Comments on: San Francisco Does Not Rock

By: Betches

Betches — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:03:20 +0000

Uhm. This is a fucking lie. San Francisco gets everyone that las vegas does and some. Living in Vegas was shit..I mean yeah maybe they get more Bon Jovi/Kings of Leon shows than we do but this is such lies.

By: Allan Hough

Allan Hough — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 00:05:01 +0000

But we don’t have a Beerland.

By: SCUM

SCUM — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:17:20 +0000

I have lived here 38 years and there has always been a scene of one kind or another. That being said I am mostly into metal and punk and have never had a problem getting my fill of live music at a decent price. FUCK HIPSTERS!!!!

By: Snake Plissken

Snake Plissken — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:48:49 +0000

I’ve always said that it was a wash moving here from Austin when it comes to the music scene. If you live in Austin, SXSW sucks. The attraction of having a wristband fades when you realize it’s way too crowded to successfully hop from venue to venue. ACL is nice, and it was great to go to tapings of the show in college, but there’s still plenty to sate my appetite in S.F. Great American is better than any venue I can think of in Austin, with Stubbs being the closest.

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:54:10 +0000

Huh, you can keep saying that, but it isn’t going to make it true. I find at least a couple of shows every week to go to, and quite often more than one that appeal to me on the same night. Tough Decisions To Be Made.

Now, judging from your comment about practice spaces, it could be that you are arguing that SF is a bad city to base a band in. That could be the case. However, San Francisco is a GREAT city to SEE live music in. To argue otherwise is just weirdly delusional.

By: dave

dave — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 07:41:17 +0000

I mentioned that SF blows for live music in a recent thread and the reaction was cognitive dissonance and denial. Some of you have no frame of reference and instead choose to believe that the explanation is some sort of statistical anomaly regarding metropolitan areas.
Guess what, the live music scene blows. How could anyone not know that? Look at how many clubs have closed down here since the late 90s. Look how many musician practice spaces have closed down. If you had a frame of reference you’d realize that. In the early 2000s, several old time national acts came through the city and commented on how tepid and lame the crowd seemed, how it wasn’t like the SF they used to know.
The dotcom era clear cut the live music scene, and the new class of man-purse carrying hipsters who have colonized the Mission is the pitch that was smeared onto the exposed limbs to make sure it never grows again.
In all honesty:
-many people probably don’t even know what live music is anymore, thinking it’s a deejay putting his ipod on shuffle and plugging it into the house PA.
-even in the good old days of the early 90s when SF was a musician’s town, the scene was never that great and certainly not even close to the national top five, or even top ten. That comes as a blow to SFers who naturally believe the city rules in everything cool.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:26:42 +0000

If #s 2 or 4 are your concern you should consider spending more time in Oakland. Hardly any good bars + people generally younger & a lot broker than their SF counterparts = lots of pretty good DIY house / generator shows which are almost always “suggested-donation” based. Lots of good touring bands play free house shows in Oakland before or after playing $10 – $15 shows at venues in SF.

By: a_native_son

a_native_son — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:53:05 +0000

Yeah, but I always wonder what these surveys and lists and whatnot count as San Francisco. I mean, you and I know what SF proper is and that less than a million people live within her borders, but to most people, San Francisco is the entire Bay Area, which would give “San Francisco” a population of 4 million or so.

Austin and Madison, I’m not really surprised by given that both are big college towns and Austin has SXSW. Must admit, Denver surprises. Vegas is obviously skewed.

San Francisco has more than its fair share of live music. I just don’t think people here HAVE to see any particular show. If it’s convenient and cheap enough, I’ll probably stop in. Otherwise, my precious few dollars will buy me a pizza pie instead.

By: -J

-J — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 17:56:06 +0000

Milwaukee is the only one with a major city near by to compete for suburban (or tourist) show goers with (chicago is an hour and a half away). If you live in the east bay or the paninsula you can choose to go to Oakland/ Berkley/ San Jose instead of SF. Some bands just play one city. A more interesting study would be shows per capita per metro-region.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 07:14:58 +0000

Further evidence that San Fran loves electro!

By: Hammurabi

Hammurabi — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 06:13:20 +0000

what? san francisco accurately reflects the fact that rock music is dead?

just being playful, but in all sincerity, my calendar is always packed with interesting new shit, it’s just not always rock. and i’m okay with that!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:56:32 +0000

Las Vegas? Does a Wayne Newton concert qualify as a “rock show”?

By: Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 01:25:04 +0000

Yeah, I definitely do not feel that there is any dearth of live music in SF. We have a lot of venues, and most of them are active most nights.

By: Vic Wong

Vic Wong — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:50:37 +0000

Yeah, but:

San Francisco estimated 2009 population: 815,358

Austin: 786,386
Madison: 235,626
New orleans: 354,850
Las Vegas: 567,641
Denver: 610,345
Milwaukee: 605,014

We’re not really that far off.

By: MrEricSir

MrEricSir — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:25:03 +0000

“There’s only one way, there’s only one way to rock!”

And it’s not in San Francisco, apparently. Although IMO it also doesn’t involve Sammy Hagar.