yep. sue me. I don't get paid for it, I do it because I think they're a really good band, and as they are based in the States (where I met them first) I volunteered to give them a hand over here. I don't feel guilty about it because I'm doing it because of their quality, and I'm not getting buckets of cash (or any) to push them. Many of the unsigned bands I choose to interview or mention I do so because I think they're good and deserve it and I actually bother to take an interest in their music and gigs - unlike many music journos who don't even f**king go out, and I feel proud that I've given some people a platform that otherwise would have been ignored. Would it be better if I took my cues from record company press releases?

not until Jove change there's first : )

In Una's defence she's mentioned the band on this board a couple of times but as far as I'm aware she's never written a piece on them (can't definitively say about elsewhere but Cluas has never featured a single article on The Bleedin' Bleedins or whatever they're called by anyone). For my own part I've featured bands in the gig guide that have members that I know and am reasonably friendly with but am not friends with (Dublin's a small town.) although I must say that I'm a bit wary of doing it sometimes (in fact there are people who I would have featured more prominently and more often in the past but haven't due to how well I know them). Obviously it's a bit different as I'm not doing a job of work for these people (paid or unpaid) but I'm comfortable that my "journalistic integrity" is intact. Basically, I'm just saying that I think it's possible to wear 2 hats but you have to be careful about it.

unicron, point taken. but u are not representing those bands. u are not managing them or doing their irish press or doing their european press or doing their sound for them, ireland is a small place so chances are u will bump into them and have a drink with them and chat. once u can write constructively and critically about them, theres not a problem. the problem happens when u represent someone and then try to write about them. thats a no-no. inevitably, as what happened herem, u do get found out and everything u have said about that band (and everyone else), is looked at in a different light. i'd trust a recommendation from unicron but not from una it really is not possible to wear two hats because it looks damn silly,

Pilchard, I think you're over reacting, and it's a bit harsh to call me arogant and stupid, but whatever. I am not 'an unpaid press officer for other acts' I work with one band who aren't based in Ireland, so when they do come over here, I try to set up interviews, radio sessions, instores. The only time they have been interviewed in the Event Guide was last year when they were travelling to Dublin to play. I met them in the States, and interview not set up by me, and that was the first time I ever met them. They were mentioned as a highlight of the festival based on people that I had spoken to (the organisers mainly) about who they were looking forward to most. I'm not a memeber of any 'street team', I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody is unbiased, but I try as hard as I can to be. And I'm certainly not apologising for reactions of others.

una, i probably owe u an apology for the tone of my remarks, especially if they were offensive. However, the main issue does stand - it is NOT possible to be both gamekeeper and poacher. you either write objectively and from an independent stance about music or you promote/publicise the bands in question. it can't - and doesnt - work both ways. some people try it on and its why many music fans are very wary of recommendations/reviews. this issue also points up some of the problems of Internet boards, blogs etc. many internet users despise conventional media and do their utmost to pick holes in their arguments or point out inconsistencies and conflicts of interest. however the same strict standards applied to conventional media should also be applied to internet writers. the same balances and checks. the same need for unbiased, untainted recommendations. after all, we are dealing with people who use pseudyonms to a large degree - i mean i'm called pilchard, i could be Ollie from Turn or head-the-ball from jj72 for all anyone knows (even though i think i'm far more dashing and articulate than either of them). its worth bearing in mind in the future!

I've only heard a couple of tracks by the bleedin bleedins and I thought they were good , really liked the guys voice , even if the music wasn't my cup of cha

i don't write about the Bleedin Bleedins from an unobjective point of view, in fact I don't write about them anywhere, only when called upon by a source other than myself - editor, promoter etc, so your reaction is kind of baseless. It's not as if I'm MR Blast setting up a magazine to push artists, or writing single reviews for HMV flyers or something

Pilchard - if you had read my post properly you would have realised that the interview i did with the Bleedin Bleedins was before I even knew them personally.

I have just happened on this discussion between Una and Pilchard regarding the Bleedin' Bleedins which was triggered by her making a recommendation to see them at HWCH (Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 22:57:10) and kierry then commenting that she managed them (Posted - 25 Aug 2005 : 12:06:41). And then it went off when Pilchard remarked that he was always wondering why she was plugging them (Posted - 25 Aug 2005 : 14:31:07). Let me just make the following general point. If you, as a contributor to Cluas, have a professional interest in a band (ie: you do work with them, whether they pay you or not) and you don't disclose that when you post or write on Cluas and you subsequently get called on it, then that is your own look out since readers of the site reasonably expect that the opinion being articulated is based on a personal preference for the music or artist and not on a 'working' relationship. Should you be found out, a simple apology is the best remedy.

oops...

what if I like the music and also help out with the band? answers on a beer mat...

Pilchard, I can slightly see your point of view, despite the feeling I maintain that there is absolutely feck all ill with what I'm doing, or not doing, or whatever. I feel strongly about journalistic integrity, and I'm sure you do. I help the Bleedin Bleedins for no money to get interviews in Ireland when they come over here. Because they are based in the States, it is hard for them to do so. I also think they are and AWESOME band, and recommend them as highly as I can to anyone who'll listen. And, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It would be impossible for me, in an industry so small, to operate in a manner which would involve ignoring any band I know to preserve some kind of journalistic distance. As a music journalists, you become friends with many musicians, promoters, industry heads. For me, and for most people with integrity, this has absolutely no affect on how I work as a journalist. A conflict of interest only exists if you create one by distorting truth. This is something I have not done by recommending a band, in this case, the Bleedins, as I think their music rocks. For the record, in the past (and I'm sure many music journalists have experienced this) I have been 'blacklisted' by promoters, bitched about, even to the extreme of being sent 'hate' messages, for preserving that integrity, by not compromising the truth with any relationships I have with people in the industry. Most people experience this - well, those who write with honesty. I think it's quite comical for me to have been attacked on the board for recommending a band that I am a fan of, merely because I have an absolutely informal relationship with them to help them out with press when they tour out of the States, because they don't know that territory. If another band that seemed to be hard working and had good tunes emailed me from the States, for example and said - 'Hey, we're touring Ireland soon, what do you think would be the best way to get some press ahead of our shows' I would email them a list of publications and contacts, obviously, because that's just helping ou some good people. Nobody is taking advantage of anybody. If you really want to get wound up about conflicts of interest, then take a look at the most influential music press here, who are so f**king corupt, it makes me sick, and the fact is, bands that are hard working and that people like me or you might want to help out would never get a look in in those publications, if they didn't hand over a couple of thou in advertising revenue. That's the truth. So, am I the bad guy? And please, REALISE "if u like the music and "do European press" and also write about them, that's not OK. Never is, never will be." I was asked to interview the Bleedin Bleedins before I knew who they were! How many times do I have to say that? I know you might want to see me as some f**ker who loves cheap plugs and is vindictive and irresponsible with integrity, but that aint me. It could be, but it isn't. That's why a lot of promoters don't like my methods, and a lot of bands, believe it or not, do.

while this has absolutely feck all to do with me, i just can't resist arguments like this... cúpla pointe. 1. having a 'professional' interest in a band, without being paid for it, is impossible. semantic but true. 2. at what point did úna's praise of this bleedin band become invalid? if she doesn't benefit in any way from helping them out occasionally, then she has no vested interest in their success or otherwise. so where is the conflict of interest? if it's simply a matter of having some non-music-related contact with or opinion of the people in the band, then what about, for example, the much-lauded john meagher, who describes glen hansard as: "a man who most local critics agree is a pain in the posterior." surely his opinion of hansard the man will colour his view of hansard the musician? isn't that bias? 3. accusing someone of having an ulterior motive in what they do or say is a serious thing to do, especially because of the nature of message boards. as has been said, online identities are created over a period of time. they are also easily damaged, since we know nothing of the person behind the handle apart from what they post. so it's best to proceed with caution when making accusations like this. at least pilchard has the decency to stand over his comments, and both pilchard and úna seem like intelligent, fair-minded people so i'm sure that this will get sorted out. 4. úna - given my - colourful - cluas.com history, i hope my comments don't stir up even more s**t for ya, i'm only trying to help, honest! not that i'm being paid or in any way recompensed for doing so i hasten to add, for the benefit of the bias po-lice...

I think now would be a really good time to call time on this debate as the words "circles" and "dead ends" come to mind. I think this has been blown out of all proportion and to a certain degree Una has been jumped on far in excess of what needed to be done. Ultimately, she has always been frank and up front about her admiration for the Bleedins. She has never at any stage forced this band on anyone in here other then a hearty recommendation that they are a good act and should be seen when you have the chance. I have not seen them so cant comment on that which is insignificant in this debate. I dont think the words "being caught" really apply here as I personally dont believe it was done in a sneaky way. Finally, as a member of Cluas with over 580 posts, I think benefit of doubt should be given to a respected member and the matter dropped. Go and see the band and make your own minds up and now you all know that Una is an admirer of the Bleedins and does some Euro press for them. Get over it.