I can see some benefit of it in generating 'goodwill' amongst fans. For example, if all the members of a mailing list were given a link to a free download of a demo or various non-album recording before the release of an album it could refresh people's memories or generate appreciation which could spur on more sales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 10, 2009 14:39:21 GMT
I think Hayley and her people could make vastly better use of the internet than she does. Have any of you looked at her MySpace, for example? It's terrible. No complete songs and only a very few clips that in no way represent her full range or ability. Do her people ever try to find her new fans on there? I'm not sure they do... They certainly don't ever send bulletins about anything she's doing.
Hayley's major presence on YouTube is created by her fans. She seems to have no official channel and more people seem to have discovered her there because of Susan Boyle or Celtic Woman than through any effort of her people.
In other words: the greatest promotional tool ever created is being completely neglected as a way of promoting Hayley. She doesn't even have an official forum.
There's an immense amount that could be done to promote her online, but very little is. It's a shame.
|
|
Jillian
Global Moderator
Posts: 3,050
|
Post by Jillian on Jul 10, 2009 15:05:20 GMT
Hi Elliot. One thing to remember is that it seems the money is always spent establishing these types of promotion when there's an album to sell. It's been since the beginning of 2007 since Hayley last released an international album and perhaps these forms of promotion weren't seen as important back then. Fingers crossed for some advances when the next album finally rolls around! Until then, I guess we can keep doing as much as we can as individuals. |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,699
|
Post by Dave on Jul 10, 2009 15:33:07 GMT
Hi Elliot and everyone, Hayley has her own Facebook and obviously, it's up to her her Management and the record company how she uses it but the record company will have a big say in it and will probably be quite restrictive. Hayley's official presence on YouTube is through her record company Universal Music (Decca) www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup who are currently in dispute with YouTube over copyright and payments, so until that's settled nothing much will happen there... at least in the UK (I cannot speak for other territories) and all their artists are in the same situation. HWI has been on YouTube for over a year now and we are always looking for ways to expand our audience but in a responsible way - we push it as far as we can in terms of content but we are limited to some extent as we need to keep a good relationship with the management and record company. www.youtube.com/user/hwividWe cannot be involved in all online sites but some of the fans do that, a good example being the current Tweeter Poll. We do our best. I'd better leave it to others to judge the record company!  Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 10, 2009 23:23:36 GMT
Dave - you're doing a good job of it, too! I'm not sure, but I THINK HWI has the best collection of Hayley vids on YouTube. I do know that most of the Hayley vids I seem to watch these days come from you, which is why I have your YouTube channel bookmarked Jillian - a lot of recent artists seem to be working hard on the 'quiet build' - working to expand their fanbase between albums by using the web. I agree that Hayley's record company don't seem to think it's very important to do so, but I believe they are mistaken. Thing is - fans can only do so much... |
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Jul 11, 2009 12:45:34 GMT
She doesn't even have an official forum. There's an immense amount that could be done to promote her online, but very little is. It's a shame. Hey ElliotKane, Actually she does have an official forum. If you go to her official site, there is a link at the top to go to the official forum. This forum is owned by Hayley's record company (Universal Music). The moderators on there are in fact all members on here! There's Bobc, Libby, Steve H (who also is a Global Moderator here), and BelindaNZ. HWI is at an advantage to the official forum because of the loads of active members it has, and the great content they are all willing to share with us! HWI also has it's links with Hayley's management, and can get us information promptly! However, I also think the official forum has its upsides. It is "official", so I would say most new members would choose to visit/ join there as a starting point.. I do think this is a key area where a little more attention and content may help to promote Hayley. In any case, I'm sure this "discussion" is redundant as it has probably been ongoing (comparison of forums). As mentioned before, there is the official facebook, which is where Hayley communicates with her fans! I don't think full songs on Myspace is a good idea... maybe videos instead? I do agree that the internet is a vital promotion tool in this "information age". I mean what are we all doing right now?? Though I think they have most of their internet bases covered TBH...what else would you suggest? Cheers, Jono |
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Jul 11, 2009 14:04:48 GMT
Returning to a previous argument.
The whole Josh/ Jonathan argument is purely subjective as mentioned. My personal opinion is that neither of them rate that highly... Don't get me wrong, I do like both of their songs/ talent, but I would put them at a much lower level than Hayley. (But I guess that's quite a hard comparison to make since I'm comparing male with female). I would rate male voices such as Bocelli, Careras and Pavarotti much higher.
However if came down to it I think it would be much more beneficial to Hayley's career if she duets with Josh Groban. His popularity wins hands down!! (I hadn't even heard of Jonathan Ansell before joining these forums...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jul 11, 2009 15:39:41 GMT
Jono... There's an official forum? Good grief! All the searches I did on Hayley and the only forum that turned up was this one! That's extremely weird! thanks for the heads up! I have to admit, I tend to ignore her official site most of the time as it's not really very good and Google has been more reliable for all things Hayley. Facebook is great for those who have Facebook, but without having an active MySpace and Bebo presence as well, Hayley is likely missing out on a lot of potential fans. You can probably throw Twitter in these days, as well. A lack of official presence on YouTube (And no, a label presence is not the same thing) is arguably even worse, of course. Full songs on MySpace seems to be what the majority of other artists go for, so clearly most of them think it's a good idea. And I happen to agree with them. For Hayley especially, a lot of her songs are 'slow build' and thirty second clips really don't get the point across. Nor are her best songs on there in any way, shape or form. Having the full song allows her fans to promote her more effectively by putting the songs on their profile, too. There is one thing I've noticed a lot of up and coming artists doing right now on YouTube, which is doing acoustic covers of famous songs. This obviously turns them up in search engines a lot more frequently (And YouTube searches), helps draw in new fans and displays their range. Assuming Hayley has the time, it's a thing she could do. Generally speaking, I'm assuming she doesn't have a lot of time and that most work would be done by her management in promoting her online. That being the case, there's still a lot that can be done: * Increased information sent out on Bebo/MySpace/Facebook/Twitter. Keep fans up to date weekly or monthly and you generate more interest. Make it look like the sites are unused and it's not good. NO fan should have to discover that she has a new album out in, say, Japan by chance. Even if they are not IN Japan, they have multiple ways to get it, after all. Actively advertising concerts would not be a bad thing, either. Don't forget, Hayley doesn't have to write all this stuff up herself. * Full songs on MySpace and similar sites. With links to iTunes for anyone who wants to get her stuff there and then. * Official YouTube channel. With all official vids as well as concert footage. These things are made to be adverts. They're useless if they are not advertising. * Prominent links on all official Hayley sites to all OTHER official Hayley sites. * More and better pictures. Hayley is a very attractive young lady but pictures of her at a reasonable size are beyond rare. I'm not talking anything tacky, here, please note! She doesn't need that. But for any artist in any genre, the Look is as important a factor in selling one's talent as the actual talent (More so in many cases other than Hayley's, one might cynically add). That's just a few things off the top of my head. Others could doubtless add more Point is: any artist needs selling and the internet is the greatest promotional tool ever invented... |
|
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. 
