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

721–730 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#721

Post by ashoeafoot »

HellDunkel wrote: post #719
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…

I think you are missing something. Clubs have always been the „mothers“ of raves. This has been the case since the only days of chicago warehouse parties up until what is now the case in berlin. Once the clubs go away, the off location parties will disappear next.

all it takes is a quarry and a sound system .

Re: Who killed the rave?

#722

Post by baq »

ashoeafoot wrote: post #721
HellDunkel wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are missing something. Clubs have always been the „mothers“ of raves. This has been the case since the only days of chicago warehouse parties up until what is now the case in berlin. Once the clubs go away, the off location parties will disappear next.

all it takes is a quarry and a sound system .

Quarries have been outsourced. China killed the rave.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#723

Post by ahartmetz »

phowat wrote: post #688
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…

100% agree. The article does not seem to be written by someonene who is particularly interested in this subject. The fact that it starts talking about what is IMO the most overrated scene ever, Berlin, says a lot.

The overrated clubs in Berlin are overrated, but there are also all the other clubs that no NY Times ever writes about. There are (still) many of them and they are good.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#724

Post by Earw0rm »

listenallyall wrote: post #669
Earw0rm wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's for a few reasons. 999 good or OK outcomes and 1 bad one can still be overall pretty damn bad, when scaled up to the level of a society. It becomes a Something Must Be Done scenario pretty quick. And I suspect in this specific case, the ratio of bad experiences.. maybe not terrible, but just bad.. was a lot higher than 1 in 1000. I mean, the flip side of that is, going home with a stranger in a big city is pre…

I disagree. A few of those 999 hookups will result in marriages and families. Others in relationships. This is arguably the whole point of society, to engage with other people, to be in relationships, to reproduce. What we see now, largely due to unrelenting fear (again, disguised as "safety"), is unhappiness, isolation, loneliness, depression and mental illness all dramatically increasing. This is not a coincidence.

That's true if the only alternative to hooking up with randoms in a bar is staying home.

Same as, until the Jet Age, the only alternative to risky world travel by land and sea was to stay home.. and then we invented jet airliners, which made travel multiple orders of magnitude safer than the Age of Sail.

I'm a neutral observer on this tbh, never had anything against bar culture at the time, but if you were a 19yr old weighing up your options today, online dating looks like the same potential reward without all sorts of down sides. Not just the personal safety stuff, but as a guy not having to run the gauntlet of approaching women and getting shot down (no big deal really, but cultural shifts now frown upon asking at all, whereas it used to be more a case of.. ask away, the important thing was to respect it if you got told no).

The flip side is that online dating results in a much more publicly conservative culture, where even merely flirting is at risk of being reframed as sexual misconduct, people have thinner skins and lower tolerance generally because they've never had to develop a thick skin, it takes some of the beautiful chaos out of the world.. people didn't go about the place constantly looking to hook up (well, maybe some did) but the very possibility added something to the atmosphere, even if the probability was low.

And on the subject of beautiful chaos. Take a look at video footage from major rock, pop and dance concerts/festivals from 2000 ish and today. Watch the crowds, look at their facial expressions, energy level, state of mind.

Something is up with that, right?

Re: Who killed the rave?

#725

Post by phin313 »

ryan_lane wrote: post #676
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…

Using crackhouse laws to target rave promoters killed raves in the US: https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94397&page=1 The RAVE act that followed formalized the gray area use of those earlier crackhouse laws. All of the rest of what you're saying killed raves is a result of this crackdown.

Ding ding. This and a lot of the sensation news pieces that came out a few years before, across the nation, that attracted more people for the wrong reasons that prompted things like challenging the local authorities and resulted in the RAVEact

Re: Who killed the rave?

#726

Post by Earw0rm »

sir0010010 wrote: post #538
Earw0rm wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and property is a positional good. Its price is a function purely of willingness to pay. So if you double household income, and perhaps quadruple theoretical discretionary income (after food, energy, gas and so on), give it 40 years and real-estate inflation eats the damn lot.

The price of every good and service is a function both of willingness to pay and supply. Positional goods cease to be so if you substantially increase their supply - this is why Rolex, Gucci, etc are constantly worried about knockoffs.

Yes, if you can substantially increase supply in the top decile or quartile, in terms of desirability.

That's difficult, for all sorts of reasons. NIMBYs protecting their investment is one aspect, but the maths of density, transport infrastructure and travel times is another big deal.

Walkable, interesting downtowns AND big floorplans AND low taxes AND abundant supply within a short travel time is a tough set of constraints.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#727

Post by listenallyall »

gosub100 wrote: post #623
listenallyall wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I understand - is your goal to live in a barren wasteland? Because you can do that today, very cheaply.

The goal is to avoid having the working poor subsiding the property values of the rich. One reason some property is more "desirable" than others is its proximity to amenities. I'm pointing out an inefficiency in the market, and that the amenities shouldn't exist at subsidized rates.

So your methodology to help the working poor is to put their employer out of business entirely? Great plan.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#728

Post by coldtea »

HellDunkel wrote: post #719
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…

I think you are missing something. Clubs have always been the „mothers“ of raves. This has been the case since the only days of chicago warehouse parties up until what is now the case in berlin. Once the clubs go away, the off location parties will disappear next.

>I think you are missing something. Clubs have always been the „mothers“ of raves

This is rewriting history. Raves was a british thing, and it was in the open, not in clubs.

Chicago warehouse parties preceded raves and are important for electronic dance music history, but are not raves.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#729

Post by secretsatan »

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…

I think there is some overlap, there are some nightclubs that are much more orientated to the cheap scene, I know if I walk into a club with large areas dedicated to bottle service tables, I'm not going to have a fun time and the people will be much more obnoxious.

But there's some excellent venues here in Switzerland, and I think many are helped with arts funding and/or run as artist collectives and non profits.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#730

Post by rajnathani »

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…

So true:

> People who are really into staying up all night dancing to techno music aren't buying expensive alcoholic drinks, they're buying cheap water to stay hydrated. Many (though by no means all) take drugs, but generally that means one dose of a drug like MDMA at the beginning of the evening.

There is very little money for clubs to make from techno ravers, as they're not typically the ones downing alcohol; I highly doubt one can rave to music till sunrise while continually taking in alcohol at the rate at which your typical alcohol going club-goers would.

Post reply on HN