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

791–800 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#791

Post by 9rx »

bluGill wrote: post #779
9rx wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pay is lower in small/rural towns for the cheap jobs I expect the median income is often higher in rural areas because, while there is little on the high end, there is more mid-tier opportunity. In the big city if you don't make it into the big leagues, only the dregs are left. Cities amplify the extremes. In rural areas, the $30 per hour jobs are willing to hire any warm body that shows up. Of course, rural is a d…

As you say there is a lot of it depends. If you are willing to learn to run a excavator (they will train you!) you can do well enough, but there are only so many jobs and not every area needs another. It won't be as good as a valley tech job, but still pretty good and the cost of living is much better. If you are a farmer you often do very well - but most of your money is tied up in land and equipment and so until yo…

> there are only so many jobs

That is true of anywhere, but employment metrics (e.g. unemployment rate) tend to look a lot better in these rural areas. The average Joe has a better chance of finding a job, and a higher paying job at that, in these rural areas. Something that hasn't gone unnoticed, of course. Population data since the mid-2000s shows relative decline in large urban areas and relative growth in small towns, although all area types are seeing population growth.

It won't be a superstar job, but Average Joe isn't getting that kind of job no matter where he is located. He may think so while in his temporarily embarrassed CEO state, but in the end he never does. Only a small segment of the population reach those heights. A SV tech salary is quite unusual.

> If you are a farmer

A farmer is, by very definition, a business owner. That may be beyond our discussion, but certainly those farm businesses are hiring anyone they can get, and paying a pretty penny for it. Those farm jobs are an opportunity for most anyone.

> so working at a cafe for minimum wage may be all you can get.

Cafe workers tend to be tipped, so it is far from a minimum wage job. I have the books for an industry-adjacent small town restaurant in front of me and the workers are making around $50/hour all in (maybe even more; I don't usually see the cash tips).

McDonalds isn't in that realm, but only foreign workers who come with some binding to the business, limiting their options, with a willingness to sacrifice to come into the country ever end up there.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#792

Post by xerox13ster »

ty6853 wrote: post #395
xerox13ster wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many in the suburbs have convinced themselves they're rural as a result of oil company propaganda (rural identity sells big mall crawler trucks), it sounds to me like you live in a central, quite urban area that's otherwise sparse on local options and have convinced yourself it's your extra special private enclave in the hills, completely separated from the economic center, despite it literally being your econom…

Nah what living outside the city really buys me is more of my preferences of freedom. I have no government maintained roads, basically no police, I can build what I want without an inspector telling me what to do rather than some narrowly constrained window of options set by a city planning board. If I want to keep cows to feed my family fresh meat I can do so. There is no sound ordnance, no regulation on gunfire, yo…

Your situation is literally the opposite of what I was responding to and your situation is not included in what I was discussing.

Your situation is a completely irrelevant red hearing for the discussion we are having. You are actually rural, and are describing an actually rural life—not a suburban rural identity & not an urban suburban identity.

If you don’t even have state or county roads, like no paved roads going anywhere near where you are and there’s nothing around and there’s no police around and everything else you described then that’s not at all what I am responding to. Because what you describe sounds to me like you don’t have anything within walkable distance, and I was directly responding to somebody who says that they have shit they can walk to.

You are living an actual rural life because you are outside the range of services provided, relying on yourself instead and in terms of my own personal Urbanist Theory that’s exactly how it should be.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#793

Post by marssaxman »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #507
marssaxman wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities are not just where the jobs are, cities are where everything is. You'd likely have to offer double my salary before I'd consider exchanging my life here in the heart of it all for the lonely, empty, car-dependent barrenness of the suburbs.

Jeez, you'd hate it here then :-) Looking out my window, I can't even see another house. If I twist my neck, I can see a neighbor's barn about half a mile away, though.

That sounds quite rural - not suburban at all - and I am sure it is a lovely place to spend time!

It is sprawling, car-dependent, low-density development I can't abide, the kind of cul-de-sac-ridden suburbs the US has been building around its urban fringes for the last 80-odd years. It feels suffocating to be surrounded by mile after mile of other people's stuff, with nowhere to go but strip malls and nothing to do but drive from one parking lot to another. People talk about wanting a house with a yard, but when that yard is the only place you can be without justifying your presence there by participating in some transaction, it can feel like a very confining space indeed.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#794

Post by immibis »

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.

Underneath this comment is a dead one that should probably not be dead. I don't have the power to vouch for it, so I recommend that person should make a new account to avoid auto-dead.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#795

Post by xerox13ster »

int_19h wrote: post #582
xerox13ster wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many in the suburbs have convinced themselves they're rural as a result of oil company propaganda (rural identity sells big mall crawler trucks), it sounds to me like you live in a central, quite urban area that's otherwise sparse on local options and have convinced yourself it's your extra special private enclave in the hills, completely separated from the economic center, despite it literally being your econom…

I find it amusing that so many activists in US believe that the sole reason why people like the suburbs over the cities is some kind of "propaganda". I'm from a country where suburbs are far less common and I grew up in a city of 300k and then lived in a megapolis for several years. And yes, we did have public transportation etc. When I moved to US, I chose to live pretty much as far as I can from the nearest large c…

The sprawling car based American suburbs are actually a result of propaganda and master planning by white supremacists. I find it amusing. That so many people are so sure that so many things are innate without having ever done an ounce of research or investigation into the source of why things are the way they are.

It’s OK to admit that you don’t actually know or maybe that you even have learned something today, but I did actually do a research paper with how and why we came to live in suburbs as a core point of research, and guess what? It was a result of master planned communities by white supremacists and their oil and motor industry buddies.

Most of the best old suburbs in America were built organically through bit by bit demand around street cars, not car cars. Then the motor industry executives and oil industry executives got together and lobby the government to create the crime of jaywalking, to buy up all the street cars and remove them from American cities, to build out the highway system, and to change zoning laws, to encourage if not outright force the building of car dependent American suburbia.

Do not get me wrong streetcar, suburb, designed suburbs are fantastic, walkable compact, wonderful wonderfully tight communities. But today in today’s world this year of our Lord 2025? Today those street car suburbs are urban compared to the car dependent suburban sprawl that we have now.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#796

Post by xerox13ster »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #394
xerox13ster wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many in the suburbs have convinced themselves they're rural as a result of oil company propaganda (rural identity sells big mall crawler trucks), it sounds to me like you live in a central, quite urban area that's otherwise sparse on local options and have convinced yourself it's your extra special private enclave in the hills, completely separated from the economic center, despite it literally being your econom…

It really depends on how you draw the lines between urban and suburban. For this conversation, we're talking about the cores of tier 1 cities where the high paying jobs are most abundant. I considers a location suburban if they are predominantly single-family homes and if many of them commute into the Metro for work. I'm going to ignore all that identity politics stuff because frankly I don't understand what you were…

I am not shocked that your ego shut your brain off the second that your suburban identity felt attacked.

I do implore you to attempt to reengage your brain, despite the the mental anguish it will require to actually comprehend what somebody was saying to you when it conflicts with an identity you don’t know that you hold.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#797

Post by brandall10 »

nox101 wrote: post #717
brandall10 wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone in the culture 20-30 years ago, it was always something that was underground... not promoted in a traditional sense, and hosted in unpermitted spaces. Usually you wouldn't know until the day of the event where the location actually was. Much of the time it would be in industrial areas that were pretty deserted and dark at night, far away from any life that would complain about the noise that would go on un…

I went to them 25 years ago as well. I get the same thing from the organized promoted ones as I got from the old ones. I didn't need it to be "underground". I just needed the people, the music, the vibe.

The main difference for me was the social aspects and tapestry of characters you'd meet. Not only were they much longer (if you're a night person), they tended to be significantly less crowded for the space they were in. There were time and space advantages for that aspect to blossom.

There were events where I met so many people that it had a snowball effect. In addition to anyone there I already knew, I'd be building/merging new friend groups on the fly and sometimes hours would go by before I'd see any of the people I came with.

Conversely, at sanctioned events I'd stick tight with my friends pretty much all night... sure you'd meet other people, but not nearly to the same level. Generally dance more and socialize less.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#798

Post by grahamj »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #594
leptons wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you me? lol. I'm in SoCal though, and we still do our own family-style desert parties and we sometimes go to bigger desert parties (Moontribe still going strong), and sometimes go to the mountains in the central valley too. Slinky (which was near Fresno) was so much fun until it ended recently after 21 years :( My friend group doesn't have anything in the mountains quite like Slinky to replace it, but it sounds l…

California is a last bastion of sorts socially, because los Angeles is an extrovert magnet. Ironically to the north, an opposite social civilization has attracted all the introverted people. Entertainment must extrovert to gain eyeballs, but it uses the technology of the introverts to do so. But underlying this ironic alliance is a force that cares not for the social polarity, it simply will nihilistically predate on…

The difference is with capitalism people are climbing into the pods of their own accord, having deluded themselves into believing maybe someday they’ll be the machines.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#799

Post by devrob »

vips7L wrote: post #642
devrob wrote: post #574

I think there's a lot of nuance here. I teach DJing (house/techno mostly) and there's never been more interest in electronic music & DJing. Folks who thought I was a bit out there in high school for liking electronic & dance music, have recently all now become more interested in DJing and raving. The DJ today is continuing to grow into the modern rock-star (albeit, in terms of real $ of music money, it's no where clo…

Phoneless events are out there. This Never Happened bans phones from every event. I just went to Proper NYE which wasn’t a TNH event but had Lane 8 (label owner) on main stage and there was significantly less phones than other artists.

Indeed, I've written about this a little bit [1], they are growing in popularity due to a number of factors, one of which being, living in the moment. DVS1 has spoken with great eloquence on this subject as well [2]. These policies are the norm in Berlin places like Tresor. The industry culture has been really saturated by social media, live sets and destination sets [3], so many events are differentiating themselves by taking an different approach. It was a cool strategy when it started with Be At TV (RIP), (old) Boiler Room & (maybe) BBC R1 but it's lost its novelty at times I feel.

[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/DDkjBJhP1Sh/?utm_source=ig_web_c... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISoPHerYsn4&t=1181s [3] Think Cerce, Boilerroom

Re: Who killed the rave?

#800

Post by HellDunkel »

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.

The brits have a tendency to claim a lot of things in regard to electronic music but they own „raves“ just as much as they own „acid house“.
Post reply on HN