- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
SXSW was conceived in 1986 as a music festival, to entice A&R reps from NY and LA to come to Austin and check out a great music scene, in hopes of getting Austin acts signed. At the time, artists from Lucinda Williams to Townes Van Zandt, Daniel Johnston and Glass Eye were playing for pass-the-hat in beer joints. The idea was brilliant -- fly IN the record company people and show them what Austin, which at the time was affordable, hip, laid-back and creative, could offer in terms of sign-able talent. The event succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams -- for the promoters; they all live in mansions now instead of the crummy apartments they had at the time; SXSW is on the map, and along the way they have added a film festival (lots of movies get made in Texas lately because -- surprise -- there are no union requirements in Texas; it's a right-to-work state). The acts above-mentioned got deals, or didn't, starved, died, went broke or (like Williams) succeeded, but none of them I can think of due to SXSW. Williams finally got signed, and deservedly so, by moving to LA where her demo ended up with a punk label in NY. Now, at SXSW, people like Neil Young and other firmly established artists come and give free concerts; that's awesome; but the "showcases" are pretty much reserved for acts who already HAVE record deals (hello) and come from places like Cleveland or Norway. In fact, bands from Europe, already bankrolled by government subsidies, fly to Austin to "showcase" at SXSW. Eventually SXSW added their film festival segment (the week before the music festival) and a "media" festival was kind of the buzz for a while (I dunno, computer stuff?). But the only people who make out are the promoters, the hotels and airlines. Because of the influx of Hollywood labor law evaders, some demi-pro cinema related businesses have sprung up in Austin as well (like, caterers) and there is now supposedly a "film scene." But make no mistake -- SXSW is NOT for the little guy. Everything you say about Sundance is 100 times more true for SXSW. Back in the Revolution (anyone remember the Revolution? It was lost at Kent State) a great man said, "There are no hip merchants." By conceiving an event to celebrate "cutting edge" art, whether film or music, Redford et al. did a great thing, as did those who created SXSW. But the minute SXSW became successful, the underrdog became the overlord. And the independent, creative artists who don't fit the mold? Good thing "that's not why we do it" (for the deal). While I agree (sadly) from the little I know about the film world, re: Sundance (although it's ludicrous to put down, for any reason, someone who has done as much creatively, environmentally and politically as Robert Redford), please don't think you'll turn to SXSW and find anything "indie."
