Thursday, September 07, 2006


In, rather briefly, debating the concept today, I find that upon critically assessing it, I am very disgruntled in regards to the nature of an mp3 blog. It has always seemed to me an effective promotional tool, at least in theory. A new audience of potential patrons becomes interested in a band's name where before there was no such knowledge of the band. While to my understanding the upload of a copywrited file without explicit permission by its owner is by nature illegal, I cannot help feeling justified when the act of uploading promotes the band by spreading by way of spreading their name. And for some reason, the proposed alternative of track 'sampling,' ie. via iTunes, seems inadequate and repulsive. I wouldn't be able to assess a band adequately via a clip of the first thirty seconds in their songs. Streaming might be a feasible alternative, as it is both inconveniencing enough and thorough enough to promote a band and their sound while encouraging listeners to purchase an album. But in that regard, downloading three tracks from a given artist seems practically as effective.

But is it worth the risk of injury to the band, by way of distributing their material for free? Is there serious risk of prosecution by band affiliates or record labels who feel they have been victimized by illegal distribution of their material? Is it enough merely to say one will be prompt in taking down a file that a label or group doesn't want up?

Should this project continue, I feel like these questions must be addressed. The direct reference to already-existing url's on official, legit band pages and MySpaces seems in direct compliance with the band's goals in providing those links in the first place. In the future, I believe it may be neccessary to use purely indirect url linking from official band sites and MySpaces.

All questions, comments, and concerns are very much encouraged. And may the God of pop culture have mercy on our souls.

No comments: