[shiroiushi]

"treflop" says he goes dancing regularly, in addition to various live music events. "freeone3000" says he goes to a dance party every month or so.

It sounds like your town just sucks, and you should move to one of their towns. You can't expect all towns across the country to be equally good for all interests.

[johnnyanmac]

Move? In this economy?

I'd also need more than two opinions on unknown towns before I'd consider that. Maybe they're both on San Francisco paying 3x in rent. Literally can't afford that move.

[shiroiushi]

I mean, this of course is just a casual conversation on an internet forum, so I don't seriously mean you should pack up right now and move to one of those two towns just because of dancing. But my larger point is that different places offer different things, and some places just aren't going to be very good for certain cultural interests (like dancing). America's a big place, and if you don't really like the place you're in, I don't think it's that productive to say "activity X is really bad these days" just because it's bad in your area, and some other areas that some article claims based on anecdotes. It may even be the case that it really is worse, on average, than several decades ago. But there's surely places where it's fine, so if the area you're in doesn't meet your expectations for cultural activities, perhaps you should start looking around for a new place.

[johnnyanmac]

>I don't think it's that productive to say "activity X is really bad these days" just because it's bad in your area

Then why is it okay to say the opposite and ignore the average experience? I don't understand the double standard here. If we base anything on extremes everything sounds amazing or awful.

And I wasn't speaking for myself. I'm simply referencing the article where someone took the time and effort to make an entire book based on this phenomenon. What compelling reason do I have to take these commenter's words over the authors? (no offense to the commentors).

>so if the area you're in doesn't meet your expectations for cultural activities, perhaps you should start looking around for a new place.

If that's important enough to you, sure. But this feels like a very unsympathetic and potentially non-viable solution for most of the population.

We're not all single people with 6 months of saving ready to not renew an apartment lease. Some people have families, some people need to be around certain scenes to get steady work, some people can't afford to move, etc. Everyone has passions but most people won't throw their lives away to pursue that passion.

e.g. I want to one day seriously study art, but the circus of a job search, paying off my debt, and rebuffering my savings comes before I start browsing for classes. Proper responsible living means delaying your immediate urges and passions to keep yourseof afloat.

[shiroiushi]

>someone took the time and effort to make an entire book based on this phenomenon

People have taken the time and effort to write entire books about all kinds of complete horseshit; there's plenty of books with all kinds of medical quackery like homeopathy, for instance, fad diets, I could go on and on. Someone writing a book about something doesn't mean there's any reality to it at all.

Honestly, I think it would be extremely difficult to assess the state of live music in America these days compared with some past time decades ago, in a fair and unbiased way. It's not like it's something the census keeps track of. The best you can probably do is anecdotes, and then you might as well listen to the commenters here too. Even anecdotes are suspect, since peoples' perceptions differ: an older person who enjoyed dance style A 30 years ago might say "there's no dancing here any more!" if style A is out of vogue, and style B is now popular among young people he has no contact with.

>We're not all single people with 6 months of saving ready to not renew an apartment lease. Some people have families

Many decades ago, Americans used to be more mobile than they are now. They absolutely would pack up their entire family and move many states away. Now it seems Americans don't do that much. Here's a relatively recent NYT article about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/american-workers-movin...

[fragmede]

Decades ago? The country was started by people who left the old country, sometimes bring wives and children with them, sometimes later, sometimes never. The Oregon trail featured entire families that moved. Moving is an integral part of America's history.

[shiroiushi]

I don't think that contradicts my prior claim. Yeah, people really moved at great expense and risk in the Oregon Trail days, and sometimes died of cholera (at least that always happened to me when I played the game on the Apple ][).

But I was really focusing on more recent times than that: it was still true within many peoples' lifetimes, though it wasn't nearly as risky as the covered wagon days.

[johnnyanmac]

>Honestly, I think it would be extremely difficult to assessthe state of live music in America these days compared with some past time decades ago, in a fair and unbiased way....The best you can probably do is anecdotes, and then you might as well listen to the commenters here too. Even anecdotes are suspect,

You realize how wishy-washy this sounds right? "authors write bad too just trust anecdotes. But anecdotes are bad too"

Do you have any sort of input here whatsoever or just want to say all data is fake? Yes, it could be a lie. But there's been enough researched literature on this that I'm inclined to agree.

And yes. You can in fact track this, even if it's not easy. Statistics rarely has the blessing of a Census. That why we have centuries of survey techniques to get close to it. Dismissing thst for a few anecdotes which you also didn't trust just feels contrarian for the sake of it.

> Now it seems Americans don't do that much.

I'm not surprised. I knew the reasons before I even opened your article:

> Slowdowns in the housing and job markets and delays in marriage and childbearing pushed their relocation rates down substantially.

>low-wage jobs, after adjusting for the local cost of living, pay about the same everywhere.

> the economy is now less flexible, with prosperity clustered in larger cities and with businesses and people moving less.

The funniest parts are these experts baffled why this is affecting everyone and not just younger people. Almost like they forgot moving isn't a free and easy endeavor and people stick to the familiar.

They didn't quite nail down that no one wants to move across the country only to be laid off in 6 months, but they are at least hitting the dartboard. You want people to be able to move? Pay them so they can live in wherever they move to. That simple.

Until then, we're stuck and losing buying power and won't uproot what stability we have left for hopes of finding a bar woth love music that may or may not cease doing so in the next year or two.