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

631–640 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#631

Post by ethbr1 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #589
ethbr1 wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Facebook first took off, I had an inkling radical transparency was going to be a societal outcome. With everyone posting everything, and everyone's digital history recorded (if anyone cares to archive or dig it up), everyone would have skeletons in their closet. I was hoping that would make society more tolerant and willing to accept faults in people. In actuality, it just seems to have produced an industry of d…

This seems like way too complex an explanation when a much simpler alternative is possible. Most people are simply not that virtuous, because by definition the vast majority of the population has to have mediocre virtues or be in that ballpark range. So ‘radical transparency’ reveals as much negative as positive, on average.

Sure, that's the first step.

But the next step was how society would change (or not), suddenly realizing that most people are simply not that virtuous. Certainly not as much as their previously perception-dominant "best face" made them seem to be.

Instead of accepting that, we seem to still be taking pot shots at leaders or prospective leaders for faults.

Or... maybe Trump's twice electability is an indicator that most people are willing to overlook things, now.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#633

Post by sneak »

Joe Biden did. He as a senator introduced the RAVE Act, which didn’t pass, but got built into a later bill that did, as a rider.

This made promoters criminally liable for drug offenses committed by people unrelated to them at their events. Then, it was selectively enforced against club drugs at electronic events and not cocaine at rock shows, and boom, no more raves in the US.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#634

Post by spydum »

GuB-42 wrote: post #448
kefabean wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To support that, it looks like music festival attendance is going up over the years. This isn't global nor is it specific dance music but at least in the UK, festivals are struggling and have declined significantly since the beginning of covid - 204 festivals have disappeared since 2019: https://www.aiforg.com/blog-database/72-uk-festivals-cancell...

Covid definitely shook things up, but clubs didn't do well even before covid, while festivals were thriving. Now, it is a bit hard to tell as 2024 was just the second "normal" year, and it can take many years to grow a successful event. It seems like now, we are indeed seeing less festivals, but the remaining ones are becoming bigger and more expensive. So, maybe less festivals but higher budgets.

Weren't there several mass casualties at clubs? I wonder if those had an effect overall. Anecdotally, I remember after several of the movie theatre shootings in the US, my immediate peer group self included decided it just wasn't worth it. Only in the last year or so have I started coming back to theatres.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#635

Post by sneak »

9rx wrote: post #463
tensor wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make sense to me. Anecdotally, most people I know who love actual raves generally didn't go to clubs, for one. But also more broadly, I've heard from multiple local venues that one big change is that EDM crowds don't drink as much. This means venues make A LOT less money, and that means fewer venues. If I had to guess, another factor is that younger crowds don't have the buying power older generations ha…

> Anecdotally, most people I know who love actual raves generally didn't go to clubs, for one. In a similar vein, most people I know who love watching sports do not play the sport they enjoy watching. However, like the parent, I suspect that the numbers watching a sport strongly correlates with the numbers playing the sport. There need not be overlap between the watchers and the players for the correlation to stand.…

Clubs close at 2am in most states of the US, by law.

Raves usually start about then.

They are not remotely the same thing.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#636

Post by [deleted] »

o0-0o wrote: post #628
block_dagger wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine it's more than just the deer who are affected by 100dB sound pollution and "confused" is probably quite an understatement.

Hmmm Raves died in the 90s for a few reasons. 1. They made dancing illegal (look it up before rage comments). 2. Corporate sponsors moved in. 3. Glow sticks / candy ravers 4. Drugs 5. Police tactics and not being able to be paid off by promoters. 6. The internet (remember map points and info lines?) 7. Models, actresses, famous types going and demanding special service / VIP. 8. DJ as GOD sick gross 9. OG promoters c…

[deleted]

Re: Who killed the rave?

#637

Post by CrimsonCape »

znpy wrote: post #525
ethbr1 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imho, the internet / mobile apps have drastically atrophied younger generations' face-to-face social interaction skills. And specifically their appetite for the risk/discomfort that goes along with living in realtime physical moments with other people. Human beings are awkward as hell, but that's what laughter and tolerance are the bridges for.

> And specifically their appetite for the risk/discomfort that goes along with living in realtime physical moments with other people. The risk/discomfort lasted just that night. Nowadays everyone is posting everything everywhere. No wonder youngsters don’t want to risk it. This is a form of social cooling in my opinion.

Girls are not as interested in nightclub substantial interaction anymore. "Substantial interaction" defined as "genuine attempts to meet a guy to go to the next club/bar/party and then maybe home"

There's a whole separate realm of social circle snapchatting (networking).

Not to mention swiping in dating apps.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#639

Post by kstrauser »

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?

There are all sorts of volunteer roles someone needs to do, from directing parking, to helping in the kitchen, to roaming around at 3am to see if anyone needs help, to working the first aid stand, and a hundred other things. I always sign up for at least a couple of shifts doing something, so feel like part of the "we" helping to put it on, but it's still something I go to as a participant to have fun.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#640

Post by geodel »

lolinder wrote: post #432
geodel wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, why is college getting expensive, healthcare getting expensive, day care getting expensive, hell even streaming services getting expensive, none of these are heavily restricted that no development is happening there. And in many cities breakneck construction activity is happening still real estate is getting very expensive. This seems rather simplistic reason to me.

I have a strong suspicion that a lot of it is the rise of the two income household. In the early years it increased household buying power, but as it became the norm many services began raising prices because people could actually afford to pay them now. So the net result is that the increased productivity from nearly doubling the workforce turns into higher and higher executive salaries while the average middle clas…

Yes, this seems to make lot of sense. Initially second income maybe additional savings, day-to-day conveniences, some extra luxuries etc, now it is part of survival.

Since second job is sold as "freedom from household drudgery" and GDP booster it can't really be challenged.

Post reply on HN