Where do I begin?
I suppose first you should read this. (I wasn’t able to find a digital copy yet the other day, so I actually shelled out 7 dollars for a paper magazine. 7 dollars! )
Various people around town have been chatting about the latest issue of PASTE, in which they ask the question “DOES SEATTLE’S MUSIC SCENE STILL MATTER?” So I had to check it out. It was the lead article in their “Scrapbook” section of this month’s issue. The title is completely misleading though, as they don’t actually ask or answer the question in the article, it’s just a litany of reasons why Seattle is a difficult place to be a musician or a club. In the same way that every other major city is a difficult place to be a musician or a club.
What topics do they cover?
- High Cost of Living and Doing Business in Seattle
- Mayor’s Aggressive Nightlife Enforcement Plan
- How a few musicians have moved to Portland (Isaac Brock, Chris Walla)
- How easy/difficult it is/was to be a musician in Seattle
They do reserve a 1/8 page sidebar (not included in the digital version of the article), titled “THREE REASONS TO NOT COUNT SEATTLE OUT YET,” for actually answering the question, but it’s done simply by name dropping without any further context. They offer up a paragraph each on the strength of many local record labels and the burgeoning hip-hop scene led by the Blue Scholars and their five day fest The Program. The final paragraph in the sidebar, titled “Indie thrivers and survivors” mentions many of the other things that they should have been expanding on in the article when answering the question “DOES SEATTLE’S MUSIC SCENE STILL MATTER?” But it’s just names, and does nothing to reveal the depth and character (or supposed lack thereof) of Seattle’s music scene.
I do find it funny (and sad) that a Portland writer would be tasked with writing this article. It does seem like an advertisement for why Portland is better than Seattle. How original. Are there not writers who live in Seattle and are intimately familiar with the “scene” who could actually bring local perspective to the article?
The cost of living in Seattle is skyrocketing, true, but if high rents and traffic were such a big deal for musicians, New York wouldn’t have a music scene. Metropolitan areas are where “art” and “music” find their audiences and hence where artists and musicians make their homes; cities were the gears behind the marketplace of idea’s long before the internet ever came to pass. If the city is where the work is, the city is where the people will be.
When bands want to get noticed, where do they go? Ironically the cities with the highest rents and densest populations, New York and L.A. Yes, living on Capitol Hill (my home) and in the city of Seattle proper is far too expensive, but I’m not seeing musicians who want to live in-town, close to venues and “the scene,” being completely priced out of the neighborhood (no matter what the Stranger may have you believe). That’s not to say it’s easy to pull it off being a musician anywhere, and at the end they do give a nod to that fact. But in no way is there an exodus of talent from the Seattle scene as the article might intimate. For every Chris Walla who has left, I can give you a Ben Gibbard who remains.
So, now to the question. Does the local scene here “matter?” How does one define whether a scene “matters?” I’ll present a few indications one might consider when determining whether the Seattle music scene is alive and well:
Read the rest of this entry »