this is certainly true, if the problem under discussion is people hearing something they do not wish to hear. i don't believe that is spud's issue, however. your ears can tolerate something, or you can choose to not listen, these are both true, but either way, the files are sitting on a website, and somebody (that'd be spud, and/or jb, not sure of the exact arrangements they have) is shelling out cash for the files (songs) to be on that website. censorship is one thing, and i think most people agree it is a bad thing except in truly truly extreme rare cases, but the main question here, as i see it, is whether the songs which are pounding away at the same apparent offensive point (no misguided pun intended here whatsoever; i haven't heard any of the songs or their content) are valid expressions of art (and therefore merit hosting by the songfight website) or if it's, in effect, just a load of spam being sent week after week.Billy's Little Trip wrote:I know it's your choice because it's your site, but { . . . } People can skip the song if it's too brutal to their ears the same way they can skip it if the song is just terrible sounding or lame.
i won't pretend to be able to answer my own question here, or rather my own synopsis of the question being asked, as the only perspective i have is the points spud has made in this thread.