The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Morbid: The more I think about this week’s covers the more I love them. They are an amazingly well crafted, discussion promoting statement. For a week in which the titles share a thematic link I am glad the art also shares a tight parallel design. The Policy of Rape cover specifically is beautifully rendered, and I’m glad to have my name in that fight.

As for the naysayers, I say fuck ‘em. Sorry Bort -I know you’re a well meaning and very hard working member of this community, and an awesome guy to boot- but if a songfighter told me I shouldn’t have done a song because it could offend his potential employers I would kick him in the teeth. It’s not a very good example because my song isn’t presented as representative of the site, but if I was Morbid I’m sure my kickin’ foot would be itchin’.

Note: I do hope this isn’t considered part two in my recent trend of unintentionally calling totally awesome songfighters dicks. It’s not meant as Bort-bashing, but instead as an empathetic “I can imagine that Ambulance/Morbid might feel pissed right now”.

boltoph wrote:I guess that knowing that other guys also have penises kind of defeated it being a creative and original idea to drop my pants during show and tell, when i was back in elementary school.
My "joke" to Leaf: withdrawn. Damn it's gray today.

I wasn't offended by your joke.. and I understand why people have reservations about exploitation and pr00n)grafee.

I just want my kids to be happy, I want them to enjoy good, happy sex lives as adults. I want them to be aware of violence, but to hopefully never have to deal with it, or use it as a tool... really, parenting is much broader than those statements... and this has nothing to do with the art...which I dig.

I think I said that already though....

mkilly wrote:

bortwein wrote:I'm very very glad to be back...

Pardon me, but I think this is a statement in poor taste. It strikes me as if to say you're SongFight's paladin, saving us from ourselves from a post appointed from on high. I have no authority here and I'm glad you do consistently-superb art for the site almost every week, but I think this very unproductive.

Thank you for saying what I was to afraid to say.

j$ wrote:I don't find them shocking, not very aesthetically pleasing, but certainly not shocking. I don't like them ebcause there's nothing there to be challenged by.

Actually, that was the idea. Sometimes with art you need to just say what it is you're trying to say, instead of trying to abstract the concept down to a gelcap for the general public.

bortwein wrote:I'm sorry, but I truly feel that Reproductive Organs (or sex toys that resemble them) NEVER needed to be shown on Song Fight.

"Reproductive Organs" ? It's a pussy. Over half the world has one. On a website that hosts some of the craziest musical experiments I have ever been exposed to, one would think that a pussy wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

bortwein wrote:As an Artist, I agree that Art is Subjective and a "To each their own" kind of medium,

If you really believed that, you wouldn't feel the need to be condescending and narcissistic.

bortwein wrote: but as a person that enjoys coming to Song Fight to see the art just as much as listening to the music I don't think it was needed.

Whose art? Your own?

bortwein wrote:The "art" is not appropriate for the site "In My Opinion". That is what I am saying.
Whatever. It will be gone in a week.

And you will be free to return to your little "pussy-free" world.

LEAF: (your post was to long to quote) Thank you for saying what you said. I agree wholeheartedly.

Puce wrote:Morbid: The more I think about this week’s covers the more I love them. They are an amazingly well crafted, discussion promoting statement....and I’m glad to have my name in that fight. ... if I was Morbid I’m sure my kickin’ foot would be itchin’.

Thank you. I'm tickled and surprised that they fired such a lengthy discussion. As for "my kickin' foot" I have no teeth bashing urges. People without front teeth frighten me. I realize people get there panties in a knot over the stupidest shit, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do about it.


Ending Note: As a graphic designer, almost everything you set your hands to is encumbered with limitations. As an artist, I jump at the chance to create things that aren't quite so censored. I assumed prior to creating these pieces, and still believe that the songfight website is an opportunity for this kind of uncensored expression. So, only tentative concepts for this weeks art, but the titles don't really lend themselves to vaginas and dildos, so all those who are concerned about a continued trend can rest easy. I got the pussy art out of my system.

To sidle back to the art for a moment (just a brief moment, then y'all can get back to your fighting & making upping ) I couldn't figure out what the elephant's part in the series was.

I knew it was a triptych, but the connection? So I asked. And had my mind blown (but then, I'm such a simple boy).

It's the G.O.P. symbol. Right on, Morbid.

I'm glad I'm not a part of this debate. .

Rabid Garfunkel wrote:...And had my mind blown (but then, I'm such a simple boy).Right on, Morbid.

i'd rather have offensive covers that get talked about than boring ass covers that get dismissed and forgotten. not to mention that all 3 of these were very well done and showed talent and relevance.

i never realized Songfight was so puritanical.

Sorry to stick my nose in this but I can't seem to hold this back. Since the sexual cover images raised such a fuss, I'm just sorta curious why no one has said anything about the lyrics and vocals to DJ3XHC's "What's in it for Me?". I actually found those to be significantly more graphic and intense than the sexually oriented cover art. Just want to know if I'm the only person that sees images and words to be equal artistic and communication mediums.

Ok, let's try this:

Janjaweed: I like your type treatment of the word "Janjaweed". Without knowing the full background on the word "Janjaweed" I'm not sure I get what the cover is trying to say.

Policy of Rape: The target concept is interesting but it took me a second to notice it with the text over it as well as the image in the background. The font choice for this to me is a little bland. Considering the subject matter something with a bit more edge of a font could have been pulled off. As for the image, you already know my personal feeling about that. Let's just that part go already. So I don't like it... big deal.

What's in it for Me?: My favorite cover this week. I really like the illustration of the little elephant. The color of the piece is really nice as well, it gives a great mood and feeling of heat.


Morbid: You do very good covers for song fight and I always look forward to see what you have created each week for the titles.

And I do like seeing more than just my own art on the site... I'm not an a$$hole.

To go back to JB's initial comment about this topic, the thing is that you can listen to Song Fight! on your headphones at work, and no one will be the wiser. (The bandwidth thing really strikes me as a non-issue, because streaming a fight or two every week is probably a tiny drop in the bucket for most of the employers of SF! listeners.)

You can't, however, load the fight page with a picture of dildos or a pussy on it without the possibility that co-workers/bosses/etc. will see it and react negatively. You can act tough all you want and say "Fuck those prudes!" but that doesn't really provide any realistic way of handling the situation and strikes me as being pretty immature.

Frankly I don't think it's that outrageous to suggest that the main page has some kind of icon or text letting people know when the full cover art contains graphic nudity/violence/etc. Neither does it seem like that much of a compromise of "artistic principles", since anyone who wants to will still be able to view the full cover art.

bortwein wrote:Janjaweed: I'm not sure I get what the cover is trying to say.

"Janjaweed" means loosely " man on a horse with a gun." It is the name of the militia in Darfur primarily responsible for the systematic raping of Sudanese women. The cover relays that not only their name but their actions and right to torture women are a direct result of their penis.

bortwein wrote:Policy of Rape: The font choice for this to me is a little bland. Considering the subject matter something with a bit more edge of a font could have been pulled off.

The use of courier was intentional. It is bland, it is transparent, it is common and it represents the view that the brutality is commonplace.

bortwein wrote:What's in it for Me?: My favorite cover this week. I really like the illustration of the little elephant. The color of the piece is really nice as well, it gives a great mood and feeling of heat.

Thank you.

bortwein wrote:Morbid: You do very good covers for song fight and I always look forward to see what you have created each week for the titles. And I do like seeing more than just my own art on the site... I'm not an a$$hole.

Again, Thank you. I never said you were an asshole, only implied. I appreciate the constructive criticism.

Lunkhead wrote:You can't, however, load the fight page with a picture of dildos or a pussy on it without the possibility that co-workers/bosses/etc. will see it and react negatively. You can act tough all you want and say "Fuck those prudes!" but that doesn't really provide any realistic way of handling the situation and strikes me as being pretty immature.

Frankly I don't think it's that outrageous to suggest that the main page has some kind of icon or text letting people know when the full cover art contains graphic nudity/violence/etc. Neither does it seem like that much of a compromise of "artistic principles", since anyone who wants to will still be able to view the full cover art.

So don't load it in front of bosses/co-workers/etc. It's not a case of "fuck them prudes", but rather a case of "Don't click things on the internet that haven't been labelled as SFW if looking at NSFW images could get you fired/berated/upset/etc." Caveat haxor.

In fact, this two-tiered system, where you can view and listen to all of the songs right from the front page works very well for this situation. I should point out as well that Morbid Morgan respected the system by creating front page images that could not possibly offend or get anyone in trouble.

Now you know, in case you had forgotten. Stay on the front page if you want to stay safe. We have done the same things with band names in the past, using asterisks on the front page and allowing the swear on the inside page.

so, ironic story - i built the kids a computer today. i got it internet-able and was walking away when i mentioned that it has a speaker built in so they can listen to music. immediately, they all yelled SONGFIGHT!!! and started heading straight here.

i had no idea about the covers at the time - mk told me about them. i guess i don't really care much, either, since it's all a part of life and there's no actual graphic babymaking practice. but the kids are trained well enough to go OMG A DONG BACK BACK BACK CLOSE, because, frankly, the internet is filled with dongs. there are lots of assholes who similar-name porno sites to kid sites (for whatever unfathomable reason).

but yeah, it's a little uncomfortable, and it certainly risks censure from public and private institutions alike.

i liked the PoR cover but thought the janjaweed one was 99% gratuitous (like our song).

ftr also the wiifm cover is awesome and clearly this morgan person has some intellecual artistic talent and is someone that i'd like to not see pissed off and run out of town like all our other good artists of the past excepting those who have not gotten pissed off and run out of town.

Spud wrote:I should point out as well that Morbid Morgan respected the system by creating front page images that could not possibly offend or get anyone in trouble.

This is true... yes, indeed.
Heh, I didn't know blue had kids. Interesting!
-bill

Spud wrote:We have done the same things with band names in the past, using asterisks on the front page and allowing the swear on the inside page.

jb wrote:The "no swears on the front page" rule is not because there are kids visiting Song Fight, it's because schools and libraries have filters.

filters only work on the front page?

HeuristicsInc wrote:

Spud wrote:I should point out as well that Morbid Morgan respected the system by creating front page images that could not possibly offend or get anyone in trouble.

This is true... yes, indeed.
Heh, I didn't know blue had kids. Interesting!
-bill

they're his girlfriend's.

Denyer wrote:

Spud wrote:We have done the same things with band names in the past, using asterisks on the front page and allowing the swear on the inside page.

jb wrote:The "no swears on the front page" rule is not because there are kids visiting Song Fight, it's because schools and libraries have filters.

filters only work on the front page?

Wake up, class. The point is that the bulk of the content on songfight!, including the current fights, can be accessed from the front page.

erikb wrote:

Lunkhead wrote:You can't, however, load the fight page with a picture of dildos or a pussy on it without the possibility that co-workers/bosses/etc. will see it and react negatively. You can act tough all you want and say "Fuck those prudes!" but that doesn't really provide any realistic way of handling the situation and strikes me as being pretty immature.

Frankly I don't think it's that outrageous to suggest that the main page has some kind of icon or text letting people know when the full cover art contains graphic nudity/violence/etc. Neither does it seem like that much of a compromise of "artistic principles", since anyone who wants to will still be able to view the full cover art.

So don't load it in front of bosses/co-workers/etc. It's not a case of "fuck them prudes", but rather a case of "Don't click things on the internet that haven't been labelled as SFW if looking at NSFW images could get you fired/berated/upset/etc." Caveat haxor.

Obviously I wouldn't knowingly load NSFW content in front of my boss/co-workers/etc. It should also be obvious, though, that people cannot always know who is walking by their desks/cubes/etc. Also, a lot of the sites I surf operate in exactly the opposite way from what you're saying. Their content is assumed to be SFW unless labeled NSFW, like at boingboing.net. Additionally there isn't any information on the SF! that tells people the art may sometimes be NSFW. How would anybody know? I've been coming to the site for 2+ years and I don't recall seeing any NSFW art before, so how would I have known?

Honestly, I think people just want some more information on the site, so that they know what to expect. That doesn't seem like a lot to ask, and it doesn't seem like a sentiment that should be met with derision and/or dismissal. Because some new people will come along and not know about this week's art and when NSFW art goes up again this will happen all over again, unless people know in advance what they're in for. But if that's OK then fine, keep acting like people who weren't expecting NSFW art are dumb or made bad assumptions (because they didn't know things no one had told them).

Shouldn't you kinda think, "Hm. This title is 'Policy of Rape'. Rape is not a fun thing. Maybe this artwork will contain bad images, or at least 'strong' images(literally or metaphorically). Hey, let's not click this"?

And honestly if a boss/coworker/whatever saw you looking at something containing the word 'rape' they may be a little confused anyway.

As for Janjaweed... eh.

if i had a job where i had internet access and free time (like i did sometime last year) i would probably not be so concerned about whether sites like this contain appropriate images or not. i think if there was a chance of important work people dropping by my desk, they'd be as unhappy to see the songfight website being browsed, regardless of what kind of images it features. i think the whole "safe for work/not" argument is kinda mooot.