There was nothing particularly indie about this year’s SXSW. If anything, the festival has come to highlight the exceedingly dependent state of the music industry, with youth-oriented brands like Mountain Dew and Levi’s playing a greater role than ever. The NY Times takes a look at this phenomenon, considering its impact on concertgoers, bands, and the companies themselves. Unsurprisingly, feelings are mixed. [NY Times]
|
 |
With record sales down so much it looks like the major labels/artists are diving into the "indie" scene. The line is being blurred, unfortunately mostly with the majors setting their sights lower as opposed to the indies setting their sights higer. |
 |
Well, I'm proud to have contributed some distinctly non-corporate, zero-big-name photographic coverage of SXSW for Prefix, then. |
| anon |
Prefix is corporate, too. It has to sell advertising, yes? |
 |
I wouldn't say that selling ads makes you corporate. |
|
|
The corporate presence was clearly oppressive, but I got quite a bit out of SXSW. The big names this year might be a sign of the times, but a big name in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, maybe Jane's Addiction or Metallica will never really fall out of the spotlight, but Devo, the Sonics? I like that there was a sense of reverence for some of these older groups that have fallen to the wayside but clearly influenced so many of these no-name guys. Devo has a lot to say about societal conformity and mass marketing – quite timely stuff these days. Style wise, Datarock could be the son of Devo. And the Sonics had a huge impact on garage rock coming out of the Pacific Northwest. Or, maybe SXSW is getting so big it's becoming a celebration of itself. |
 |
more corporate sponsorship = more free parties, more free booze, more free food, more bands. in the past the only way to enjoy sxsw was to buy a badge/wristband. now you can have the time of your life on a limited budget. and remember since metallica and devo were official showcasing bands they only got paid $200 (from sxsw at least). i don't think any of the fans that got to see them in those small venues would complain one bit about them being there. as long as SXSW brings artists that I want to see to my backyard (and this year there were tons) i'm all for this festival getting as big as it can. |
 |
the problem w/ big names like metallica playing sxsw is that it takes away prospective listeners from other acts which could use them. i mean really, what the hell does metallica need to play sxsw for, other than some sort of weird ego stroke? |
|
|
I don't think it takes away listeners from other bands. only 2,000 people got in to metallica. if you didn't want to see them or couldn't get in, there were a hundred other bands playing at the same time. i just really don't see any problem with them playing. i don't care one bit for metallica but i thought it was cool that they would do something like that. it added excitement to the week. REM did it last year, Metallica this year. |
Jay-Z, Miley Cyrus: Miley Cyrus Has Never Heard ...
This year all the talk seemed to be around mega artists like Kanye, Metallica, Devo, etc. versus up and coming acts. That was a little disappointing.