Just curious: is anyone actually reading any of the SXSW coverage at any of the multitude of blogs that have dedicated themselves to documenting this historic occasion?
I mean, it's all kind of silly, right? As if this isn't identical to the content many of these blogs post every day anyway? All the bands descending on Austin play regularly around the country (especially NYC), and there's a blogger in every town to record it. Whoopee! A new YouTube video of a poorly recorded concert! All right! Jens Lekman covered someone! Holy fuck! Holy Fuck fucking holy slayed - here's a pic!
Yeah, next month all those posts will keep happening; they'll just be in Brooklyn or Toronto instead. I'm sure it's exciting if you're in the middle of it, but to the average blog-reader, it's overwhemingly redundant.
Can we take a survey in the comments box? Are you reading any SXSW coverage, and is any of it interesting? Perhaps if we can establish the fact that this shit is not interesting to people who aren't there, some of these bloggers can save time on trying to find a wi-fi connection next year.
Anything that says "SXSW" I pretty much ignore. (Same for the CMJ stuff. I couldn't possibly care.)
Posted by: Richard | March 15, 2008 at 05:47 PM
You need to see this: Six-Word Reviews of 763 SXSW Mp3s. It's actually pretty funny.
Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2008 at 06:34 PM
absolutely ignoring all of it.
the constant sxsw coverage would make sense if sxsw were really a showcase exposing previously unknown artists. but it's not really.
Posted by: jeremy | March 15, 2008 at 08:14 PM
The only interesting coverage is of the extra-special events, like the Thurston Moore & Steve Reich confab. I could do without pretty much everything else.
Posted by: Al | March 15, 2008 at 08:15 PM
wtf is sxsw?
Posted by: brendan | March 16, 2008 at 08:32 AM
The thing to keep in mind about the mind-numbing amount of SXSW coverage is that in many cases it's mandated by the blog owners for obvious special-interest reasons. Meaning if Newspaper X or Professional Blog Y is sponsoring an event, or is a sponsor of SXSW generally (and many are), written coverage of the event is going to happen no matter how dull the actual event is. (Take it from someone whose bill was footed in full by his newspaper--a SXSW sponsor--three years ago.)
Posted by: Matos W.K. | March 16, 2008 at 09:15 AM
Brendan, I sincerely hope you're not being facetious. Alas, I suspect you aren't.
Matos - Good point. I think the worst offenders, in my rss feeds at least, all had sponsored parties. Nonetheless it's easy to go overboard; I mean, could there be anything less appealing to seeing this in the newsfeed at Pitchfork?
Mon: 03-17-08: 09:30 AM CDT
SXSW: Saturday [Amy Phillips] (Potentially NSFW)
Mon: 03-17-08: 09:00 AM CDT
SXSW: Saturday [Tyler Grisham]
Mon: 03-17-08: 08:30 AM CDT
SXSW: Saturday [Paul Thompson]
Mon: 03-17-08: 08:00 AM CDT
SXSW: Saturday [Matt LeMay] (Potentially NSFW)
Mon: 03-17-08: 07:30 AM CDT
SXSW: Saturday [Matthew Solarski]
More Top Stories
SXSW: Saturday [Dave Maher]
Photos: Pitchfork/Windish Austin Bash
SXSW: Friday [Amy Phillips]
SXSW: Friday [Paul Thompson]
SXSW: Friday [Matt LeMay]
SXSW: Friday [Tyler Grisham]
Posted by: scott pgwp | March 17, 2008 at 09:25 AM