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

71–80 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#71

Post by diggan »

dagw wrote: post #16
anonzzzies wrote: post #10

Too expensive? I see illegal dance parties in the countryside more than ever. And people drive far for them and sleep it off in the sun the next day (or so). Big bags of drugs (if you buy in bulk, drugs are those things that come with very large discounts) and wholesale energydrinks etc. So those are cheap, but I can see legal places would have issues maybe? High entry fees, super expensive drinks etc.

Despite the headline, the article makes it clear that it is talking about legal nightclubs, primarily in large cities. The younger generation just isn't into clubbing every weekend in that way, don't want to spend (or even have) that sort of money on going out, and the costs of running a club have skyrocketed. At the same time, according to the article, it seems that larger one off events or festivals are still very…

> Despite the headline, the article makes it clear that it is talking about legal nightclubs, primarily in large cities.

I guess since they used "rave", people assume they use the commonly understood definition of the word, not just "dancing at a random dance-club in the city", which I don't think many would consider "raving".

> Who's attending these? Is it mainly the old timers or are they attracting a strong following from new generations?

Here in Spain there is a wide range of folks attending dance parties both the ones in/around big cities, and the ones out on the country-side. Obviously, the ones out on the country-side tend to have a crowd that is more "hippie" for the lack of better words, but otherwise I see all types of ranges and people from different walks of life. Mostly skew around my own age I think though, around 30 or so.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#72

Post by diggan »

badkungfu wrote: post #38
bossyTeacher wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MDMA and Ecstasy are the same thing afaik

I always thought calling it MDMA denoted more purity vs Ecstasy, but I was never a candy kid.

MDMA being the substance, Ecstacy being the delivery, you could simplify it as. Ecstacy always have MDMA in it, but typically also other stuff. MDMA is just MDMA, and in itself have different purity depending on how it was made.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#73

Post by llamaimperative »

immibis wrote: post #65
llamaimperative wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahhh, I interpreted this as an oblique reference to accidental overdoses from impure/laced drugs which is a huge problem in the US and probably a real deterrent. I realize now from the other responses this was maybe a reference to exploding pagers, which is dependent on (I suppose) the view that raves in Europe are heavily attended by people of middle eastern descent? That’s not really the “known-as-ravers” crowd her…

On second thought I think it was meant to be a reference to October 7, 2023. I've seen similar stickers at some, back in summer, with messages like "What if terrorists blew up YOUR music festival? #supportisrael" Took a while to work it out though. Why can't people just say what they mean? I find it kind of despicable that someone would spend the effort to highlight a terrorist attack against a rave, but ignore the b…

Huh, yeah you might be right... I guess the comment was great as a Rorschach test but not much else.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#74

Post by diggan »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #70

> The proportion of club nights running beyond 3am fell in 12 of 15 global cities between 2014 and 2024, according to a Financial Times analysis of events on listings website Resident Advisor. Club nights are not raves. Raves are (usually) not posted on RA. The underground scene is doing just fine.

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.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#76

Post by neom »

celticninja wrote: post #26
yieldcrv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article also mentions that earlier ending events made to accommodate aging millennials have seen an unexpected and huge interest from Gen Z But yeah, the decline of the nightlife and hospitality sector is what this article is about, as the regulated rave experience is very mainstream and has been for a long time now The production value is quite high now and still improving so I don't see why the illicit rave exp…

We go for the vibe not the facilities

I agree, I was surprised to read "real raves don't happen in legal venues" - first time I've heard that line of thinking. Been raving for 20 years and here is what a rave means to me: very dancy music, electronic of some type (doesn't need to be pure edm), no judgements, kindness, love, good energy. I'd argue this is unsurprising given where the idea of a rave came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Tests

to me, rave is about PLUR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLUR

Re: Who killed the rave?

#77

Post by kasey_junk »

diggan wrote: post #74
SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #70

> The proportion of club nights running beyond 3am fell in 12 of 15 global cities between 2014 and 2024, according to a Financial Times analysis of events on listings website Resident Advisor. Club nights are not raves. Raves are (usually) not posted on RA. The underground scene is doing just fine.

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.

Raving has been around for 50 years, you’d think a paper could describe it correctly if not know the ins and outs of the current scene.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#78

Post by maplant »

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 used to. It’s just too exhausting. And if the music isn’t perfect, you’re left bored and exhausted. The venues are also way too crowded, drinks are expensive, it’s just not as good of a time as in smaller underground venues.

I’d rather go to a show during the day, or early evening and HAVE and they’ve been GREAT but house and techno acts are compelled to start after midnight, and I will probably never go to one of those again.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#79

Post by riehwvfbk »

immibis wrote: post #67
yieldcrv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay this is an interesting topic but I think you are conflating several things. The decline in sexual experience is occurring in California metros too. Its really interesting how the behaviors have shifted and surprising to me. But people are bonding, social, far less exclusionary, inclusive to things they’ve never heard of - unless you’re the wrong star sign, ironically, or political party. I date 20-somethings, it…

> unless you’re the wrong star sign, ironically, or political party. These things are very different and do not belong in the same list, and I've noticed that when people do put them together, they're often trying to make the point that political party is just another arbitrary inherent attribute like race, rather than a serious reflection of someone's character. Can you explain why you think they belong together?

Because they are just arbitrary attributes rather than a serious reflection of someone's character?

Just because certain media outlets brainwashed you into thinking that Republican == Nazi (they all backpedaled after the election ended by the way) doesn't mean it's true. Go talk to actual people with blue collar jobs. You'll find that their character is quite all right actually.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#80

Post by dagw »

diggan wrote: post #71
dagw wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the headline, the article makes it clear that it is talking about legal nightclubs, primarily in large cities. The younger generation just isn't into clubbing every weekend in that way, don't want to spend (or even have) that sort of money on going out, and the costs of running a club have skyrocketed. At the same time, according to the article, it seems that larger one off events or festivals are still very…

> Despite the headline, the article makes it clear that it is talking about legal nightclubs, primarily in large cities. I guess since they used "rave", people assume they use the commonly understood definition of the word, not just "dancing at a random dance-club in the city", which I don't think many would consider "raving". > Who's attending these? Is it mainly the old timers or are they attracting a strong follow…

I guess since they used "rave", people assume they use the commonly understood definition of the word

yea, this article has unfortunately fallen foul of the 'headline doesn't match the article' problem. Seems to be a common problem these days when the headline writer is judged by how many clicks their headline gets, rather than if it's actually relevant to the article.

Post reply on HN