|
|
Post by crissyt on Oct 9, 2019 22:08:35 GMT
Regardless of whether Hayley is still with Decca/Universal or not, Pure, and all her other albums for that matter, were recorded when she was under contract with them. Therefore Decca/Universal will own the rights and so will have control.
Hayley will not have control, only influence. Because she has not been a headline act, and therefore not a high earning act for many years now, that influence will be small. All she will be entitled to is royalties.
No doubt somewhat unpalatable to many, but that's the way the industry works.
I seem to recall a recent case (last few months) when another female artist was trying to take control of her legacy work from a record company. Can't remember who it was. If I recall, she was claiming that the contract she signed as a teenager was exploitative and therefore unfair. I can't remember how it was resolved.
My point being that once you sign, you sign over your rights to the intellectual and artistic property.
Hence my comments on here some while back offering the opinion that with the game having changed so much with on-line distribution, the strangle hold of the record companies has been significantly loosened. This should make it easier for artists to operate independently if they so choose.
I still think this would be the best way forward for Hayley. That is, in effect, start her own "label". As I've said before – cut out the middle man. She is clearly a long way from the low point of 2015-17 when she was adrift both personally and professionally and has people around her nowadays who could assist with that. There must be precious little margin to be had with on-line distribution, so why hand over large chunks to an established record company?
So, how about some suggestions for the name of Hayley's new label?
I'll start: "Westenra Records". Obvious, but it has a certain ring to it and, to coin the phrase, it does "exactly what it says on the tin".
|
|
|
|
Post by frenchie on Oct 10, 2019 3:09:43 GMT
Regardless of whether Hayley is still with Decca/Universal or not, Pure, and all her other albums for that matter, were recorded when she was under contract with them. Therefore Decca/Universal will own the rights and so will have control. Hayley will not have control, only influence. Because she has not been a headline act, and therefore not a high earning act for many years now, that influence will be small. All she will be entitled to is royalties. No doubt somewhat unpalatable to many, but that's the way the industry works. I seem to recall a recent case (last few months) when another female artist was trying to take control of her legacy work from a record company. Can't remember who it was. If I recall, she was claiming that the contract she signed as a teenager was exploitative and therefore unfair. I can't remember how it was resolved. My point being that once you sign, you sign over your rights to the intellectual and artistic property. Hence my comments on here some while back offering the opinion that with the game having changed so much with on-line distribution, the strangle hold of the record companies has been significantly loosened. This should make it easier for artists to operate independently if they so choose. I still think this would be the best way forward for Hayley. That is, in effect, start her own "label". As I've said before – cut out the middle man. She is clearly a long way from the low point of 2015-17 when she was adrift both personally and professionally and has people around her nowadays who could assist with that. There must be precious little margin to be had with on-line distribution, so why hand over large chunks to an established record company? So, how about some suggestions for the name of Hayley's new label? I'll start: "Westenra Records". Obvious, but it has a certain ring to it and, to coin the phrase, it does "exactly what it says on the tin". Whoa...umm...yeah, so I was not really thinking about Hayley starting her own record label or her fighting to get control of her masters. If she wants any of those things, then I fully support her in those endeavors. But that was not my intention in posting 2 days ago. My intention was to ask first, "Why was it not on there?", to you guys hoping someone knows more than me about Spotify and how things work. If the response was it will be back, then I will just wait. If not, asking Hayley an inquiring question on Twitter or Instragram I find to be harmless, especially since we really don't know her manager or her social media specialist. Otherwise, I would say ask them. My wish is that as I play Hayley's music in my office while I work, I am supporting official streaming avenues and boosting her official accounts on these platforms while adding to her royalty checks. If she is not interested, then ok. Life goes on. If she didn't know, then she could ask around. And make a suggestion or two. I am not saying she should charge up the hill and go to battle over this though. And maybe she knows some things are missing because it's in relation to their marketing strategy to try and pump her fans for the upcoming album release. I took a quick look and saw that next year is 20 years since "Walking In the Air" was released. Maybe celebrations of sorts next year to go along with the new album. It can't hurt to ask. The worse we would get is silence and the best is Pure on the streaming sites and high quality music videos from to 2000/2010s. |
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Oct 10, 2019 3:23:34 GMT
20 years from Pure itself would make more sense as far as that goes. I do wonder how her 20 years in the music industry will go in 2021, if anyone will take note at all. But it does look like things are starting to happen, with her at Capitol recently, and some place where apple music is. I can't find any special location for that, or where it is Ashlea might work. I don't think her music is going to be limited to online if she's got Capitol Records behind her, of all things. Doubters. LOL  |
|
|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Oct 10, 2019 14:16:56 GMT
I thought I'd check out the other streaming services I use, to see if Pure is listed.
TIDAL-no
Amazon Music- Yes
Deezer- yes (also has multiple version of some albums plus the first Japanese album)
SoundCloud- yes (multiple versions of albums)
EDIT: looking through all of these I've noticed that HSJS2 isn't available on any of the streaming services I listed (or spotify). I wonder why that is? It's such a good album!
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,699
|
Post by Dave on Oct 10, 2019 22:37:19 GMT
My Tidal app (PC) lists a 20 track version of Pure, they seem to have thrown in every song from all versions ever released. Including Silent Night, Away in a Manger, 2 versions of Pokarakare Ana and both versions of Hine e Hine. I am listening to it now!  The main missing ones seem to be as you say HSJS2 - I have never seen it on any streaming site - and the original NZ release Hayley Westenra - probably for copyright reasons. Yet Wiuthering Heights, that Kate Bush's people barred from being a UK single, is still available as part of Pure where Pure is available. It seems very odd that Pure should be missing from any major music download site anywhere, very strange. I will have a look at Youtube in a minute, most are on there officially now. EDIT - No, Pure isn't on Hayley's channel from the US, a lot more albums and other tracks are available on her channel from the UK. Strange. |
|
|
|
Post by cloudbusting.heights on Oct 11, 2019 1:48:17 GMT
HSJS1 is also hit or miss as to where it shows up as well. Maybe the Japanese albums are under different kind of contract? They were only released in Japan right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Oct 11, 2019 4:05:45 GMT
If you mean her own youtube page, yes, Pure itself is missing, but 2 songs from it are there, except it's showing for the River of Dreams album.  The page at least appears to be controlled by Hayley. Why would Hayley eliminate the album that got her famous to begin with?  |
|
