Martin Orford August 2009

Jim Garten wrote: jplanet wrote: Part of the reason older bands from the 70's sound more convincing and can put on a better live show than new bands is because they have the financial backing to do it well. Not that I have anything personal invested in this point of view. If only there were another professional musician on the site to give his perspective...

If the criteria of "professional" is one who can make a living at it, we're still lacking that input. 

It would be fine for bands to adapt to the so-called "new model" if there were live venues to play like there used to be, but that has dissolved as well. Ask any working band in Europe how many gigs they play now compared to just a few years ago before the smoking bans, or what has happened to the live scene in the U.S. since the minimum drinking age was raised...

Music fans can exercise good judgment when choosing what to buy and what to steal - if the band is just starting out and is not yet able to tour, there's a pretty good chance they won't continue to exist if people don't support them by buying the music. While it is possible to produce music at a very low cost on a home computer, believe me, people can tell and they will always eventually gravitate towards music that cost thousands of dollars to record, simply because it sounds better. You can only do so much music when working a day job to support it.

Part of the reason older bands from the 70's sound more convincing and can put on a better live show than new bands is because they have the financial backing to do it well.

Not that I have anything personal invested in this point of view.


Edited by jplanet - December 29 2009 at 12:26

Hi Martin,

I'm sorry If I trivialized the use of the word tragedy . I still have sympathy for Martin, whilst I do not claim to know him well, I met him on a few occasions and he was always friendly and polite . I admired him and what he was trying to achieve and  hope his luck will change.

Charlie wrote: I was greatly saddened to read Martin Orford's  interview. In the past I purchased many of I.Q.s records and C.D's and went to dozens of their gigs throughout the 80's and early 90's. The last time I saw him perform was with John Wetton at his village hall . A great talent, its tragic the modern world and the internet have ended his career. He's right , free music download access should have never been allowed to become this easy.

Martin ended his career. No one or nothing else. And tragedy is something more than a musician being unable to ply his trade.
Maybe in his time off, he can spend some time researching and learning how other musicians are able to face the same challenges and make a living at it.
I wish that Three Friends would come play Moncton, but there after doing some informal polling , we don't feel there's enough people interested in buying tickets to warrant a promoter taking the chance even for a small 400 seat gig.
But that's not a tragedy. My wife's mentally ill uncle living in an abandoned trailer is. a little perspective please ...

Oh, if I may trouble y'all with an example of what a band shouldn't do , and how just the one thing can undo all the good they do ...
as quoted from the Bob Lefsetz email newsletter Oct 1 :

"Subject: RE: Sales-Week Ending 9/27/09

Hi, Bob. Thanks for your always-informative sales commentary, leading with Pearl Jam this week. I was a longtime PJ fan, having been a devoted Ten Club member since 1996 (with a coveted low member number), so I have access to all the better seats in the house. I receive the vinyl Christmas singles (even if they do arrive in late spring). I get the newsletter. I buy the posters. I attend every local show.
 
Am I buying "Backspacer"?  No. Here's why...the band is anti-social media. Which means they are anti-fan.
 
In a nutshell, Pearl Jam destroyed my YouTube account. I'd attended last summer's Eddie Vedder tour in support of the "Into the Wild" soundtrack (8th row, thank you), and yeah, I shot a few videos. Crappy, wobbly, mono videos with audience noise. Yeah, I shared them with fellow fans on YouTube.
 
The Ten Club's response? They removed not only the EV videos, but MY ENTIRE YOUTUBE ACCOUNT.  More than 400 videos...gone. Without notice. And some of those were family videos that were corrupted in a PC hard drive problem, so I can't ever get them back.
 
All this because I shared a few amateur videos with fellow fans on YouTube? I never imagined Pearl Jam would be that media illiterate; I always assumed they were a savvy, intelligent, fan-friendly band. I understand if they're saving the material for an EV DVD, but do they REALLY think my wobbly vids could compete with a commercial DVD? Don't they know I'd have purchased the DVD anyway? And maybe some copies as gifts for friends?
 
Well, not anymore. And not "Backspacer," either. And I'm not likely to see them live ever again. It may be time to give up that member number of 161XXX.

Please keep my name anonymous. I don't need any further YouTube hassles with my new account. In fact, I've taken to using the following fair use disclaimer on anything I post moving forward:

DISCLAIMER -- Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
 
___________________________________________
___________________________________________"""

 

Edited by Dean - October 05 2009 at 02:44

PT II
 I think I must have missed this in the various posts, but here goes

part of the drop in album sales can also be attributed to the music fan now being able to get the song(s) that they actually want. NO need to buy a  $20 CD top get that one hit . This is why an act like Creed will never be able to sell albums any more.() . It may be less of a factor in Prog, but realistically, there are prog bands out there who can't or don't put out  albums filled with decent material. But there are some that have that really killer tune that you just gotta have ! Just not for 20 bucks !

Teaflax wrote: Dean wrote: I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. Then you have not been paying attention. Direct and respectful communication with fans is what makes many acts do well in today's new market. Read up on what Trent Reznor's been doing. If he'd just been releasing CDs and whining about all of the people who don't buy it, there's no way he would have the success he's had in the last few years. Check Jonathan Coulton's donation system Banana, Monkey, Robot, which wouldn't work if he wasn't building goodwill directly with fans (not to mention his MP3 sales).

debrewguy wrote: Dean wrote: Teaflax wrote: Dean wrote: And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation. If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb. I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally. Actually , Judas Priest's complaints in the mid 80s about how they should be getting more attention and success because of Iron Maiden was doing ( i.e. ripping off) what JP had been doing before (double leads, bye bye blues influences etc) did cost them some fans. Who cares for a wuss in leather ? Mind you , this was before Ram It Down ...

Was that fans or potential fans?