Thread by @Andylanger

SUPER-THREAD: Lots of folks whispering about this year’s SXSW Music Lite: aka Snack Size #SXSW . The renewed emphasis on bands, not brands, is worth celebrating, but at what cost? Here’s a contrarian argument for more brands/bigger name bands.

What’s it say about faith in SXSW’s utility and/or future when the biggest players in the game- Apple, Spotify, YouTube, Pandora- opt out, or significantly downsize their roles?

They not only used to spend big on big-name talent but also throw their weight behind the rookie class on their bills and online before/during/after

These weren’t the gross like Doritos or McDonald’s- they were music-focused and allowed bands that wouldn’t/couldn’t come to SXSW w/o those corporate dollars. Same bands would play official events too and pack out the whole night at large rooms (good for early bands and venues)

This year ACL Live did three nights of hard-ticket non-SXSW shows. Stubb’s – which was basically empty for hours on end each night- probably wishes they did the same.

Completely-free Auditorium Shores was not packed as tightly as it used to be. Emo’s? Not a venue. Imagine if the Music Hall was still open?

Easy to imagine the big rooms pushing back at SXSW programmers, insisting they supply talent that fills their venue for more than a few hours a night, but what happens when every size room, frustrated by a slow weekend, revolts?

But you say you saw more young acts, waited in less lines and moved around more easily? “Discovery” is nice conceptually, but big names/big shows/big lines used to drive trickle-down to venues, service industry, caterers, planners, event builders, security etc.

“Discovery” and the utility of SXSW for musicians is undercut when top-tier acts don’t come: big names bring upper-echelon industry types w/ em’: their managers, booking agents, label teams, publicists etc that only come when their moneymaking artists appear at the festival

If you’re a young act traveling great distances, paying inflated lodging prices to play for petty cash or badge/wristband paydays, even in the digital age, these are the people young acts desperately hope/need to be in front of.

If they stay home, who are the “industry” the young discoverable bands are playing for at what’s by SXSW’s own admission is designed to be an “industry” gathering?

Meanwhile, less corporate day parties/buyouts mean less $ for clubs already struggling w/ rising rent and thin margins. Add smaller crowds for official showcases and will we see clubs close in Sept/Oct who used to count on SXSW money to make it through summer?

SXSW is the bona fide tide that lifts the boats for year-round music clubs. SXSW shrinkage putting their SXSW bump at risk could be a death blow.

On the party front, 2019 was also a correction: over the yrs, venues/rental spaces got crazy- rental fees and high bar/catering minimums meant 60-80k A DAY prices before they even booked any talent. Those apparently weren’t sustainable prices.

Also, there’s an argument that SXSW suffers from bloat: 1900 acts? 94 stages? Over the years, SXSW snatched up every room w/ a stage they could, afraid they’d go rogue and piggyback w/ “pirate showcases” or unofficial parties. That’s clearly not necessary now.

FACT: 1900 acts < 900 well-curated acts. SXSW Film (or Sundance for that matter) doesn’t find screens for every submission: they carefully pick films that mean something/that distributors might want etc. Music, though maybe even more subjective, seems more scattershot.

1900 acts spread across rooms that aren’t usually music rooms and means a band can fly from Scandinavia only to play a room with poor sound, shaky can’t-keep-your-drums-upright stages, and non-existent sightlines.

It also means spreading out the few high-profile acts SXSW has to make it worthwhile for these non-music venues to participate—taking crowds and dollars away from the clubs who fight the good fight to present live music year round, not just these 4 days.

It’s not clear how much of a factor the anomalous misaligned SXSW/Spring Break situation had on attendance- both industry and regular folk alike. It’s probably not an insignificant factor though.

SXSW clearly got too big, too corporate, too dangerous and for a while put too much emphasis on mega-acts like Jay Z and Lady Gaga. It lost sight of its mission and across the last few years shrunk, course-corrected and maybe even returned to form. SXSW is a cyclical beast.

But overall, 2019 seemed dangerously small and suggested for the first time that SXSW Music may no longer be too big to fail. Austin needs SXSW. Music needs SXSW. Convincing everyone else they need it again has to be the story of SXSW 2020.