Recently mp3 blogs Music for Robots (http://music.for-robots.com/archives/001432.html) and Lemon Red (http://www.lemon-red.org/blog/2006/04/24/the-hardest-week-pt1/) teamed up with Vice Records for a week long feature on The Streets in exchange for free tickets to the Vice curated Intonation festival and perhaps other goodies. My question is do you think there is some ethical line that has been crossed here or is the mp3 blog world too ambiguous to have an established code? Personally I'm all for working with independent labels, but Vice is a pretty big company, The Streets is already pretty famous, and this just feels a bit tainted to me. Thoughts?
This has already been covered on this forum in some way or another (don't worry, you didn't know), so from that, you could probably infer the consensus. Based on the past, it would probably be 50% "PAYOLA! EEEVVVVIILLLL!" and 50% wouldn't care.
It depends if you want your blog to be a PR front or journalism or something else entirely.
The only "ethical line" would be if you were holding Music For Robots to a journalistic standard and they weren't admitting their relationship with Vice, but these are music blogs, not newspapers. They can do whatever they want.
I think the concern here arises if the relationship isn't disclosed.
In this case "tastemaker" label, vice, comes to mfr and says "yo, how about this exclusive video thing?" that sounds like a pretty good idea.
it's also EXACTLY what a bunch of you bloggers have been crying about, "i wish labels would embrace us more or try to work more closely with bloggers.' Well, this is what that looks like.
it's no surprise that one of the first labels to come up with some real exclusive content would be one like vice that has its marketing down so tight.
as far as the intonation tickets go, as far as i can tell none have been given to the actual authors of mfr (i will ask them tomorrow) but they were given some to give away. are people on this board also not pro-swag? the conversation has been had time after time and everyone ends up just yelling "gimme free stuff!" so loud that you can't hear anything else.
as far as i can tell mfr hasn't done anything wrong. have they accepted anything they didn't tell us about? it doesn't look like it. have they been upfront about what it is they're offering and where it came from? yes. was it exclusive? yes. is that awesome? yes. were the videos awesome? i have no idea. did anyone watch them?
i only really email back Independant labels and have built a good relationship with some of these. But if my favorite band on a major offered me exclusives I'd probably take them.
No matter what Music For Robots motives are I've lost a bit of respect for the blog, but it's still a fantastic music site. This is all something we;ll have to come to terms with if we want blogging to head more and more in the mainstream.
I don't think that Music For Robots is becoming a PR front, but if I continue to see things like this on their site I will gradually lose intrest in reading the site.
I don't think working with anybody should be something 'unethical' as long as the intent is good. (hey we all love having fun right?)
my first reactions:
- does only following bigger latest bands good for music? (Who is going to tell the little guys?) The bigger blog has more credibility introducing lesser known/high quality artists right? The smaller blog doesn't have the audiance reach and resource to do it. (eg. it can't do mix tape of bigger known/lesser known tracks.)
-Does working closely with certain promo scheme change something that normally a blog would/wouldn't do. (eg. changing content, rating, shilling, not having reader and artists integrity in mind)
There is nothing fundamentally wrong if all parties involved are happy and know what's going on. It's dicey when it starts ruining musical experiance. Big promo scheme does have corrosive influence.
There's a precedent here, with which I don't necessarily have a problem. They're blatant about this kind of thing to the point of humility. MFR (and Chris Nelson) have provided me plenty of entertainment and great music in the past (the Lemon-Red mix series is top-notch, if you haven't checked it out), so far be it from me to begrudge them the right to a little free content every once in a while. I mean, how is this different from the ubiquitous label-sponsored contests everywhere (which are fun for all, right?)?
Eh, this may not be unethical, but it certainly goes to credibility. From what I've heard of the the new Streets material, it pretty much sucks (and I liked Skinner's earlier stuff). And those posts seem a little too gushy about Vice (as did that earlier post about Warner that you linked to Eric). As Mike said, it kinda makes me lose respect for these guys. Blogs don't need to be held to journalistic standards, but I think we should expect some level of sincerity. At the very least.
everyone who has done a giveaway on their site, be it from something i sent out, or something another label sent out, you're all in the same boat. did you reveal why you were able to give away the records or who provided them? was it even a big deal that you did or didn't?
maybe mfr LIKES the streets? are you really ready to call out someone's motives without even talking to them?
and i don't care who you are, if warner came to me with that secret machines song and wanted me to post it, with their blessing, i'd post it in a second. that song is a jam.
again, and this is key, they've been nothing but straightforward about where the video came from and they've got one of the most ad-free sites amongst the bloggers. we don't need to retread the whole ads on sites argument here, but c'mon this seems more like the little guys taking swipes at the big guys just for the sake of it.
i have to agree w/ ben. but then again, knowing Robot Mark, he doesn't care what the people on this board have to say about his credibility. he's always been upfront about what he's doing, and if any blog has any measurable amount of cred, it's MfR...
I don't want to weigh in one way or the other on the issue of givaways. except that I don't don't do them for much the same reason I don't do ads. and I don't want to say anything regarding Robots but...
I would like to say that it's fair to discuss it. Ben's acting like Music for Robot's is not in the public eye and that we have no right to have a debate on the ethics of what one particular site is doing. Blogs are now part of the marketing machine and it's fair to critique them without knowing exactly what a blogs motives are or aren't. The dilemma is that blogs are also personal so while it seems people are taking shots at Mark they are actually commenting on a publication just like you might question the NY Times motives for running a story or the liberal slant of NPR or payola in radio or Pitchforks review policy.
If you're going to have a blog I guess you have to expect people to have an opinion about your blog and have a right to discuss it on public forums.
songsI: did you read what i wrote? mfr is in the public eye but tell me what is wrong with what they did?
answer these questions: are they doing anything dishonest? are they being compensated in some way aside from posting the videos and giving away tickets? what do you think they're hiding? are we seriously about to get into a "this label is too big for mp3 blogs to work with because mp3 blogs are 'indie'" argument?
this isn't about mark or any of the other robot-kids. this seems to be boiling down to an argument about what labels mp3 blogs should support and which they shouldn't. do i need to say how stupid that is?
everyone can knock whoever they want, but have some valid reasoning behind it. especially if you're doing it in a public forum.
now if you want to start calling out everyone who has done a giveaway, gotten an exclusive from a label, or worked with an artist / label in any way, well that's different. how is this one case any different from all those instances though?
hell, i write about tons of music i'm being paid to work with, that is worthy of WAY more criticism than this.
criticism = great. this rings hollow though. c'mon.
Blogs are now part of the marketing machine and it's fair to critique them without knowing exactly what a blogs motives are or aren't
You can critique them, but I think you said a mouthful there. We don't know each other's motives and if we did, we certainly wouldn't agree what is right and wrong. The real truth is, THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG. There is only the RIAA and what the law has all ready established at lawful and unlawful. There are no real "ethics" of blogging other than the gentlemanly agreements made with labels and PR reps and about hotlinking and things like that I think.
While you may not agree with what MfR is doing, they have every RIGHT to do it. That's really the bottom line. Cred really isn't the issue, but we could talk about it as if it is the issue now.
I'm not taking a stance one way or another though..I just think that's all you can say about this topic. I will say though, that when I first read it MfR and this whole thing, I thought, "Man, that's a sellout." But it doesn't really matter that that's what I thought...he can do what he wants, that's his God-given and lawful right.
Also, I've met Mark too and I really like him as a person, so I'm not totally unbias in this discussion.
i'm curious dodge, why did you personally automatically think he was a sellout? i would have posted that Streets stuff if given the opportunity, for the sole reason that i'm a huge fan of mike skinner. i think he's great.
if someone would have offered you a similar opportunity for a band you loved, like that clay aiken guy you're always telling me about, you would have done it too.
I couldn't of said it better Dodge! There is no right or wrong. Most folks seem to spend more time worrying about other peoples blogging motives or business. The fact is if they channeled only half of the energy they used on that to energy towards their own blog, they would see tremendous returns...
This blogging thing is still a brand new frontier. So congratulate the folks who are thinking and doing things outside of the box even if it appears to you like it is self serving. And there ain't nothing wrong with a little self serving. As long as, at the end of the day, the music wins....
I don't know how this turned into whether MFR has the "right" to do what they did, because I think it's obvious that they have the right to post whatever the hell they feel like. I think Amy and SongsIllinois hit the nail on the head with regards to the issue being more about credibility, and I apologize for my initial phrasing.
"Ben's acting like Music for Robot's is not in the public eye and that we have no right to have a debate on the ethics of what one particular site is doing. Blogs are now part of the marketing machine and it's fair to critique them without knowing exactly what a blogs motives are or aren't. The dilemma is that blogs are also personal so while it seems people are taking shots at Mark they are actually commenting on a publication just like you might question the NY Times motives for running a story or the liberal slant of NPR or payola in radio or Pitchforks review policy."
Bingo! I don't know the robots, I'm sure they're all very cool dudes. However, Ben is coming off as a petulant fanboy, setting up straw men and knocking them down:
"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
I think the concern here arises if the relationship isn't disclosed.
No, that would be the concern if I were retarded or M4R and Lemon Red were completely inept. It wouldn't be too hard to sniff out a special relationship if a popular blog posted songs and videos by a popular artist for a week straight without fear of reprisal, so being upfront about the relationship isn't some laudable instance of honesty.
as far as i can tell mfr hasn't done anything wrong. have they accepted anything they didn't tell us about? it doesn't look like it. have they been upfront about what it is they're offering and where it came from? yes. was it exclusive? yes. is that awesome? yes. were the videos awesome? i have no idea. did anyone watch them?
This isn't about doing something "wrong," it's about credibility. I'm not advocating government intervention, I just want to have a discussion on an internet message board. The internet is very democratic, people vote with their clicks. I'm sure if M4R continues to do features like this people will stop going to them as Mike Medicine suggested.
again, and this is key, they've been nothing but straightforward about where the video came from and they've got one of the most ad-free sites amongst the bloggers. we don't need to retread the whole ads on sites argument here, but c'mon this seems more like the little guys taking swipes at the big guys just for the sake of it.
Yes, you're right, it's just jealousy. Listen dude, some of us aren't anti-intellectuals, we actually like considering ideas. Does the fact that a blog is popular insulate it from criticism?
answer these questions: are they doing anything dishonest? are they being compensated in some way aside from posting the videos and giving away tickets? what do you think they're hiding? are we seriously about to get into a "this label is too big for mp3 blogs to work with because mp3 blogs are 'indie'" argument?
this isn't about mark or any of the other robot-kids. this seems to be boiling down to an argument about what labels mp3 blogs should support and which they shouldn't. do i need to say how stupid that is?
Nobody has said anything about them being "dishonest," that's your straw man. Answering all your questions negatively doesn't really prove anything except that you chose to ask questions that had negative answers. Is it "stupid" to consider what corporations one supports? I don't think so.
hell, i write about tons of music i'm being paid to work with, that is worthy of WAY more criticism than this.
Yes, it certainly is. What's your point?
this is such a non-issue as it is stated.
You would think a "non-issue" wouldn't receive many responses. Obviously people have opinions on this and want to talk about it, I think that's the definition of issue: a point or matter of discussion. Booyah.
we write about music because we like it and we're internet savvy people.
the labels see our traffic and want to find ways to harness it towards their interests. the labels don't just throw money around, they like to barter with people. what MfR did was a barter, like it or not.
if you're okay with promoting the artists you like through promos and freebies, then you do. if you're not okay with it, you don't.
music blogging is pure. the music industry can, at times, be dirty. it's tough to walk in the dirt without occasionally getting some on yourself. but that's the risk we run when we put our thoughts out there for people to read.
i don't think Mark is a "sellout" in the sense that he would do anything for money or tickets or whatever - jeebus, i could easily and have been called the same at times... more than a few of us could whether you admit it or not. I mean as your blog grows you are presented with more and more opportunities and offers and things that make you think twice (hopefully). Mark's in that position.
I just meant anytime you take something and post on it because you got something in return (other than the album really), it's selling out to some degree or another. and Amy is right, the new Streets album is weak...at least compared to the last...maybe that's all I thought. Like, this album is weak, why is anyone hyping it...but like I said, people can and have said that about things I've posted on. I'm cool with it, others have to be too.
well yeah. there's a difference between posting something because you're getting something in return and posting something because you like it.
i don't think it's good to try and root out everyone's motivations for writing about the music they like, even if they're giving something away to promote that music.
to all of us, those motivations may seem obvious. to the average reader, they usually just like the music or the artist and they don't really care about what someone's motivation is.
music reviewers are frequently assigned stories. music bloggers can write about what they want.
all the other things you mention is over analysis. everyone has an opinion about what is credible and what isn't. some people read AOL Music and they find it credible. some people read Fluxblog. some people don't read at all, they're just happy to find new music to talk about.
you determine your own credibility by what you choose to write about and whether or not you write about it even if someone else thinks its not cool or whatever. if you're basing your own credibility on how others view what you choose to talk about or the way you conduct your blog, there will never be any credibility to you or your blog because you're playing catch up instead of following your own choices. you might as well get a job working for a newspaper and quit blogging because all you're doing, in that instance, is taking an assignment from everyone around you.
I am extremely wary about working with any labels. My main interests in doing my site are in writing critically and in having total editorial control, so it makes no sense for me to get involved in any kind of promotion, even if it's for an artist that I like. I'm not interested in getting into artist promotion. I understand that some people are, and might think of their site as being a way of breaking into PR or the music industry in general, and if that's what they want to do, then more power to them. But if you're interested in being a credible critic, it's really the last thing you should be doing, full disclosure or not.
there's the person who i've never met before who approaches me from a label talking about promoting their artist. these are relationships to be wary of.
then there's the person i've known for a long time who landed a gig at a label. i can't let my relationship with that person affect my writing, and i may have to educate them on the difference between my writing and our personal relationship. if they get all wrapped up in the job and are up my ass about this band of theirs that i hate, i gotta rethink our relationship. i know it's happened to someone out there.
"label people" are not your friend, whether you're an artist or a writer or whatever. they are friendly people and sometimes fun to hang out with. it's even possible to become friends with someone who works at a label so long as they understand where i draw the line. if i draw the line and they disappear, they weren't a friend anyways were they?
friends who just want something from me aren't my friends in the rest of my life. why should they be when it comes to my blog?
"ben@ego ... so what i should've been arguing about is cred?
again, i ask, is this seriously about how supporting a label that you deem is "too big for blogs" ? where do you draw the line? is it about size? corporate ownership? coolness of the records? "
I tend to view that it's not possible to generalized the whole thing. Those paramters you mentions has nothing to do with the real issues, if a group of people behaves ethically and make positive contribution on balance. (eg. it is possible for a small label to be evil and a big gigantic corporation not to be exploitative)
but to say the entire thing, all form of label is evil is simplistic and counter productive. There are things that only certain size of organisation can do.
Only by seeing each individual label one can conclude which to support, which are exploitative.
"if record companies want to work with blogs then bloggers shouldn't because they'll lose cred?"
That'll be something. I doubt any of us here can pull that off. Only working with unsigned artists. It's a pretty complex undertaking. A lot of groups are doing it right now, but none effective.
And from scanning hypemachine, let's just say, I really don't believe anybody can pull that off. Nobody here, nobody has a specialized blog focusing on unsigned artists. Everybody is doing hot-indie rock.
A lot of peolle is doing "I am so cool, I do indie only" but upon archive inspection, it's bunk.
Most of us here, including me, uses artists work for our own end without the actual artists who create it give explicit agreement.
To then point other people, labels, are fundamentally more exploitative than bloggers is very hypocritical.
Of course it's absolutely hard to get explicit consent on all tracks, but at least we should acknowledge some effect and prevent the very worst cases. Pointing finger about this or that people are evil is easy, but then what?
Shouldn't it be more than just navel gazing and self indulgence rants?
(me me me me me .. )
Hey if audioblogs scene want to be taken seriously, then it's time to quit acting like 14 years old.
As an "exploitive" promo person (who is also a huge music fan), I approach bloggers from time to time if I like their site and their writing and I think THEY might like some of the artists we work with. If not, no big deal.
You either like the music or not. I can't imagine that labels are chasing down individual bloggers with high pressure to post...that seems ludicrous to me.
" ..suprprising that no indie rock bloggers have committed suicide yet due to the pressue of maintaining their cred and not "selling out."
I for one will help that person kick the bucket. Obviously he is so busy thinking his "cred" which he probably can't figure out what that really means, nevrmind what good music is about. (otherwise he woudn't be so busy thinking and worrying about it would he?)
"cred" is for middle school kids. Coherency and uniqueness are what's interesting.
I don't know what sort of baggage you bring to the word "credibility" (though I can guess), but if any of you wish to be critics, academics, or journalists, credibility and integrity is of utmost importance and ought to be considered very carefully. I find it rather troubling that so many people view mp3 blogging as being this somewhat socially acceptable version of being a shill, especially since the roots of the format were always based in music criticism.
"Matthew ...credibility and integrity is of utmost importance and ought to be considered "
okay so what is the manifestation of those ideal in your blog? I am curious. textual description of course, since this is the mode of expression we are on right now.
eg. what exactly is your posting criteria. Given several dozen random tracks, what criteria would you use and what will you post. (If you need real example of random tracks, I can supply it for you. I can assure you they will be wide ranging and random.)
No advertisements, no sponsorships, no promotions, no contests coordinated with outside agencies.
I will accept any submissions for consideration, but the song selection is based entirely upon what I consider to be of exceptionally high quality and meriting critical discussion. From time to time, I will accept free concert tickets if I am interested in writing a live review, but I mostly buy my own.
"Matthew ... the song selection is based entirely upon what I consider to be of exceptionally high quality and meriting critical discussion."
yes yes, very nice...bla bla.. etc etc...
so what are those "merits". The aesthetic criteria, your so called "creds". Certainly you have some instead of purely non musical considerations.
If I post you 6 tracks without labels/ID what are the criteria to decide. (well this and that tracks are good, the rests are craps..."because"....)
This is not some ..ha ha, yer funny. But it's what drives music, the idea its expression..
Say, me.... some unknown guy asking your help to decide if the 6 tracks I have are worth posting or not.
on one hand, I am teasing your so called 'cred' idea, on another level, I really do want to know your aesthetic consideration. I might learn something.
Would the two blogs I mentioned have posted about The Streets for a week straight had Vice not approached them and asked them to? Has either blog ever posted about a single artist for a week straight? Do the authors of these blogs think the new Streets album is particularly good? The answer to all those questions is probably no, and according to Ben's rules of argumentation that means I win! Booyah.
Also, would a bunch of upper middle class white bloggers feel comfortable posting a song by a white artist that used the word "nigger?" Vice Magazine regularly uses the n-bomb (along with a lot of other racist material), and not in a friendly way. Is it wrong to take this into consideration or would considering the merits of a corporation be "stupid?" Booyah.
Did anyone stop and think for a second that maybe these dudes posted the Streets interview because the content was cool and different than another band of the moment post?
Squashed, are you trying to ask me how my taste works? It's an instinctive thing, it's not something with rules. You seem to be muddling this discussion considerably with your apparent inability to separate the concept of taste and curatorial style from critical credibility and journalistic integrity, which is an issue about professional ethics and conflicts of interest.
nofrontin: "Would the two blogs I mentioned have posted about The Streets for a week straight had Vice not approached them and asked them to? Has either blog ever posted about a single artist for a week straight? Do the authors of these blogs think the new Streets album is particularly good? The answer to all those questions is probably no, and according to Ben's rules of argumentation that means I win! Booyah."
i really like the way you've addressed it here, moreso than when you first did.
key point being - Has either blog ever posted about a single artist for a week straight? -
no need to booyah each point, i'm still not convinced that they are shilling for the label, but these points, especially the week-long post one, get by my argument, easy.
This is not "exclusive" content so much as promotional material created by the label or PR company banking on the inevitability that one of you would be willing to accomodate their promotional plans and essentially hand over your site for their advertising campaign. It would be "exclusive" content if you made it yourself. This is just a company co-opting your site for their advantage, and all you're getting in return is a fleeting feeling of being an insider and a public declaration that your site's content is something that you're willing to hand over to most anyone who asks nicely. It sets a horrible precedent for your site, and it encourages PRs to do more of it, and then we'll start seeing loads of blogs overrun with this sort of shilling, not as though there aren't some like this already.
everybody has their own motive for their own blogs... journalism, pr, promo, marketing, criticism, academia, djing, just an outlet, shilling, piracy, whatever. people should spend less time worrying about what other people are doing...
as much as some would like to create "rules" for blogging... there aren't any. we all do everything at our own risk, and it's all a reflection of our own motives. if you want your blog to be held to some journalistic standard then that is your own thing, but not necessarily anyone elses.
travis, but wouldnt this forum be quite a boring place if people didnt share their thoughts?
"hi, i am visiting this forum. all i have to say is that i do my blog this way and i see that alot of you do your blog that way. very well then. have a great day. see you later".
that would be a very boring forum indeed. no?
i am maybe just as bored with comments like "people should spend less time worrying about what other people are doing... " as you and others are with hearing peoples differing thoughts on many topics.
Just wondering for your reasons for trying to shut down a constructive thread, i guess.
not sure if this is understood, but maybe one of the main reasons for this forum is for people to share thoughts and opinions on topics just like this one. maybe?
that is probably fair to observe this thread and feel that.
Even with that, i still really value these different takes on this subject and most on this forum. Hey, i have even changed many aspects of my site specifically because of things that have been brought up on this site.