Martin Orford August 2009

I can live with that I suppose

Sorry Stoney, i know you find it objectionable, but I don't believe in sugarcoating the term, because that just enables those folks who wish to believe what they are doing is not wrong.  I won't be a part of that. 

Now whose putting words in other's mouths? 

Edited by Finnforest - October 01 2009 at 12:10

stonebeard wrote: Wilcey wrote: No Stonie, I think the past has proved that people get upset when you say you download thier stuff because you think it's ok in your circumstances, (ie poor or something)    And I think that point is still a somewhat meaningful one, if not the best option. I listen to--and buy, now that I have a decent job--a LOT of music. I could not do that and only listen to what I buy, but the only difference that would make is my lack of music. The artists I'm not already buying from still wouldn't get any profit. But we already "acknowledge" my side of the argument, which I'm well capable of admitting is neither black nor white, but everyone's mind is made up about the matter. "Downloading kills artists." All new information has to be put through that mental filter first.   There are other esoteric reasons why I do indeed think it might be a much better reason not to download, but apparently all that anyone likes to throw around is "Thief!" so I don't feel welcome even trying to help out "the other side."

Wilcey wrote: No Stonie, I think the past has proved that people get upset when you say you download thier stuff because you think it's ok in your circumstances, (ie poor or something)

my "priorities and sermonizing"   oh that's rich.  I'll bow out of your mass justification session Teaflax so you can decide for the music industry just how you choose to take their products from them and how much they should be able to charge, because of course, in this one industry, you guys have decided its up to you, not them.  There's nothing more to say. 

BigBoss wrote: The band did not make more money on this release.

Goal post moving, irresponsive reply, lack of substance. Fifteen yard penalty, repeat third down.


Edited by Teaflax - October 01 2009 at 09:40

Mike and Pete of IQ have now confirmed that Frequency is indeed their best seller ever in just under 6 months, in large part due to the CD/DVD special edition (meaning that the regular CD may well have sold less, making Shawn's statement true in a sense, but not when looking at the whole picture).

So, again, you were saying?

again, the point is missed - the past ten years' solutions to this problem have proven to be ineffective in stopping illegal downloads. CD sales have decreased even further. And illegal downloads are not the major reason why this has happened. That most would deny this means zilch to the real world.

To say that the excuses used by the thieves are self serving is nice, but that accomplishes ???

It is simply time for musicians to look honestly at what is out there and plan accordingly.

Oh, btw, this past year as a household we spent money renting DVDs, buying a video game console and games, getting a cellphone (monthly payments, eh), buying a new DVD player, along with switching to a more expensive satellite TV package. On top of that, I've purchased a dozen local releases, and regularly pick up used CDs & LPs at Spin-It.  New music purchases included about 10 downloads (half of which were Marillion, god bless their value priced offerings). Another 5 were current releases.  As neither my wife or I have gotten major pay raises, can you guess how that might affect what I spend on music ?

And to think that just 5 years ago, I would get at least 20-25 new releases, along with a dozen or so back catalogue items (brand new, not used) a year, along with another 20 from second hand stores. And if a music freak like me has changed their spending habits like that, do you all think it's possible that others have too ?
Again, feel free to live with the easy answers - berating a behaviour that is illegal, yet has shown no signs of being affected by the legal sanctions pursued, disallowing studies that state that criminal actions such as downloads do not impact CD sales as much as is claimed, completely ignoring many media commentators pointing out additional and alternatives entertainment options available to consumers, avoiding any discussion of how an increase of musical acts and the subsequent releases by all these acts just ends up making for smaller pieces of pie for ALL musicians, added to the reality that a perfect storm of cultural & financial  forces made for a commercial golden age that had never been seen in the music industry nor will ever be seen again, and a stubborn resolve to seeing that music is & will be delivered in a different manner that most prefer, compounded by the simple abundance of music so that most now (already) have more than they will ever be able to listen to, all forces that contribute to a market that does not respond to simple declarations of legalities and sympathies.

If another ten years of this merry go round is the choice,  go ahead, you know the results so far ...

There are a number of things that my parents' generation had, have, and will have that I will never enjoy. My bellyaching will not change that. But there are many things that my parents never got, and will not be able to fully enjoy. Neither situation is perfect, and neither changes because either doesn't like it. But you still gotta live, eh ...

And so I expect ye go on for another ten years ... (for those who cannot spotify the new reality nor accept the work now required to get paid for their work )


Edited by debrewguy - October 01 2009 at 06:50

I had to quote this:

Finnforest wrote: There are two issues being criss-crossed here for the convenience of the download-is-ok viewpoint.  The first issue is artist adaptibility and that some bands are able to soldier on while Martin is not.  This is a fair point to raise and it's great news.  If some bands can adapt and continue, enjoy the indepence, and prosper in the paradigm that exists in 20 years, that's fantastic, and more power to them .    But that is a completely separate issue from whether one entitles themselves to break existing laws, because they feel they should get to do as they please, and they have the capability.  Because the new breed of artist is able to "make it" doesn't strengthen the case of the thief one bit.  They have still broken the law and it is wrong any way you slice it.    If you think the laws are a joke, and you wish to break them because it's easy to do, that's your decision.  But you can't cleanse the immorality of it by pointing to some musicians who are prospering.  They are reacting to a climate created by the thieves, not the other way around.  That they have been successful is great news but it changes nothing about the "right and wrong" of taking something without paying.  And there has been nothing posted so far that makes taking-without-permission into a clean act.  And there won't be.    Last, I'm buying Martin's cd to thank him for having the courage to tell it like it is.  Hope it's good stuff, I've never heard his work.

Excellent post, FF, excellent