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

701–710 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#701

Post by marcus_holmes »

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?

In Australia these are known as "bush doofs" and are essentially community events - they're organised, run and attended by a group of people rather than an organisation.

You can't buy tickets to them, you have to know someone who's in the group chat for them. You can just turn up on the day if you know where the event is; they're always incredibly remote, usually on a patch of bush (forest) on someone's enormous farm or a national park, pitch a tent, join in, help out where you can. Security is "if you act like a dickhead you'll be asked politely to leave by a bunch of people". There's no financial contribution, except sometimes a hat is passed around if someone had to pay for equipment hire or similar. You can buy drugs there, but only if you know the person you're buying from; usually better to sort yourself out before you go, there won't be anyone advertising anything for sale at the doof.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#702

Post by benno781 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #660

It's not really surprising, but the article seems to conflate raves with nightclubs, with numerous remarks about the cost of being out at a club all night and paying for things like expensive bottle service. Raves are not clubs, and historically have never done that well in club environments. People who are really into staying up all night dancing to techno music aren't buying expensive alcoholic drinks, they're buyi…

There was an article in the Guardian recently about a rave reunion event in the UK - I think it would agree with many of your reasons about what killed them: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/dec/10/sanctuary-club...

Re: Who killed the rave?

#703

Post by defrost »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #701
guynamedloren wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In Australia these are known as "bush doofs" and are essentially community events - they're organised, run and attended by a group of people rather than an organisation. You can't buy tickets to them, you have to know someone who's in the group chat for them. You can just turn up on the day if you know where the event is; they're always incredibly remote, usually on a patch of bush (forest) on someone's enormous farm…

They can look a little like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH_RWBSQ9ic

Note: Burning car and local farm fire truck to stop fire spreading.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#704

Post by ethbr1 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #692
ethbr1 wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

Why are you assuming there must be a ‘next step’? The general population can just not care about a ‘next step’ on average…?

Typically when a core previous truth changes, society changes in response.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#705

Post by tivert »

sitharus wrote: post #555
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.

There’s an unspoken phrase here, it’s “in the way I think it should be done”. Just because the younger generation are doing things differently it doesn’t make them wrong, in my generation it was sending text messages that was wrong because we weren’t talking on the phone. Before that it was talking on the phone rather than going to people’s houses. I’ll also add what my psychologist told me. Social skills aren’t inna…

> Just because the younger generation are doing things differently it doesn’t make them wrong...

Yes, but that also doesn't mean change can't be bad or in the wrong direction.

What you describe isn't neutral, and it's pretty clearly not good.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#706

Post by tivert »

zetalyrae wrote: post #506
mindcrime wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and television (Which enabled entertainment as a passive indirect consumption) Absolutely. There were periods of time in history when there was significant opposition to television. Hence the coining of terms like "boob tube", "idiot box", "idiot's lantern", "cultural wasteland", etc. You can see a bit more of some of that (although not with a primarily historical focus) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_a…

And they were right. Television created nothing of value.

> And they were right. Television created nothing of value.

Exactly. Bad things can and do become normalized and then unremarked upon. Some people confuse that phenomenon with those things actually being good.

People often have clearer eyes at the transition.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#707

Post by quotz »

nhod wrote: post #312
quotz wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brooklyn Mirage is hardly a rave place, just a club. Went last year it was pretty terrible. The sound was so quiet I could talk with my gf without yelling. There was also a food vendor inside the venue for whatever weird reason. Paid $300 for tickets and 2 drinks. I heard basement is a good place but never been. Europe's techno parties and raves are still going strong and no food vendors inside ofcourse we are not th…

My understanding is that Brooklyn Mirage was engineered specifically to be both loud and at the same time permit a conversation with the people next to you, so your experience is a feature, not a bug. I think we’re all just not used to having that level of thoughtful engineering with that design criteria, so we just associate “too loud to talk” with “good.” I found the experience to be remarkable.

Its definitely not a feature. This sound system would be laughable in europe, where the techno culture is thriving. The point is to get lost to the music dancing. Not much talking should be going on. I think they designed it that way so as to not be noisy to the surrounding area since its an open space. Also, having a food vendor inside the club is extremely lame. Can't americans go a few hours without food? Do they have to eat everywhere they go? Its so weird every cocktail bar in NYC also serves food, this is not the case in europe. You go to a bar to drink, food is eaten at a restaurant.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#708

Post by adzm »

nox101 wrote: post #670
anigbrowl wrote: post #660

It's not really surprising, but the article seems to conflate raves with nightclubs, with numerous remarks about the cost of being out at a club all night and paying for things like expensive bottle service. Raves are not clubs, and historically have never done that well in club environments. People who are really into staying up all night dancing to techno music aren't buying expensive alcoholic drinks, they're buyi…

what is the definition of a rave at this point? Large crowds of people dancing in or outdoors to techno music is still a HUGE thing. There's video of tons of them on youtube. If often put them on while working. Is it only a rave if it's illegal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv33bb-C_bo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wy2WYqD2Rs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEacozH2uXs There's also huge EDM and other types of e…

No need to listen to the gatekeepers. Rave is a verb. Raves are where people rave!

Re: Who killed the rave?

#709

Post by vineyardmike »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #420
vineyardmike wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have it backwards, and I think “most” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Given equal cost of a home , most people would prefer to live in a city. Especially if you look globally, cities are absolutely trampling suburbs with demand. Yes, people in the suburbs often chose that preferentially, but there are less people in suburbs. In America, suburbs are disproportionately popular. I’m guessing that has more t…

I think you've got causality twisted here. People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work. Preference for the suburbs is just folks exercising their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford while maintaining access to services and proximity to work. I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanit…

> People prefer having a job, the higher paying the better. High paying jobs exist mostly in metro areas, so folks move there for work.

People work minimum-wage jobs and choose to live in cities. These individuals are not preferencing a city for the wage, but rather the lifestyle, access to amenities, the lower cost options it offers, car-free life, etc.

I think it's super disingenuous to claim that people only live in cities for work. There are tons of social options in cities, tons of civic amenities, and tons of lifestyle differences that draw people to a city.

> their perfectly natural tendency to want as much space/land/house as they can afford

Is this a natural tendency? I don't think this "natural" tendency holds true globally, and I'm even skeptical it actually holds true in America, where suburbs are unusually popular.

> I'm quite confident the majority of suburbanites would strongly prefer living on 20 acres if they could still get to work in 20 minutes and the grocery store in 10.

I'm quite confident that the majority of people (ie city dwellers, which are the majority of humans) would preferentially prefer the access and amenities of a city home at the expense of 20 acres. Which is the reality we see globally.

But it's of course a ridiculously illogical claim that people would prefer rural living if only it had all the benefits of city living. What are the benefits people derive from the hypothetical 20 acres? What does it even mean in this context, because it's incompatible the whole premise of this argument. People prefer "grocery store in 10 [minutes]" more than 20 acres, and that's why cities exist.

Post reply on HN