[tptacek]

I'll admit that I don't pay attention to opera and that you may have me there, but the Chicago Symphony Orchestra trounces SFS in every ranking I can find (CSO tops the Philharmonic in some credible reviews, so this isn't a fair fight).

You also can't say "SF tends to fall down when it comes to plays" and then in the same sentence say "comedy is the only performing art that Chicago does better in"; Chicago has a vibrant theater scene, and while it isn't NYC, nothing is.

So, where does that leave us?

Opera: SF > Chicago

Theater: Chicago > SF

Comedy: Chicago > SF

Symphony: Chicago > SF

Look, I get that we're trolling each other here, though. San Francisco is a bad place to see new comedy, but it clearly has credible opera and symphony. It's not a ding on San Francisco that "you can't hear good classical music".

[evgen]

I think that in the midst of various edits I lost track of the point I was trying to make in that section about performing arts. I was not conceding theatre, just aiming to point out that there are some very good theatrical companies in SF and a batch of mediocrity. In SF the patronage scene seems to go like this: Opera > ACT > Ballet > SFS > other theatrical companies. I am not sure why this is the case, but people with bluer blood than mine have deigned it to be so.

It seems that in most of these performing arts rankings you have NYC at the top, LA a long way down the scale for a lot of things (mostly as remnants and/or supporting players for the movie biz) and below that places like Chicago, SF, and Boston fighting it out for third place in various categories.

Yes, you will see a better comedy show in Chicago, catch a better opera or weird performance art piece in SF, and probably hear a better symphony in Boston. Either way, I would say that SF is far from the performing arts wasteland you originally suggested...