MP3 Blogging Etiquette
I've been doing this Stereogum thing for a number of years now. And there are a number of tacit rules that the music blogging community seems to agree upon. Most are pretty obvious (e.g., if a label asks you to take an MP3 down, you take it down!). But there is one part of the equation that came into play yesterday, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Don't deeplink to other bloggers' MP3, right? I think we can all agree that if some blogger takes the time to share a song, and put it in an editorial context, one must link to his/her post (not the file) as a courtesy. Even aggregators Elbows and Hype Machine play by these rules.
Ah, but there are exceptions: we all freely deeplink to songs on official band websites, MySpace, corporate sites...
So when Pitchfork had the exclusive on that new Decemberists track yesterday, I was surprised to see so many of the old-school media music blogs (AOL, USA Today, Rolling Stone, etc...) deeplink to the file, and not the post.
PFork is so bloggy these days, with its YouTube embeds and daily downloads ... but I take all that "Summer Song" deeplinking as a sign that the community believes the indie news site to be so corporate that the bandwidth-consideration rules don't apply. Is that the consensus?
I'm curious what you guys think. (And Plagenhoef, feel free to weigh in.) And while you're at it, feel free to share your own tenets of MP3 blogging.
RELATED: Pitchfork leaks Joanna Newsom's Ys?
Posted at 10:17 AM
Tags: Joanna Newsom | The Decemberists
The tide is turning against pitchfork. They've jumped the shark only by virtue of their own success. I'm sure they understand how that works.
Score = 0
oh so is that why the site's on the fritz? *balks as he realises he just admitted to being frantic that the site wouldn't load and almost lost a nut*. Shit. I don't that tosh. No ways.
Score = 0
fuck pitchfork
Score = 0
*balks at the poor grammaer/missed words of that post too*
Score = 0
So who has Ys? The word over at gorilla vs. bear is pretty positive.
Rich, I was also freaking out.
Score = 0
I refresh pitchfork and stereogum all day at work
Score = 0
I'm waiting for the day that Pitchfork starts a political section. That'll be the day they jump the shark and become the online version of Rolling Stone magazine for indie sheeple.
Score = 0
You can chide pitchfork for their moldy news and predictable reviews, but they still serve a purpose. It's easy to pick on the king of the hill, but you know you'll still visit every day.
Score = 0
Hotlinking is generally bad business in my book. If you really can't stand the idea of adding a permalink to your post, you should download the song, upload it to your own server, and remove the middle man.
As if AOL doesn't have a big enough server to host a four-minute song?
Score = 0
Pitchfork is a bully. They might as well be Starbucks.
Score = 0
But Pitchfork has a paid -albeit small- staff. They *are* a business despite how bloggy they become. Hot-linking to them is not the same as depleting the resources of XXXIndieMusic.com/blog who doesn't get any revenue for her site.
Score = 0
I would normally agree that those sites should have also linked to Pitchfork, but when Pitchfork goes and steals stories from other blogs they don't link to the original story every time so maybe they deserve a taste of their own medicine.
Score = 0
Fuck Pitchfork.
Score = 0
Pitchfork does not steal stories and doesn't produce moldy news. They FACT CHECK things (and yes, that Jeff Mangum story WAS fact-checked...) like a print publication would. Trust me...if you are a band or a label or whatever, the FIRST person you send press releases or news to is Pitchfork. I'm so tired of hearing how the blogs are whooping their ass or whatever and how they've jumped the shark. Have they jumped the shark because they've thrown two sold-out festivals in a row? Or is it their higher visit counts and advertising revenue that tells you this? Or is it the fact that their writers have proliferated into the "mainstream" media with alarming frequency. We can debate quality of their reviews all day long, but they remain the class of the online world in terms of professionalism (Sterogum excepted, of course).
Score = -2
Wow Lucas, it's pretty impressive you got all of that out with Pitchfork's dick in your mouth. They're the biggest bunch of self-serving pricks in the world of music. Their holier-than-thou pretentiousness is old and tired. But seriously, you guys should move in together, it sounds like love.
Score = 2
Yes I like many people despise Pitchforks reviews, but they are still a great news source. I'll learn about a band that I like going on tour about two or three times a week. While many of these blogs have a news section, I will still read Pitchfork every day, even if it is only for a few minutes.
Score = 0
I hereby propose a resolution banning the phrase 'jumped the shark'.
Please change all future references to 'pulled a Cousin Oliver'. Thank you.
Score = 0
Why is no one pist that AOL/Rolling Stone deep link with impugnity? It doesn't matter if its Pitchfork, Stereogum, or someguysmusicspew.com, they AREN'T going to give you credit and the ARE going to sap your bandwidth whether they can afford it or not.
I don't give a rats ass what the scenesters think of P4K, they still do an excellent job of promoting independant music. I know your heart breaks when they give your favorite band a 6.0, but they're usually right.
Score = -1
Maybe they could take that FACT-CHECKER salary and hire a copy editor (or 5) to rewrite the 6th grade hack drivel they pass off as "writing".
Score = 1
I think its a good idea to credit other blogger's whenever possible. I agree with Scott that Pitchfork has the perception of being a corporate site and therefore hotlinking them is ok
As to their website, they are a great resource in terms of information. They are pretty on top of it in terms of music release dates and tour information--but I have never thought their news info was that great; if it was I'd be there every day and I rarely am. In terms of reviews, it seems to me that Pitchfork's big problem is falls under review assignments; often the wrong people are reviewing, so they create more bad reviews than they should
Score = 0
You asked this question right above a post where you embedded a YouTube video- you didn't like to the page of LG15's profile. You deep linked to what you wanted to show/hear. Glass houses.
Score = 0
I don't feel bad deeplinking to any site with advertising.
Score = 0
someguysmusicspew.com is hotlinking now? man, this world has really pulled a cousin oliver...
Score = 0
I love it when people start bashing Pitchfork. The highest of high comedy. Like it or not they are one of the premiere supporters and promoters of independent music. I enjoy reading pitchfork. If you don't like their reviews so what. Anybody who decides to buy a record or not based on one review is a isn't very bright anyway. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Score = -1
wasn't "deeplink" the name of the person who broke the story on joanna newsome's new record being buried, unprotected on pitchforks site?
no, wait..
Score = 0
I'm agreeing with Justin on this one. The whole "Fuck Pitchfork" thing has about as much influence and brain power as "Fuck Bush." You have to back up your claim. I can think of about 10,000 reasons why I hate George Bush, but I'd rather explain those then just say "Fuck Bush." Yeah Pitchfork is huge and they do dive off the deep end sometimes, but they also find a lot great music. They're not my end all source, but I do enjoy reading what they have to say.
Score = 1
Not exactly on topic, but related: Scott, don't you think it's at least a *little* strange that the site is running a banner ad (presumably paid) that features a pull quote from ... this site?
I don't doubt that you like both Grizzly Bear and their new album, but it still raises objectivity issues.
Score = 1
I don't think so - it's the other way around. The corporate sites deeplinking to Pitchfork only reflects ignorance on the part of who's running the half-assed music "blogs" at AOL, RS, etc. PFork, which is often barely accessible anyway, was impossible to get to this morning.
Score = 0
Hahahaha...so embedding a YouTube video (something YouTube is specifically designed to do) is the same as deeplinking to an mp3 file without crediting the hosting site? Give me a break.
Score = 0
The "corporate" sites that deeplink aren't trying to save bandwith. They're trying to keep you from leaving their site and going to other sites (Pitchfork, someguysmusicspew.com, etc.), which is kinda ridiculous as the smart sites are working to become portals instead.
Score = 0
Web addresses are, in part, specifically designed for linking; be it a deep link or not. If you don't want people to link to it embed it in the site. Don't have a new window open up with a specific address that people can link to.
Score = 0
i wrote this a long ass time ago!
http://humansaredangerous.blogspot.com/2006/03/rules-of-mp3-blogging.html
Score = 0
PFork bashing aside, the other, most important tenet of MP3 blogging: ID3 Tag your shit. Cause nothing sucks worse than dumping your download directory into iTunes and listening to "Unknown Artist - Untitled" and not knowing where you got it from.
Also, your blog's name isn't a Genre.
Score = 0
This was brought up like 3000 posts ago, but I think the best part of Rolling Stone and the main reason it is still relevant is the political coverage (that and David Fricke is the good balls).
Score = 1
Dude you are too obsessed with Pitchfork. If I want to read about them I will go to their site but you need to stop bringing them up in some pointless way in every post. Its driving me nuts.
Score = -1
There was a question about "blogging etiquette" in here somewhere, but I can't find it amidst all the advertising.
Score = 0
If is see it on a blog I will point to that blog posting. If I see it on a band, myspace, record lable page, then I link directly.
I would never ink to anyone's EZarchive or any other such personal archive.
The people at Ptichfork and Rockdaily aren't much different then they rest of "us/you/them" they get paid a little, have a better business card, and can say they work Pitchdailyrockfork. Sometimes it's tempting to take an easy link. It is gonig to happen and will continue to happen.
Most people like me do this because they need an outlet. Would be great to do it full time, but then I might not be so happy when I get 80 hits to the site a day anymore.
Score = 0
Yeah, people deep link to our stuff all the time. And, being a small "someguy" site, it has actually ended up costing us money. We try to run some ads not to make a profit, but just to break even after all the server and bandwidth costs. But the whole point is that we want to share what we post with everyone, so it's weird to get too pissed about it. Citing sources, at least, is something some bloggers could learn. It's not something that applies only to journalists, but to decent human beings in general.
Anyway, if you don't like the deeplinking: it's called an .htaccess file. Ask your IT guys about it.
Score = 0
"Wow Lucas, it's pretty impressive you got all of that out with Pitchfork's dick in your mouth. They're the biggest bunch of self-serving pricks in the world of music. Their holier-than-thou pretentiousness is old and tired. But seriously, you guys should move in together, it sounds like love."
Man, this is funny stuff. Honestly, I know them some of them personally, and they really are a nice bunch of people who care about what they do. I'm sorry you don't feel that way and seem obsessed with hating them. Do I agree with every review? Of course not. Are you the one that comes off like a prick? Oh, yes.
Seriously, I'm tired of a lot in the blogging world taking on Pitchfork as if THEY were the enemy? It's ridiculous! They are probably the most visible bellwether of indie taste out there. We should be critiquing them where they need it and cajoling them into covering bands through our own blogging. Just because they didn't like Birdmonster doesn't mean they are the enemy. We're all on the same side, no? I just don't get it.
And I second the moment to retire the phrase "jumped the shark." I think that probably everything anytime anywhere has jumped the shark at this point.
As for deeplinking, I don't know. I was too busy sucking Ryan Schreiber's dick to pay attention.
Score = -1
I, Jesus Christ the son of God, ABSOLUTLY LOVE pitchfork media. Point me to a better site for indie news and reviews and i'll go there, but there is none. if they are too snobby for you, then get out of the way, because indie rock is the soundtrack for music snobs and i like my music snobs snobby. If you don't like their site, don't go there... but I'm sure you do, because there is no indie music news and review site better.
Score = -1
i think that pinder has made the only lasting point.
Score = 0
Agreed about pinder's comment.
Score = 0
I guess if you want an answer to your question don't mention pitchfork in the post.
Score = 0
Gawker already did something about retiring 'Jump the Shark' last week-it's not a new idea:
http://www.gawker.com/news/already-over/already-over-jumping-the-shark-196130.php
I deeplink to files if I don't have the time to upload them, but try to then upload them to my own blog to as soon as possible to replace the deeplink
Score = 0
"I know them some of them personally"
REALLY!!?!?! Thanks for proving my point.
*kisses*
Score = 0
I hosted that Decemberists song myself, not out of respect for Pfork but just out of habit. Good thing, too, because all the leaking out today probably made it impossible to download.
I thought Pfork was dressing up more professional, abandoning their 0.0 hackery and suiting up to join the ranks of the MSM. Guess not.
What, was their password Sufjan, too?
Score = 0
I have to agree that Pfork is pretty much the best indie music site out there, despite all the snob indie attitude and the like. Their articles are pretty polished and they are at least informative. Reading as many sources as possible can't hurt. However, people who treat Pfork like God piss me off.
Score = 0
recently i did some deeplinking. i felt shitty about it, but exarchive wasn't working for me and I just wanted to finish my post and go to bed. one of the blogs i deeplinked caught me and verbally repremanded me via comment. i felt pretty shitty about it.
Score = 0
Hey stereo, why'd you erase/not post my comment about blog etiquette?
Score = 0
OK, since nobody actually answered the question,I'll take a crack at it:
- Update every day. Some people have no lives (like me) and we need to be reasured that the world is still spinning. So, in an effort to comfort the masses and assuage their thirst for, meh, relatively inconsequential news about bands we've never heard of, please put at least one comment or link on any given day.
- Do not sell or pimp products overtly. there's nothing worse that finding out that your favorite blog which secretly sold out months/years ago is officially selling out today by selling you the new ipod, lady schick razor, or emo ringtones.
- If you don't have time to go to shows, and you send someone instead of you CREDIT THEM, and not just for the photo. Chances are your buddy went for free and you didn't even buy him a beer for pushing his way to the front and duking it out with Brooklyn Vegan to get a half decent picture of Matt Kretzman of Tapes 'n Tapes playing his Tuba. Which leads me to the next rule:
- it's a euphonium, asshole. Don't talk about instruments you know nothing about. Do your fucking research. A melodica is not a "mini blow-tube tube piano"
- DO NOT! I repeat DO NOT!!! - ever - under any circumstances, ever have a section about your crushes or hotties of the week (this one goes out to you underrated). It's juvenile, you have bad taste, and nobody really cares. That's what magazines and the mainstream media are for. If a band does something embarassing, stupid, or mildly controversial, then OK. But Indie Music is about music not about being hot. Guys, if you have a blog, it's perfectly OK to post pics of of hot indie chicks. It's not a double standard as long as it's not Neko Case, or Kim Gordon (she's getting old). Stick to the perky ones.
- Don't blog about your friends' band (unless they're actually a band that at least SOME people have heard of, in which case, just put a disclaimer to avoid conflict of interest. Just say: "i know these people." But don't brag or gush. Nobody gives a fuck that you personally know the guys from Modest Mouse, or how you ate sausage in the backyard at a CWK bbq (byob).
more to come..more to come...
Score = 0
OK, since nobody actually answered the question,I'll take a crack at it:
- Update every day. Some people have no lives (like me) and we need to be reasured that the world is still spinning. So, in an effort to comfort the masses and assuage their thirst for, meh, relatively inconsequential news about bands we've never heard of, please put at least one comment or link on any given day.
- Do not sell or pimp products overtly. there's nothing worse that finding out that your favorite blog which secretly sold out months/years ago is officially selling out today by selling you the new ipod, lady schick razor, or emo ringtones.
- If you don't have time to go to shows, and you send someone instead of you CREDIT THEM, and not just for the photo. Chances are your buddy went for free and you didn't even buy him a beer for pushing his way to the front and duking it out with Brooklyn Vegan to get a half decent picture of Matt Kretzman of Tapes 'n Tapes playing his Tuba. Which leads me to the next rule:
- it's a euphonium, asshole. Don't talk about instruments you know nothing about. Do your fucking research. A melodica is not a "mini blow-tube tube piano"
- DO NOT! I repeat DO NOT!!! - ever - under any circumstances, ever have a section about your crushes or hotties of the week (this one goes out to you underrated). It's juvenile, you have bad taste, and nobody really cares. That's what magazines and the mainstream media are for. If a band does something embarassing, stupid, or mildly controversial, then OK. But Indie Music is about music not about being hot. Guys, if you have a blog, it's perfectly OK to post pics of of hot indie chicks. It's not a double standard as long as it's not Neko Case, or Kim Gordon (she's getting old). Stick to the perky ones.
- Don't blog about your friends' band (unless they're actually a band that at least SOME people have heard of, in which case, just put a disclaimer to avoid conflict of interest. Just say: "i know these people." But don't brag or gush. Nobody gives a fuck that you personally know the guys from Modest Mouse, or how you ate sausage in the backyard at a CWK bbq (byob).
more to come..more to come...
Score = 0
i wouldnt be suprised if PF isnt being paid in some dark alley by label publicists.
Score = 0
All I know is that anyone here in a bands, no matter how much they said they hate pitchfork, would be pretty damn thrilled to get a high rating from them.
As someone else said, they may not be perfect, but point me to a better daily source of news, interviews, downloads, and reviews and I'll go there.
Name even one other magazine or site with the same level (or higher) of readership who give better album ratings? Many may be off, but its still the most reliable one I've come across.
I can also list about a dozen albums that I really love that I may never have heard of if it hadn't been for Pitchfork.
Score = 0
the first website to link vicodin gets my vote.
Score = 0
It's strange how everyone always talks about 'Oh, anyone can write for Pitchfork, sixth-graders can write for Pitchfork, why don't they get a copy editor etc.' when Pitchfork has a far higher percentage of writers who also do regular paid work for professional print media than probably any other online music site.
Score = 0
I personally believe that hotlinking can be accepted in some circumstances. If a small blog with a small circle of readers posts a link that is directed to a file hosted on Stereogum's webspace it isn't because the author wishes to take credit or any other such nonsense. The author simply wants to get the meat of the post (the file) to the reader without the needless credit information that is almost never read to begin with. No one wants to jump around from page to page in search of a sound file that they may not even like.
I think bloggers can be far too uptight about such things. You didn't write the song, you didn't perform on the song, you have pleanty of bandwidth left, and (8 times out of 10) your web space was free to begin with.
Would I mind if AOL hotlinked a file from my webspace to spread the word about a great new group to the masses? Fuck no. Just don't get mad at me when the server crashes due to over activity. It's not costing me a penny.
Score = 0
Pfork was hotlinking to my site for this Nas track (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/track_review/37138). So basically they were using up bandwidth from my site and we were not getting any credit. We've put in a temporary fix now.
I believe it's bad etiquette to hotlink unless it's a label or band site. In my experience, they're far more concerned with getting the word out about their music.
Score = 0
Pitchfork is a victim of its own frat-like asshole-ness. They've torn apart truly awesome, hard working bands and instead opted to laud whatever bullshit 50 Cent album was coming out. At some point they lost touch, they thought they were equal to musicians. They ripped real indie things for not sounding mainstream enough, often forgetting that these albums are so often low budget because they are indie.
In the end, they became not only "tastemakers" without taste but also cruel and unusual band bashers. I stopped checking on them because I can't remember the last time I agreed with their reviews.
Score = 0
I don't respect Pitchfork's reviews...just look at the top of their best of 2006 list. Piles of shite. That said, if you mostly ignore their opinion, 'tis a wonderful portal of new music.
Score = 0
I agree with the pitchfork-is-a-piece-of-shit mentality. However, I also agree with the pitchfork-serves-a-role mentality. Its obvious. If they didn't, they wouldn't still be in business. If you hate pitchfork, just stop going there. What's the point about bitching about it?
Its like people who bitch about a walmart opening in their town. There's nothing magical about walmart that makes it suck up "mom-and-pop" stores. Instead of bitching about it, just don't go there. Support the mom and pop stores instead. Guaranteed, if no one so much as visited the store in a month, they would close it right down. But no, people like to whine about it, but then they hand them their money. People fail to realize that, despite how "ronald republican" it sounds, the market does, SOMETIMES, decide.
I used to gargle pitchfork's balls daily. I grew out of it and decided to develop my own musical taste. That doesn't mean the site sucks or their reviewers should get shot. They just lost my "business." If that happened with enough people, it would shut down. Stop bitching. It exists because people want it to.
Score = 0