Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SXSW RIP

jwz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: SXSW RIP

#71

Post by diydsp »

trhway wrote: post #18

basically an old fart says "it isn't cool anymore". Well, man, if you haven't still got the message - we're just not cool anymore, as young as we feel ourselves. Signed by a fellow old fart (of Gen X like jwz).

As a matter of perspective, it's been fun for me to watch a star/folk hero like jwz rise out of nowhere, a young, wild, productive dude. Now it's interesting to see a generation of developers to whom he's less known and who don't quite understand why he would make his webpage look like a terminal.

Just like it was interesting to suddenly see people fetishize super mario brothers about 10 years ago, e.g. Cory Doctorow. But now it seems SMB isn't the childhood reference, it's Pokemon.

The turning of the wheel I guess.

Re: SXSW RIP

#72

Post by masklinn »

darrhiggs wrote: post #69
Jugurtha wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean something like the Baseball's "World Series" when Baseball is practically unheard of elsewhere. I think what they mean by the "world" is the U.S.

To add some evidence: 2013 Glastonbury: 135,000 [0] SXSW (music): 82,119 [1] Neither of which compare to anything on this list[2]: 10th EXIT (NOVI SAD, SERBIA): 200,000 1st DONAUINSELFEST (VIENNA, AUSTRIA): 3,200,000 [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_Festival [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_by_Southwest [2] http://www.mtviggy.com/lists/the-10-biggest-music-festivals-...

> http://www.mtviggy.com/lists/the-10-biggest-music-festivals-...

So even in the US SXSW is completely dwarfed by Coachella and Summerfest.

Re: SXSW RIP

#73

Post by Grue3 »

I thought this post had something to do with the fact that a drunk driver smashed into a crowd, killing a bunch of people and injuring dozens. Which incidentally was also the cause of many reschedulings. But there is nothing about this incident, which leads me to believe that the author was somehow unaware of this, or he wouldn't pick such an insensitive title.

Re: SXSW RIP

#74

Post by sehr »

darrhiggs wrote: post #69
Jugurtha wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean something like the Baseball's "World Series" when Baseball is practically unheard of elsewhere. I think what they mean by the "world" is the U.S.

To add some evidence: 2013 Glastonbury: 135,000 [0] SXSW (music): 82,119 [1] Neither of which compare to anything on this list[2]: 10th EXIT (NOVI SAD, SERBIA): 200,000 1st DONAUINSELFEST (VIENNA, AUSTRIA): 3,200,000 [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glastonbury_Festival [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_by_Southwest [2] http://www.mtviggy.com/lists/the-10-biggest-music-festivals-...

You're acting as if SXSW is(was) the only draw to Austin's music scene. ACL, Fun Fun Fest, X other festivals and the hundreds of different venues with bands playing every night all make up a a part of it.

Re: SXSW RIP

#76

Post by skyebook »

Jugurtha wrote: post #67
skyebook wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the vacuum tubes have already been replaced. (I do agree with you though)

Wrong again, not in the music scene. A lot of people still prefer amps made out of vacuum tubes, because they feel the sound is more human, has more texture, and is more smooth. Whether it's correct or not is not the point, but proves the point TylerE was making: This is an emotional thing. And some will make the point of theatre and cinema, but there's still theatre and theatre has never really been as interactive a…

For a PA system? I'm pretty sure all of that is using transistors now.

For a guitar amp, I hear you (though I also think the quality of things like guitar rig in the last few years have started to sound pretty believable)

Re: SXSW RIP

#77

Post by Litost »

chiph wrote: post #22
danso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely the author is Jamie Zawinski, one of the creators of Netscape and proprietor of a SF music venue and all-around hacker legend.

That is indeed Jamie. This is the first complaint I've seen about disorganization. Most of the complaints I've heard are that the artists are too mainstream. If they're going to put on someone like Lady Gaga, they should just rent the UT football stadium and have that part be a mega festival on it's own weekend with 70k attendees. SXSW (music) has always been about the bands that could be big in about 1-2 years. You…

"They need to dial it back some."

I had the same thought about Glastonbury, when they were talking about not running it a few years back, because it had got too unwieldy and a lot of the regular goers were complaining it had sold out and become too big.

As you suggest, if you could split the festival (and the crowds) in two and have one festival cover all the larger (Lady Gaga, Oasis, Rolling Stones...) or more mainstream/hyped acts along with the people who primarily aren't interested in the more obscure bands/experiences to be had away from the main stages, that would then leave the rest of the festival to the regulars who want to wonder around the green/healing fields and see all the lesser known (but often better/more interesting) bands.

I'm not sure how the logistics (or planning) would pan out given that i suspect the majority of money the festival forks out are for the bigger acts. But if they were to run these two festivals in consecutive weeks perhaps the economies of that would make it more viable.

Fortunately Glastonbury has managed to stay resolutely non-corporate, unlike most of the larger UK music festivals (V, Reading, Leeds etc.) and still manage to host a shedload of really good bands across the fame/size spectrum.

But maybe, in a similar fasion, if SXSW were to split and leave the corporate shilling to the mainstream crowd/event, maybe the other half of the festival could return to more how it was, discovering new music with people who care about new music and not having to queue for ages for the privilege?

Re: SXSW RIP

#78

Post by cfreeman »

TylerE wrote: post #43
ghshephard wrote: post #23

This comment caught my attention: "I won't be coming back. I'd have had better luck by just looking at the schedule and punching names into YouTube, then waiting for those bands to come to SF." I wonder what the odds are we'll see within 10 years Occulus like VR environments that can capture the concert experience, reducing somewhat the need to track down bands in crazy canceling venues like this if all you are inter…

Won't happen. No amount of VR wizardry will ever replace massive arrays of 12" woofers driven by vacuum tubes.

Not to mention, you know, actually meeting other people.

Re: SXSW RIP

#79

Post by Jugurtha »

skyebook wrote: post #76
Jugurtha wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong again, not in the music scene. A lot of people still prefer amps made out of vacuum tubes, because they feel the sound is more human, has more texture, and is more smooth. Whether it's correct or not is not the point, but proves the point TylerE was making: This is an emotional thing. And some will make the point of theatre and cinema, but there's still theatre and theatre has never really been as interactive a…

For a PA system? I'm pretty sure all of that is using transistors now. For a guitar amp, I hear you (though I also think the quality of things like guitar rig in the last few years have started to sound pretty believable)

I meant both. I've talked to guitarists/electronics engineers who design amps for their guitars, but they're still in use, I think. If my memory serves me well, Marshall still uses them.
Post reply on HN