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

761–770 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#761

Post by throwbadubadu »

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…

I generally agree, but also disagree. The problem with drugs and people is that they usually overdo everything and dont know their limits. Who figures that out can also have their fun 8+ hours even at age, with a limited amount of alcohol(+weed) consumption at a certain constant level ;)

And then there are also that amazing sober ravers who can do 8-12hrs even without any drug. Shouldn't be underestimated how much some people like the music and their trancy dance therapy. (but yeah, those only also buy water/cola/maté).

Re: Who killed the rave?

#763

Post by throwbadubadu »

mitemte wrote: post #752
prettyblocks wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention cell phones everywhere.

One thing I like about Berlin is that some clubs explicitly forbid photos. Staff place stickers on the front and back cameras when you enter. Anyone spotted taking photos is kicked out.

Definitely, don't know why not more places are like that. The majority if techno clubs does it. There is a reason more clubs are also dark etc.. not only to hide the maybe existing wasted faces, but also to completely let go and dissolve in the music, this is very necessary.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#765

Post by throwbadubadu »

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 Berlin scene is partly very touristy, what is also good for the city (and sad to let the clubs go), but please also don't underrate it - there are still so many clubs, you just need to find your more undergroundy experience ;) As a tourist, of course, you are also part of the problem, but also well welcome. Every "hype" is not true and show quickly symptoms, and everything was always better back in time, but there is still a lot of reason for Berlin ;)

Re: Who killed the rave?

#766

Post by barnabee »

saberience wrote: post #227

I find it really hard to believe this and am questioning the data. I raved back in the early 2000s and I still rave now and the popularity is absolutely booming in a way I've never seen before and in more parts of the world. 15 years ago there was zero electronic music events in Dubai, now there are huge electronic music festivals there and it's clear a ton of people at those events are taking "something" that isn't…

Can an event that calls itself EDM be a rave?

I sure hope not

Re: Who killed the rave?

#767

Post by barnabee »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #116

Interesting. My experience in NYC even with folks in the 20s is they prefer going out BEFORE it gets super late, with the super late nights only happening for shows (where the DJ/main act doesn't come on till 1:30 AM). I've also anecdotally seen more day parties which might be driven by demand from the former rave crews who are aging out.

Yeah, so-called "day raves", including one day festivals in parks have grown massively in London, possibly at the expense of late/all night options.

Perhaps a perfect storm… 90s/00s ravers are older now and appreciate the loer impact on the rest of their week of starting and finishing earlier and the younger generation is less into the wilder side of partying, so noon – midnight perhaps works out better for everyone a lot of the time.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#768

Post by c16 »

prettyblocks wrote: post #668
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…

Not to mention cell phones everywhere.

It really depends on the club and the culture. In big clubs and venues, it’s more a performance now and statement than it is a club (think Printworks/Afterlife visuals) so everyone is on their phones.

My experience of small intimate clubs in Europe is that people tell each other off for pulling out phones, or there’s just no light in the room - so there’s nothing to photograph. People are there for a good time. If you want a good experience, go for small lesser known artists in small venues. You’ll have fewer people there to record the night.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#769

Post by HPsquared »

vincnetas wrote: post #735
matt3210 wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And youth enthusiasm is on the decline.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#770

Post by injidup »

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…

Pretty much like the modern Bachata/Salsa scene in Europe. Large parties that go from 11pm to sometimes 6am in the morning. Very little alcohol consumed but you pay big to get in to cover the cost of the location and dj's. However many venues will body frisk you for water bottles in an attempt to force you to the bar to buy drinks. At least one large event has stopped that and now provides free water ( https://bachata-fest.com/ ) under the obvious realization that people are there to dance not get shit faced and that bag checking and frisking for water bottles just leads to bad community feelings.
Post reply on HN