Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who killed the rave?

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#611

Post by aylmao »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #170
jamestimmins wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's shocking how often the answer to "How come X changed?" is either the creation of the internet or the cost of real estate. Surprisingly often, it's both.

It's interesting how the creation of the internet still hasn't caused real estate prices to plummet. Even two years of covid couldn't do it.

It did affect housing. I remember the great deals one could find when remote work was in full swing, and all that was said about vacant office, or smaller cities growing at the expense of bigger ones.

It was only two years though. An industry can hold off and fight back in that time.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#612

Post by karlgkk »

guynamedloren wrote: post #586
kstrauser wrote: post #120

One big change is that they got better and much more organized. I go to an annual event with a few hundred of my friends and family. We rent a lodge in a national forest, set up an enormous sound system, and dance for 3 days around some very confused deer. There are food trucks and coffee bars and dozens of portapotties scattered around, plus daytime poolside sets while we swim around and listen to 100dB house. We gr…

I’m confused. You say that you “go to” an annual event, but then you describe it at a massive private festival that you’re self organizing. Which is it?

As someone who does something similar, it’s easily both

Re: Who killed the rave?

#614

Post by randomopining »

lelandfe wrote: post #442
gotaran wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC as well, and I find the post COVID Berlin-esque Bushwick only scene to be terrible. It's filled with the most dull repetitive music that AI can replicate with a god awful sound system and no atmospherics whatsoever, and while I do appreciate the lack of dress code / door policy / bouncer aggressiveness, it feels like a brutal slog to endure without drugs, and a miserable long ass train ride on the L tra…

That all predates COVID... circa 2017 you could catch me in some Ridgewood DIY with no atmospherics most weekends. My favorite nights are the ones where the only light is the exit sign and it's me and 15 other people dancing all night in an uncrowded dance floor until the sun comes up. Different strokes!

I'm not sure if stuff changed or maybe i'm just older. A lot of those parties seemed so mysterious and exciting a couple years back for me. Now it seems like the same old stuff month in and month out. Most DJs kind of have their shtick, and there's also this kind of standard left field rave sound that a lot have seemed to adopt. Kind of like the Resolute roster.

it's also very hard for me to rationalize staying up until the main act comes on at 3-5am, getting home at 6am minimum. You waste most or all of the next day.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#615

Post by randomopining »

alisonatwork wrote: post #113
maplant wrote: post #78

I cannot comment on the article - it’s paywalled - but I can talk about the claim in the headline. I can tell from my personal experience that I stopped going because most club shows start earliest at 10 pm, and even then headliner probably goes on at 1, and that’s just not sustainable for me, especially if I wanted to take a risk and see someone I was 50/50 on. I’m aging, I’m 29, I enjoy the morning a lot more than…

I'm in my mid 40s and it's the same problem for me. I can push myself through an all-nighter if the music is really great, but most of the time it isn't, and then it's just tedious waiting around for something better to come on when I know I could go home and buy a couple dozen new tracks on Bandcamp that are exactly to my taste. Sure I wouldn't get to listen to them on a banging sound system or stomp my heart out am…

It's probably what you've said. I think perception changes, all the different venues and different types of music were once exciting. Then your brain forms the patterns and isn't as excited by x,y and maybe only z elicits a reaction.

Then you become more and more a morning person, so in the evening you aren't even that hyped up and your brain is already trying to call it a night.

For me something like standard 4x4 techno has become so formulaic that it doesnt interest me as much

Re: Who killed the rave?

#616

Post by randomopining »

maplant wrote: post #78

I cannot comment on the article - it’s paywalled - but I can talk about the claim in the headline. I can tell from my personal experience that I stopped going because most club shows start earliest at 10 pm, and even then headliner probably goes on at 1, and that’s just not sustainable for me, especially if I wanted to take a risk and see someone I was 50/50 on. I’m aging, I’m 29, I enjoy the morning a lot more than…

Yeah it's such a sacrifice. Many of the acts come on at 1am earliest, but usually 3am. That's getting home before 6 if you're lucky and then the whole next day is wasted.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#617

Post by hparadiz »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #102
diggan wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but on the other hand, are we really expecting "Financial Times" get even get "raving" right, or knowing about the underground scene? The article seems to be written for people who reads a newspaper with their breakfast, not for people who had yet to gone asleep while that person reads their paper.

From what I’ve gathered, nowadays, “raving” refers to all legal parties that are posted on RA as well. The biggest difference is, younger people associate specific venues/music as “rave”s, where mainstream music isn’t played, and people are more likely to party in the brains. It’s just the definition has shifted since the 2000s. I wouldn’t discredit FT writers as well, as I’m assuming they’re writing for a specific a…

I still consider a legal warehouse party to be a rave. Depends on crowd, music, and vibe.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#618

Post by mixmastamyk »

cyberax wrote: post #610
sir0010010 wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The calculation changes if you only include adults in the denominator - there is a lot more adults relative to children compared to the past. The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions - see: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2024/04/th... and https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/household-size-and-the-h... which goes into more detail

> The calculation changes Nope. It becomes slightly further from the record high numbers, but still better than at any time before 90-s. At this point, the misery caucus is just grasping at straws. In a couple of years, the housing inventory will make even that metric irrelevant, but the price of housing will still be going up. > The solution is to remove the very much existent density and other supply restrictions N…

“Flat earth” style economic denialism is not as cool as you seem to think. Govt interference propping housing prices through various means was previously mentioned as well.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#619

Post by s1artibartfast »

pfdietz wrote: post #550
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'If this were true, we wouldn't need to protect our water bodies with EPA laws. Obviously people prefer polluted bodies of water, and it's the artificial EPA laws that prevent it.'

What this analogy says is that people don't want other people living at high density near them. This is expected, since those other people are going to be poor and often dark skinned. Needless to say "other people are pollution, yuck" is not a good argument for zoning.

I think the argument would be much stronger if it just stopped at poor. While Im sure that type of racist exists, I have never met someone who would object to a rich dark doctor moving in next door. To the extent I encounter racism, it almost always follows the logic that dark = poor = crime & dysfunction

Re: Who killed the rave?

#620

Post by mixmastamyk »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #495
mixmastamyk wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All government interference—significantly restricting supply and then doling out free money/tax-breaks to pay for whats left. As if govt leaders never took an econ 101 class.

I just think people who say this are very funny and weird. I took an econ 101 class, but drawing supply demand curves to talk about wide ranging governmental policy is just a bad methodology.

Right, using arithmetic to set a budget is bad methodology. Might want to rethink your statement.
Post reply on HN