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

731–740 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#731

Post by gazunklenut »

switchbak wrote: post #400
gazunklenut wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? That's kind of creepy. Raves are and always have been about dancing. The creeps walking around looking for hookups are just that, a bunch of weird creeps that annoy people trying to dance. Edit: To clarify, it's creepy becaucse a lot of people are on something and pretty vulnerable, they're there to dance and enjoy the music and now some creep is trying to get in their pants while they're rolling and drunk

"night clubs were about hooking up" - they weren't talking about raves. Night clubs were a different thing, and hooking up was definitely a big part of that. And for selling expensive liquor to people, but whatever.

You can't have a rave in a nightclub? I'm sorry I thought this whole post was about raves, didnt realise we were specifically talking about outdoor raves?

A nightclub is a location, a rave is a type of party where electronic DANCE music is played.

The idea of a rave is that people go there to DANCE to the electronic DANCE music. Not to hookup.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#732

Post by geden »

coldtea wrote: post #728
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.

> 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.

I went to my first rave in 1991 in Sheffield City Ballroom. There was plenty of raving indoors and in clubs in Sheffield and Leeds in the early 90s.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#733

Post by gazunklenut »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #673
gazunklenut wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? That's kind of creepy. Raves are and always have been about dancing. The creeps walking around looking for hookups are just that, a bunch of weird creeps that annoy people trying to dance. Edit: To clarify, it's creepy becaucse a lot of people are on something and pretty vulnerable, they're there to dance and enjoy the music and now some creep is trying to get in their pants while they're rolling and drunk

The song, "Up all night to get lucky," would like a word with you.

Not a rave song, not singing about rave culture.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#734

Post by brodo »

rajnathani wrote: post #730
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 hig…

That's why raves typically cost an entrance fee.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#735

Post by vincnetas »

matt3210 wrote: post #711
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…

> hostility to informal economic activity America in a nutshell…

aka : rave does not scale. It's personal experience, not commercial activity and usually fuelled by youth enthusiasm.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#736

Post by brodo »

tombert wrote: post #155
jjulius wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Howdy! I've been huge into electronic music since I was 12 (currently 38). Literally fell in love with the music for the sake of the music. Started going out at 18, didn't try drugs until my mid-20's. Enjoy drugs, sometimes I'll take them, but most of the time I'm either sober or just a bit stoned. But even the weed isn't a requirement for me. I can be out until 5AM, loving the whole experience, because the music is…

I have friends who really like EDM, and as far as I am aware 95+% of the time that they're listening to it they're stark-raving sober, so I don't think that being stoned is a prerequisite for liking it. That said, I think that a possible explanation for the decline in club popularity is that a lot of people don't actually like it unless they're on drugs. Not just the music, but the whole club scene. It might be an ac…

Same here. I've been into electronic music since I was 16, and I did never take drugs until I was about 30. It's amazing how long you can stay up just with caffeine. Especially if you are young. I remember driving back from a big rave at eight in the morning. The police were stopping and searching everyone’s cars. They stopped ours too, but it took them about 30 seconds to figure out that everyone in there was sober.

I think sober partying and daytime partying are a good trend in general. I love taking drugs occasionally, but I like to party every weekend.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#737

Post by aguaviva »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #79
immibis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[dead]

Re: Who killed the rave?

#738

Post by taneq »

widdershins wrote: post #60
taneq wrote: post #36

I dunno about globally but daylight music festivals killed them for me back around 2005. Raves are about staying up all night in a dark room with good friends, good EDM, flashy lights, suggestive clothing and questionable substances. Take away the 'dark room' part and and turf the rest out onto a sports field at 11am and it's ruined.

In the UK a hybrid is increasingly popular. Start the rave at 2pm, end it at midnight, but it's in a dark room so it might as well be 4am. Usually in some semi-temporary space (e.g. Printworks, now defunct and moved to Drumshed). I agree this loses some of the spirit of the original rave scene, but as an older person now it fits better for me. If the original late-night scene is dying it's because the younger generat…

That’s fine if it’s in some dingy basement venue but if it’s broad daylight inside the actual event I’m going home.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#739

Post by watwut »

ethbr1 wrote: post #631
MichaelZuo wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

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

They are not overlooking things. They are looking at things and like what they see. There is segment population for which a credible accusation is seen as a good thing about a guy.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#740

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

linuxdude314 wrote: post #278
Der_Einzige wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you brought up some of the musicians (Tiesto). Looking back on "Trance" and "House" as genres they seem really vapid, vain, and dare I say it, decadent. Reading about the "mecca" of these genres, Ibiza, makes me wish I'd never listened to this stuff growing up.

Virtue signaling your dislike of music because of the environment it is played in is asinine. Do you wish you’d never listened to Mozart? He was a serial misogynist after all. I can understand parents not wanting their children to listen to music with explicit lyrics, but for an adult to feel this way? Music is not decadent.

> Music is not decadent.

It can be. Primitive music eliciting primitive emotions is certainly decadent.

Post reply on HN