|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 29, 2007 16:52:28 GMT
....Hayley is what she is... and that is not a Diva (in the modern sense of the word not the original technical definition). My bold text. I think this is important. What Diva qualities are we talking about? Referring to Webster 'a celebrated female operatic singer'. - Hayley does not sing opera, other than occasional songs from operas. NOT the same thing.
- The quality is an acquired reputation through competence of performance and has NOTHING to do with personality traits. 'Prima Donna' (a diva) does have, as a secondary explanation, 'temperamental or vain person'. Arguably, if one is a prinma donna by expressing the personality traits of a vain person one is not a diva. 'Temperamental' is difficult. All performers need their particular 'way' of preparing their minds bodies and voices prior to their performances. 'Temperamental' therefore can be simply a statement of 'pre-performance 'fussiness/pedanticism' which may emote 'temper' if such preparation is disturbed. Or can be a state of 'nerves' and hypersensitivity, tending towards negative personality traits, which could be taken as nothing more than stage agitation, for which a performer should be given consideration for the stresses and strains they undergo prior to and during performance.
- Since she has not yet established herself in the US she is no where close to establishing herself as diva material, quite apart from the fact opera is a small part of her repetoire.
That, of course, could be why she jumps at opportunities in film? Peter S Edit: To show bold text in a quote you must use text size 2.
Richard |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 29, 2007 17:05:43 GMT
Since when does standing up for yourself require compromising your principles? ... I don't see any harm in Hayley asserting her will when it would make a considerable difference in comfort and performance quality. I think there are some key points here. Building on my earlier post, the question surely derives from the circumstance and the manner? Vain is vain what ever the reason. Self-assertion not a good idea. I have experienced women who have taken these courses, supposedly designed to encourage women to feel 'equal' with men in mixed society. The results seem always to be disastrous. Essentially, is she not being herself by choosing on what matters she will 'put her foot down' and the extent to which she takes on board the hassle for all for insisting on her own little peccadilloes and the extent to which she views these 'nice to have' in context to the whole scenario? Are we not in danger of seizing upon a throwaway observation and making a mountain out of a molehill? Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Apr 29, 2007 17:21:40 GMT
Well Steve, I think we have known for years that when the need arises, Hayley can and does stand up for herself. We've known it ever since the Wuthering Heights incident became public. ... 1- the 'problem' that we all think exists may not in fact be as great as we sometimes fear. Decca, Hayley and her Management have, I believe, planned long term from the very start; I don't think this is common practice in the record industry for new artists. Hayley's present and future image may already have been agreed and it wouldn't surprise me if it's exactly what Hayley wants it to be. In one of her NZ interviews this month, Hayley said, did she not, that the record company found out what she was going to record for Treasure when she had decided it. That does not sound like the attitude of someone who is going to be pushed around anytime soon. The journalist who described Hayley, underneath it all, as being ' as tough as old boots' may not have been too far off the mark...  Cheers, Dave I haven't yet caught up on the NZ publicity and reporting matter but that quote to which I added bold type I reckon says it all. That is how I have personally always regarded her. In no way implying what we see when 'we see her' is in any way false. Her attitude is 'horses for courses' and when she needs to she sure can put her foot down and does so with the quiet authority of the competent and accomplished performer. It is from such proven territory that true ('proper') diva qualities are derived. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by petertong on Apr 29, 2007 18:46:51 GMT
I wasn't going to add anything to this thread, because as far as I'm concerned, Dave has already expressed my own feelings very clearly. However, there seems to be a lot of "lets work out what Hayley needs to do to get this: to be successful here: to make more money there" WHY? Who says Hayley wants all these things? She's already said that she doesn't want to be seen as a diva, and if Dame Kiri's appalling behaviour is anything to go by, thank goodness!! I believe Hayley is absolutely where she wants to be. I truly believe that she loves her fans as much as they (we) love her and having fans as part of her 'work' is consequently very important to her. If her career slows down, so what? Again she's said selling CD's isn't her main objective - singing is, and working for the good of the world. I'm sure Hayley will make any changes of direction in her career that she feels necessary when and if the time is right. Maybe we should just let her get on with it and do what she wants with her life. She always seems happy, that, to me, is more important than many of the things people seem to wish for her. Best wishes Grant I must say I agree with Grant... she is probably taking a much longer term view of things, and likely a different view of "success" than racking up sales/$$$/fame/popularity just for their own sake... I hope she does nothing that would mean she is no longer true to herself... Peter |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Apr 29, 2007 19:08:31 GMT
....Hayley is what she is... and that is not a Diva (in the modern sense of the word not the original technical definition). I think this is important. What Diva qualities are we talking about? Referring to Webster 'a celebrated female operatic singer'. Hi Peter, As I said, I was referring to the modern "street" usage/definition of Diva, not the original technical definition often to be found in dictionaries who can't keep up!  The following is the definition I had in mind: It's taken from the Urban Dictionary and is, I have assumed, what we have been discussing here. A "pop diva" if you like. I don't think many of us would wish that upon Hayley... or anything like it. Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Apr 29, 2007 20:57:21 GMT
Absolutely not Dave, No one likes a person of unreasonable temperament, or one who makes unreasonable demands. I certainly didnt have this in mind above and I dont believe anyone else does either. This being said..... My wife likes Sarah Brightman - in fact she is the only crossover singer my wife actually likes enough to ask me to play once in a while. When I asked her why she liked Sarah more than Hayley she said that Brightman had a "presence" when she was on stage. I think I can see the point. I dont follow the careers of Ms Brightman or Celine Dion closely enough to have a firm sense of how they behave when they are not performing - but each of them does present a commanding persona while they are performing - and that takes a certain amount of ego. In my opinion, such a projection of the singers personality while performing is quite possibly a necessary condition for a performance to be widely perceived as truly superior. When Hayley was doing her PBS special I was struck by the fact that she was actually able to do this during Wuthering Heights - and perhaps it is no coincedence at all that this was the only song of the entire program which excited the presenters. I was a bit struck by something which came up during the excellent interview so kindly provided by Stephany. The single singer Hayley noted of current interest to her was Maria Callas - who as it happens is quite possibly the prototype of the modern diva But more to the point, while I personally thought she was really a mediocre singer by the time of her recording days, she was quite possibly better at stage presence than anyone has ever been. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by fusilier23 on Apr 29, 2007 21:29:23 GMT
Maria Callas is lucky she was performing at all by the end of things, given her ridiiculous behavior. One of the best things Joe Volpe at the Met did was to give Kathleen Battle the boot and blacklist her from the operatic stage when she got uppity. Arrogance to me is a cardinal, cardinal sin, and thankfully Hayley, meritorious as she is, has never let it go to her head, nor started believing her own press releases.
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Apr 30, 2007 1:55:40 GMT
How do the sales of Treasure/Celtic Treasure stack up to Odyssey at the same point (say six weeks out)? Jon I don't know the US sales but week one was probably better (based on chart position) and week 6 is two places better in the Crossover chart (#7 vs. #9) so overall, Celtic Treasure is probably a bit better than Odyssey. This is probably due to Hayley's participation the Celtic Woman DVD and tour. In the UK, Treasure has sold less than both versions of Odyssey at this stage (9 weeks) and currently has a lower position in the top 200 (a better guide than the classical charts). This is not unexpected because it has not been promoted effectively as Hayley wasn't in the UK for long enough. But there will be two opportunities to make up ground in th rest of the year. Firstly when the TV series "Jekyll" is aired at peak time in the UK on BBC TV over six weeks (and with luck, the ITV mini series "Flood" will be aired soon after). Hayley will be in the UK when Jekyll is aired so I expect Decca to try and persuade supermarkets etc. to re-stock with Treasure. Second, I expect a Special Edition of Treasure to be released in the UK in time for the Christmas market and this should sell well, perhaps better than the original version if Odyssey is an indicator. But I will be surprised if it matches the total sales of Odyssey (both versions, probably 180,000 to 200,000). In NZ it's too early to make the comparison as Hayley has only just done her promo week there and could go back to no. 1 next week, we'll have to wait and see. In Oz it's too soon to tell, the promo hasn't even been completed yet. In HK certainly and Taiwan possibly it seems to be doing about as well as Odyssey. In Japan it's in the charts but I don't have the comparison to hand. Cheers, Dave |
|
Martin
Global Moderator
HWI Management Team
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by Martin on Apr 30, 2007 11:40:24 GMT
Now, I'm not saying that Katherine Jenkins is a Diva but later this year she is appearing in a new musical with Darcey Bussel entitled "Viva La Diva". I'm still not saying anything! Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Apr 30, 2007 14:37:33 GMT
|
|
Martin
Global Moderator
HWI Management Team
Posts: 3,339
|
Post by Martin on Apr 30, 2007 14:52:42 GMT
Richard As if.......... Tickets are already on sale via Ticketmaster. There are nine concerts advertised at present, none of which will be in London. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 1, 2007 19:05:55 GMT
I think this is important. What Diva qualities are we talking about? Referring to Webster 'a celebrated female operatic singer'. Hi Peter, As I said, I was referring to the modern "street" usage/definition of Diva, not the original technical definition often to be found in dictionaries who can't keep up! The following is the definition I had in mind: It's taken from the Urban Dictionary and is, I have assumed, what we have been discussing here. A "pop diva" if you like. I don't think many of us would wish that upon Hayley... or anything like it. Cheers, Dave Hi Dave. Interesting. You raise a whole new issue of the concept of 'authority'. Since THE editor (or founder) is (founded in 1999) is (was) a college student (Aaron Peckham) and that Jobs and Gates were college drop outs, one might argue that in the latter two cases they have established their credentials and Peckham may be on the way to doing so. However, he himself describes his creation as 'a parody of the dictionary. Is a parody the same as the thing parodied and having the same authority? Urbandictionary.com features definitions written by people from all over the world. The publishers blurb says 'it has been cited in court'. On the surface this would seem to be an argument for its authority, but who cited it, in which situation and did they win? It has also been referred to in graduation speeches, and by countless news media outlets, including CNN and Time magazine. Aaron listens for the newest words and phrases in San Francisco, Calif. All this, however is publisher's blurb, the sole purpose of which is to sell the book not present an objective assessment. What is interesting is that it does not quote specific citations from these key media (CNN, Time magazine. Why not? Could it be, like the billboards outside a theatre that cry The Daily Mail says 'superb' but leaves out the words around 'superb' that might have been '..this would have been superb if lt is wasn't so awful'!  Regardless. you have opened my eyes to a new development and you do raise interesting questions. The speed of language change. BUT, if language is changing that fast, are these transitory words of value if they are in a continual state of change in themselves as well as falling in and out of regular usage. This is why printed dictionaries are always 'out of date'--their editors wait for a word to establish itself and prove its value by lasting the course. After all, Peckham himself says, in a report by the American Civil Liberties Union, 'Urban Dictionary evolved to what it is today because people used it for their own purpose -- self-expression.' Is individual self-expressionism the best way of establishing a common pattern for intercommunication? What is the 'authority' of Urban Dictionary? One Aaron Peckham + anyone else in the world who cares to add to it. The front page of the SOED ( Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) states the following (amongst others) 'based on historical principles, revised and edited by CT Onions, CBE, FRA, MA Lond; MA, Hon D.Litt. Oxon; Hon. Litt.D. Leeds; Hon. LLD Birmingham; Hon. FRSL, Fellow and sometime Librarian of Magdalen College, Sometime Reader in English Philology in the University of Oxford, Co-editor of the Oxford English Dictionary (the, I think, 26 volume version), Corresponding Fellow of the Mediaeval Academy of America. That is what I call an authority. Yes, okay, it is the 1972 printing and my most 'modern' dictionary is Collins 1995, but the problem is NOT the publishers 'keeping up' with language changes but the ability of 'umble folk like me to be able to afford successive copies! The reason I cited Webster is because that is to American English what (arguably I will accept) the OED is to British English and we do need to bear in mind Churchill's quote: two nations divided b a common language! Further, to keep things light-hearted, there is Gilbert (WS with Sullivan): 'when everyone is somebody then no one's anybody'. If everyone is contributing to the Urban dictionary what they think a word means is there sufficient commonality of understanding that any one of us has a clue what the other person is talking about? Yours in good fun.  There is also the problem of playing Scrabble! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 1, 2007 19:11:59 GMT
Maria Callas is lucky she was performing at all by the end of things, given her ridiiculous behavior. One of the best things Joe Volpe at the Met did was to give Kathleen Battle the boot and blacklist her from the operatic stage when she got uppity. Arrogance to me is a cardinal, cardinal sin, and thankfully Hayley, meritorious as she is, has never let it go to her head, nor started believing her own press releases. I think one has to look behind the headlines and see the whole woman in her 'home' surroundings. Lke Judy Garland, but in a different way, this was a woman much sinned against by certain persons and a large part of the world at one time, rather than being the greater sinner. Peter S. |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on May 1, 2007 19:45:35 GMT
Hi Dave. Interesting. You raise a whole new issue of the concept of 'authority'. Since THE editor (or founder) is (founded in 1999) is (was) a college student (Aaron Peckham) and that Jobs and Gates were college drop outs, one might argue that in the latter two cases they have established their credentials and Peckham may be on the way to doing so. However, he himself describes his creation as 'a parody of the dictionary. Is a parody the same as the thing parodied and having the same authority? Urbandictionary.com features definitions written by people from all over the world. Hi Peter, I claim no "authority" for the Urban Dictionary but I do sometimes read popular newspapers and talk to my daughters and their friends! My understanding of what "Diva" means to most people was not the dictionary definition so I did a simple test. I phoned Daughter A) who is a music graduate and asked her to define "Diva". She quoted the dictionary definition - of course! I then phoned daughter B) who now has a young family and is interested in pop music and culture, is quite street wise and who runs a mile at the first sign of classical crossover or classical music. She first gave me the "pop diva" (modern) definition mentioned by Urban Dictionary but added that she thought it was also something to do with opera singers. So I looked it up in Urban Dictionary because I guessed that it would give me the "street" definition - and so that I could copy it without having to write my own definition! You can be sure that the "street" definition will get into the OED in due course as an alternative to the original definition; well I jolly well hope so!  Don't you just love the ever shifting sands of the English language?  The main reason I raised this aspect of the discussion was to flag the possibility that some of us might be talkling about different things... Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on May 1, 2007 21:24:19 GMT
Hi Dave. You weren't intending to 'prove' my last comment, were you? Perhaps we should raise the issue more frequently, just to make sure we are all talking about Hayley Westenra and not Charlotte Church! But then, of course, I suppose a moderator's riposte would be 'we do, we make sure you keep on topic'! Peter S. |
|
The following is the definition I had in mind:
