Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward
I think the important thing is having establishments where you can go watch and listen to the blues. It's the most authentic thing...not a pre-packaged corporate experience of recorded audio and computerized visuals and static artifacts.
Still, it's a place people would visit and Chicago already has plenty of cultural attractions that would be too big of competitors to out of state and international tourists that may be short on time.
If this is what will boost tourism further in STL and give it more attractions, they deserve it.
|
Authentic or not, most people just don't really dig blues. It's more of a novelty of the ghost of music past (little holiday pun
). Most younger people have never heard of a guy like Muddy Waters.
As far as watching and listening, we already have places like Kingston Mines and House of Blues (?? do they even play Blues music there?). So you don't need a museum for that. The museum sounds like it'd be a watered down version of Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of fame, sans inducting new artists into the museum. Again, for me personally (and most people under the age of 50), it just doesn't sound that interesting.