Austin Music: Still Better Than Baton Rouge

Austin ain't all that... You all definitely need to get over yourselves. Keep The Weirdos in Austin... or however your stupid slogan goes.

As the writer of the NYT article is from Houston, I would bet good money that she knows the correct marketing slogan. I think she's laughing right now.

I live in New York City and I am always disappointed with live shows here--the dynamic of the crowds and the atmosphere of the venues just can't create the kind of live music experience I always enjoyed in Austin. I miss live shows in Austin.

Can we all AT LEAST agree that Disneyland IS "the happiest place on Earth"? No?

By protesting the article, the mayor's getting a ton more free press out of one mention, just like protesting the protest gets commentators the extra attention they crave. Everybody wins!

Conan's Head hurt from too much hysterical verbage. Conan take break and swallow 2 Excedrin with cafe au'lait.

Crap. The website froze up, so I reposted that message two or three times. I apologize.

nobody pays for a $300 airplane ticket just to go to see a club show. not if they already live in a decnet city, anyways. so who gives a fuck. there's as much good (or better) music in NO, LA, SF, Chicago, NYC. hell, per capita, i bet athens has austin beat. it's just a pissing contest borne out of a marketng slogan. and ausitn is kind missing the point, i guess it is more self-congratulations and branding than it is anything, see point 1. who travels over 400miles to see a band at a weekend gig at a club in austin?

"TOD is in the midst of a national tour, so I doubt that no one goes to see them anymore."

I'll find you the interview, but Conrad was quoted during this tour as saying that less and less people are coming to see Trail of Dead and that he isn't even sure he wants to tour again. I believe the interview said in Chicago they were playing to ~500 people. That's pretty miniscule (from Conrad's own assessment) for a city of that size.

Spoon loved Austin so much that the lead singer no longer lives here. But, I'll give you that one. They're probably the only truly successful indie rock band to have busted out of Austin to real success. (I'm really glad Jim Eno still does live here and his studio continues to thrive)

I've read very few incredibly positive reviews of Soundteam's debut. Most said "Eh, we hope they can figure it out next album".

Voxtrot hasn't even released a full length yet. Let's see what happens when they do.

I believe the Chronicle's feature on the Gamblers a few months ago said that they have to work as waiters, etc still inbetween tours because they barely cover their advance/expenses while beating themselves into a bloody pulp on tour.

Other than WMMF, who are still flogging their album from 2 or 3 years ago, are these bands really crossing over? I guess definitions of 'success' vary, but I don't consider selling 5-10k of records to be hugely successful (but its nothing to sneeze at, so I'm not denigrating any of these acts' efforts or music. I just don't see it as being particularly life changing in the grand scheme of shaping American music).

People -- journalists, label reps, filmmakers, fans -- flocked to a number of cities with true national buzz in the past 15 years because of the sound and scene. Seattle in the early 90s. Omaha in the late 90s. NYC in early 2000s. When was the last time Austin had that kind of vibe going?

No, I think being the "Live Music Capital of the World" involves a lot more than just having the most live music venues per capita (based on an arbitrary and unknown definition of "live music venue")... particularly if you're using this slogan as a marketing tool (which Austin clearly does).

There's a lot of varied criteria for defining what makes a great music scene and what makes an average one. I don't think Austin is near the top in almost any category, and I think this is borne out in almost every point I made earlier.

If the point of this slogan is not to draw travelers to our city but rather to self congratulate, than no one should get upset that the Times misrepresented it. Since politicians and spokespeople are upset, I'm going to stand by my assumption that this slogan is definitely important for tourist marketing purposes. And, I firmly believe this city's music scene tourism marketing would be better served with a focus on more than just the number of venues per capita.

Finally, if it's about "making live music available that even your stodgy parents want to go to", a lot of other cities do that really well.

What's the point of the slogan if the city is actually marketing music to stodgy middle aged folks who don't want to travel here anyway? Historically, that demographic doesn't buy CDs (or use iTunes), they don't travel (roadtrip, planes, or otherwise) to see bands, they don't like to sit in loud clubs for 3 hours while opening acts go on and on, etc.

If you want to create an enduring marketing campaign, you go after the younger generation(s) who will come back again and again. Those people are more likely to be enthusiastic in telling their friends to check out whatever they've experienced. If not, your target demographic is going to dry up as baby boomers become older and older.

What is your definition of "better" music? Or a national buzz for that matter? The Riverboat Gamblers, Soundteam, Voxtrot, IV Thieves, What Made Milwaukee Famous, Spoon, the Octopus Project, and ...Trail of Dead all receive national and international press. several of the aforementioned bands were signed to national labels this year and the previous. TOD is in the midst of a national tour, so I doubt that no one goes to see them anymore. My local music knowledge doesn't really extend too far outside the indie arena, but Austin currently has a diverse and thriving music scene in this widening genre.

it's a fucking marketing slogan. who really cares?

So, you really think that the "live music capital of the world" title is about that hot new act recently signed to a major label, and crating national buzz for our new and upcoming acts?

I thought it was about austin trying to always have live music that is enjoyable for everybody. Making live music available that even your stodgy parents want to go to, and doing it better than anywhere else.

Does guitar strumming at Artz increase the tourist revenue and taxes that legitimate venues provide? Because, really, this is why the peoples quoted in the above article are upset and why the City Council sloganized our city in 1991 (before ACL Fest was ever a twinkle in Charles Attal's wallet and SXSW was barely afloat). These people are upset, because the NY Times is widely read and there's a remote chance that someone might cross Austin off their list of places to see. That would cut down on the number of tshirts sold, hotel rooms booked, and dollars taxed.

Do people fly from around the country and world to go to Artz on a Wednesday? Tourists certainly come from around the world to go to Threadgills, which could tangentially be called a music venue at this point, but the reality is -- very little music goes on there over the course of an entire calendar year.

So, if Austin qualifies places like that as "music venues", does Seattle as well? I don't know and honestly I don't really care, because defining your city's slogan on a businesses per capita -- and not the quality of those business, their employees, and their product -- is absurd.

To be honest, I don't think people from around the world come to Austin to go to Beerland, Red Eyed Fly, Emo's, or La Zona Rosa either. If Austin didn't have SXSW or ACL Fest, people wouldn't come here to drink Lonestar in the numbers that they do just like people didn't go to bumblefuck California to do drugs before Coachella existed. People go for the music, and if Austin's music was better, people would come year round.

When the smoking ban was being debated, quite a few Red River club owners (the most concentrated set of live music venues in this city) lamented that without SXSW many of their clubs struggle to make ends meet and that 1 week of tourist drinking puts them in the black for the year. These owners were so concerned that forcing these tourists -- who can smoke in most major cities except NY and LA/SF -- were forced to step outside to puff away, they'd each drink a few less beers which would result in thousands of lost dollars.

If these owners were so concerned about the smoking and drinking tourists during SXSW, that says a lot about the number of tourists (and locals) who come to Austin the other 51 weeks of the year to experience this "Live Music Capital of the World". If the music was better and there was a truly national buzz about what was going on here, people would be coming to Austin for the music in mid-June to see what the fuss was about.

Your karaoke comment seems totally unrelated to anything Declan was saying. You claim that they look at the number of live shows; show us this fact. Declan has provided hard information on what information was used to declare us LMCotW. You argue that SXSW and ACL Fest are the perfect examples of this, but having music festivals is nothing unique that Austin has laid claim to. Numerous other cities can and do provide similar events to its residents. Additionally, generic bar bands and one (wo)man acoustic guitar shows are definitely not Copyright City of Austin, either.

Elvis, the city is claiming it's the "Live Music Capital of the World". They rationalized it based on venues but I'm sure they also look at the number of live shows. I consider seeing Carolyn Wonderland and Shelly King strum guitars for tips at Artz on a Wednesday as further justification that Austin is a destination for "Live Music". A guy playing a guitar for tips is live music. Yes, we have lots of small coffee shops with acoustic guitar-playing songwriters who may not be any good. That comes with the territory when you're the "Live Music Capital of the World." If you want karaoke go to Dallas.

Yeah, the noise ordinace totally ruins any reputation that we had going even practice spaces have to shutdown at 10:30, the only reputation Austin will be left with music wise is being known for having a contradictory noise ordinance to supplicate old fogey's who are probably deaf anywho..

"in which a guitar with a guitar"

should have been

"in which a guy with a guitar"

I got overly guitar happy.

Austin: Live Hipster Douche Captial of the World

Austin: Live Closing Major Downtown Streets on Weekends for Shitty Fairs and Events So People Can't Get Around Capital of the World.

sounds like sour grapes from a little town with a chip on its shoulder desperately hoping for more tourism in order to fill up the 8 marriotts located downtown.

I wonder if Jazz/Parish gets counted three times:

One time for the Parish.

One time for the Jazz stage.

One time for the sidewalk where the King of Bass performs.

As quoted before:

"On Aug. 29, 1991 the Austin City Council officially adopted the live music moniker because the city is home to more live music venues per capita then any other city."

Rob, your statement is misguided because the city isn't positioning itself based on number of actual shows or festivals. It's based on the number of businesses per capita.

They don't disclose how they define a "live music venue", but would anyone be shocked if they count places as disparate as Pete's Piano Bar, Stubbs, Jovitas, and Chain Drive the same? Some places are music venues, some are food or coffee establishments that host music frequently, some are places inbetween that host a band 1 time a week or less.

Once again, I stand by my assessment that this city should strive for a little more than counting the number of businesses in which a guitar with a guitar may or may not get paid $20 in tips on a Tuesday afternoon.

I'm looking forward to being named the "Empty Tech Building Capital of the World."

Austin isn't claiming to be the "New Music Capital" or the "Signed Band Capital", or the "Journalistic Music Capital". It's the "LIVE Music Capital". Considering the number of live shows during SXSW, ACL Festival, Austin City Limits, and live shows every night (including at the airport), I'd say it's fairly accurate.

Seriously, I don't have a problem with the self titling-- I just think its incredibly arrogant to get upset when this city really doesn't have the world class music scene its politicians (and spokespeople) claim exist.

In fact, those people who are all uppity about this Times article are the ones who slapped a noise ordinance on downtown. Unlike the smoking ban, which was actually voted upon by a semi-significant chunk of Austin people, the noise ordinance was decided by the City Council.

Is it the Live Music Capital... or the Singer Songwriter under 20 decibels Capital?

"On Aug. 29, 1991 the Austin City Council officially adopted the live music moniker because the city is home to more live music venues per capita then any other city."

How long do we have to wait until we give up on positive thinking?

Costello, er, McManus has a point. However, there may be something to the idea of declaring oneself a thing before one is actually that thing. It's a way to leverage the power of positive thinking. If the entire city starts visualizing itself as the Live Music Capital of the World, then we will collectively begin to make decisions and vote toward laws that actually move the city in that direction.

Austin is lucky to be called the Live Music Capital of anything. Other than having an inordinately large number of clubs for novice bands to play at, what does the Austin music scene have?

It doesn't have any credible music journalism (The Chronicle and Statesmen are laughable in reviewing any talent, local or otherwise).

It doesn't have ground breaking acts. Austin has consistently been a couple years behind whatever national trend is on the radio (pop punk, nu metal, hipster dance punk).

It doesn't have much nationally recognized star power.

It doesn't have a top independent music label signing, distributing, and promoting local talent. (Post-Parlo was as close as it probably got, and they packed up and moved out of Austin a couple years ago)

The selling points of the Austin music scene in the past couple of years include bands no one has ever really heard of (Voxtrot, Zykos, Sound Team, etc), bands no one is really going to see any more (Trail of Dead, Bob Schneider), and bands not really from here (Los Lonely Boys).

I love a lot of the music created in Austin as well as the clubs that draw regional and national talent, but its very self congratulatory (as well as masturbatory) to self annoint oneselves "Live Music Capital of the World" solely because "the city is home to more live music venues per capita then any other city" (quoted from the above links). We have a couple of incredibly amazing festivals that add to our reputation.

The cofounder of Matador Records has lived in this city for at least 2 years; How many Austin bands are on THAT label now?

Just think: Wouldn't it be awesome if people in other cities were talking about an Austin music scene because of the number of amazing bands coming out of it? Or maybe because our music critics are on the forefront of journalism, writing pieces on cutting edge studios and talent (as well as publishing maybe one book someday)? Or because we've got the next Saddle Creek, Merge, Sub Pop, etc?

I blame Derek Jeter.

yankees.