L.A. or San Francisco?

Question

I have been trying to decide where to live for 4 years now: L.A. or San Francisco?

I currently live in L.A. area, have a house and can live with only a part-time job as I rent out the rooms. These leaves me more time for my music (rock bands) and I can play to big audiences here in L.A., even though I'm relatively unknown still. I want more than anything to have a successful music career, but its tough. So many people & bands in L.A. make it difficult to get noticed, but it also means there's an audience almost everywhere, instead of an empty bar (which I encountered often in Seattle, where I grew up).

However, I love San Fran, and can even deal with the cold fogginess. If I wasn't a musician, I would live there. But its a smaller town, and the music scene is not as big, nor as closely followed by the fans (so I've heard). Its also quirkier, which I love but can make it difficult to do ANYthing ambitious. I've heard its harder to make it there, less opportunity than L.A.

Answer 1

SF is more expensive and a huge lifestyle difference than LA. I think if you are trying to make it big, stick to LA. SF is more of a fast paced (faster than LA if you can beleive it!) hippy area. I love it there, but I dont see big music possibilities.

Good luck to you!

Answer 2

California is expensive PERIOD,no matter where you live.If your music speaks for itself and sounds good it dosent matter what area you live in,the cream of the crop rises to the top always.Id say LA,the scene is a blast there and bands from all around come there to play as well which can give you shows in other areas as well.

Answer 3

I love LA!