Martin Orford August 2009

Raff wrote: As our site proves quite effectively, most prog bands nowadays would get no exposure at all without the web. It is because of people like us, who invest time (almost always with no financial gain) in discussing prog, reviewing albums, interviewing artists and such, that the genre has been able to survive, even thrive. Without sites like ProgArchives, ProgressiveEars, ProgGnosis, DPRP, and all the others we know and love (including the 'local' ones), very few bands but the ones signed by major labels would get any kind of recognition. I am sure that, without the Internet, the plight of those bands or artists would be much worse.

Good point Raff - I think the other side of this particular coin though is yes, although sites such as this give these bands exposure an otherwise lethargic music business would balk at with such a genre, this does not necessarily translate to legitimate sales (although I'm certain there are bands who have benefited financially)... there are evidently plenty of people out there who think "great sounding band, are they on my favorite illegal download site?"

I'd just like to add one thing, though hopefully it will not be seen as being contrary for the sake of it. Though I can understand Martin's bitterness, I have to wonder at his painting the Internet as the root of all evil (same as people I knew in the past used to do as regards TV). As our site proves quite effectively, most prog bands nowadays would get no exposure at all without the web. It is because of people like us, who invest time (almost always with no financial gain) in discussing prog, reviewing albums, interviewing artists and such, that the genre has been able to survive, even thrive. Without sites like ProgArchives, ProgressiveEars, ProgGnosis, DPRP, and all the others we know and love (including the 'local' ones), very few bands but the ones signed by major labels would get any kind of recognition. I am sure that, without the Internet, the plight of those bands or artists would be much worse.

Jim Garten wrote: Many thanks for the kind comments - MO did not think his views would go down well on an online community, but the few views expressed so far (happily) prove him wrong. The responses he gave to the other contributors and myself in this interview are (to me) an object lesson on how illegal free downloading seriously affects music production & I'd again express my thanks to Martin Orford for being so honest & open on the subject.

Edited by Nightfly - September 25 2009 at 10:00

There've been a couple of suggestions (including my own endorsement ) of cutting out the middle man... now to us laymen (ie those outside the industry, this seems a perfectly reasonable & logical step - one to increase the earnings of those actually making the music.

Following some further e-mail contact with Martin Orford, here's his take on the matter:

I see that the comments following my interview are already going along familiar lines... "cut out the middle man and sell direct to the fans". Unfortunately the middle men were actually really useful, and it was through them that the serious volumes of sales were achieved. They also provided access to the major players like Amazon, Play.com and I-tunes, avenues which have been pretty much closed off to the smaller labels following the collapse of Pinnacle and SPV. Direct sales via the Internet are a lovely idea, but unfortunately in reality they amount to peanuts compared with what the big distributors used to achieve. Even with access to a database of over 4,000 e-mail contacts, I only managed about 200 direct sales of The Old Road. Direct mail-order is also incredibly labour-intensive, and you need at least one full-time employee to handle it all, which rather negates any financial gains from the higher profit margins... ...In fairness to the person who suggested cutting out the middle man, I think they were only trying to be helpful, but it's still frustrating that people don't stop to consider that the small labels have already tried everything we possibly can to make this work and stay in business. Direct sales/sales at gigs/small wholesalers/big wholesalers, we sold to 'em all, without limitation. I've even got The Old Road on sale in my local pub. But ultimately the high volume sales through the big distributors (middle men apparently hated by the fans, but not by us) were the bread and butter which paid for new albums to be made, and those sales have vanished.

Again - many thanks to Martin for clarification on this; all a matter of perspective isn't it? Seems logical to us, but one e-mail from someone who's been there, seen it & tried it....

Edited by Jim Garten - September 24 2009 at 04:34

Progfan1958 wrote: Me again !   I would MUCH rather give my $$ to the artist directly.

Progfan1958 speaks with wisdom - cut out the middle man & make sure those who make the music reap the benefits.

Me again !   I would MUCH rather give my $$ to the artist directly.   

Law enforcement of some kind certainly needs to find a way to discourage free downloading, but it seems unlikely given the world we live in.  I sympathize with Martin and wish him all the best and hope that something works out for him.   The demise of SPV doesn't bode well for many artists as well. Perhaps musicians should create an Internet based "Record Label"  to promote their art, where consumers would have to pre-order albums before they are recorded. Once the pre-orders reached a critical profitability mass then recording could commence and the work would delivered before it could get out into the free-net ? Marillion are one group already doing this ( somewhat )  but I could see it expanded into a large collective. The trick would be marketing the music to stimulate the interest...perhaps small clip previews or live teasers, coupled with artist information and testimonials by fans or peers. Maybe even fan requests for the type of music they would pay for ? There must be some possibility of sucess under such a format ?

Thanks for that Jim. That was a very interesting read, and as Finnforest says,a very 'sobering' read.

I sympathise with Martins views, and think it an tragedy that he hasn't even touched his keyboards in months, and doesn't even listen to much music AND doesn't see any value in 'art for arts' sake. The money side of things aside, Martin is clearly a great musician and writer, and I would take some comfort in knowing that he will eventually start playing again, even for his own enjoyment, if nothing else.

Whatever he ends up doing I wish him all the best, and thank him for all those great albums; all of which I acquired legally I hasten to add. I'll not forget the shiver down the spine I got when Mr Orford played the intro to 'The wrong side of wierd' at the Mean Fiddler a few years back. Good days.

Well put Rach

I don't think it comes down to "one side or the other".

 I think Martin has been frank about his experience and whatever your views on illegal downloading, Martin has been fairly open about  the fact that the practice has lead him to be unable to continue in his business. He  tells the story from his first hand experience based upon the facts he knows and that he saw.

It's hard to "disagree" that it's tough to pay your mortgage on a shrinking to nothing income.
 
I think it's a pretty fair fact that bands "like" IQ, (or indeed IQ themselves) sold far more albums before illegal downloading became possible.

I don't think that anyone would dispute that "some" people who illegally downlaod material go on to buy, but it can't be ignored that unfortunately those people seem to be in a minority, (and indeed the majority of downloaders use them as an excuse for their behaviour IMO)  If the MAJORITY of downloaders were going on to buy heaps of music then the business would be booming rather than shrinking. So, yes whilst some folk will download with a modicum of moral sense, they are a few good apples in a pretty bad barrell.

I personally think that these debates get upset and heated when people feel as though they are being treated unfairly in the words used, it's a tough one.  But when someone like Martin quits because of the difficulties he's faced I think it's time for everyone to stop and think. He's not being faced with mere words to give him cause for defensiveness, he's faced an unsurmountable difficulty in his business, and has had to make decisions based on the facts of what happened to him personally.

  W x