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

841–850 of 854 posts

Re: Who killed the rave?

#841

Post by apwell23 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #693
apwell23 wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vacant home doesn't mean a house with no owner. I am not sure how getting divorced makes vacant home occupied.

if someone shows up there 3-4 days a week, how would you know? Even China doesn't have the surveillance setup to tell if someone is living in a house or not (well, they can check to see if it is renovated, and can check to see if the lights turn on at night). It isn't really a rule of law society, so you can't use "the trust but sometimes verify system" they used in Vancouver, and it is definitely not like Switzerlan…

> if someone shows up there 3-4 days a week, how would you know?

Its the same thing as taxes. No one is stopping you from making up fake receipts. But you don't do that because its fraud.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#842

Post by switchbak »

gazunklenut wrote: post #731
switchbak wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If you thought it was about raves, why say night clubs?

(In North America at least) A night club is a particular kind of venue, it's not just a location. It's very distinct from a rave, and they have very different cultures. It's confusing when you conflate the two.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#843

Post by ahartmetz »

InDubioProRubio wrote: post #774
throwbadubadu wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ther…

Alot of the good stuff moved out of berlin to eastern cities were its still affordable?

Not really, they say Leipzig is the new Berlin but it's basically just a few years behind (which is positive in the context of rising rents and dying subculture) and has about three clubs.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#844

Post by randomopining »

lelandfe wrote: post #827
randomopining wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if stuff changed or maybe i'm just older. A lot of those parties seemed so mysterious and exciting a couple years back for me. Now it seems like the same old stuff month in and month out. Most DJs kind of have their shtick, and there's also this kind of standard left field rave sound that a lot have seemed to adopt. Kind of like the Resolute roster. it's also very hard for me to rationalize staying up un…

The less schtick the better! Take me out to a Club Night Club show at Sugar Hill Supper Club, or a Soul Summit daytime party, or some footwork DJ playing on a folding table in the back of a restaurant, or Randomer firing off banging techno at Nowadays until the wee hours. Miss me with the DJs wearing masks, the choreographed light shows, the bottle service, the $200 admission. Look at the schtick-lessness of this: ht…

Man sugar hill is such a good spot. I only went there one time for Marcel Dettmann and Patrick Russell but it was sick.

Maybe i need to go to those different outdoor ones

Re: Who killed the rave?

#845

Post by brailsafe »

benterix wrote: post #835
brailsafe wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a relatively straight-edge person, I enjoyed my first and only actual rave, but I really felt like I had to convince myself I was enjoying it compared to the people that were obviously on MDMA or whatever, especially after a few hours of basically similar tempos. Ironically, they also all burned out at a certain point and it got even less engaging as they sat on the floor and I wandered around as though I didn't g…

> I'd prefer not to introduce into my life I feel the same. Also, one of my friends developed a very bad condition after that, it was quite scary and depressing. Another one just died after taking a small dose (probably had an existing condition, but still...). there is no reason to take this shit.

Ya, it's personal thing, it makes me a bit uncomfortable how widely used they are. If you want to take it and have a good time, great, w/e that's your risk

Re: Who killed the rave?

#846

Post by cyberax »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #811
cyberax wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My original point was about there being a well-documented shortage of housing across the country. Can you point out the shortage on this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1koDH ? We do NOT have a housing crisis. Not even close. Housing is more affordable and of better quality than ever. We have a DENSITY crisis. People are forced by economic forces to move to relatively few unaffordable locations. > You p…

Yes, black is white, ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Just stop. I’m not gonna “research” 1+1 for you.

I gave you an actual link to the data. Sorry for destroying your whole world view, but "economy 101" is not enough to describe the complexities of the real world.

And it's not like I'm saying anything controversial. Even urbanists admit that density increases don't lead to lower prices: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might...

Re: Who killed the rave?

#847

Post by b800h »

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #228
b800h wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you're going to a rave-style event. That would be creepy and unwanted. At least back in my day (mid-90s).

Don't know what "rave" is, in normal night clubs not hitting on anyone all night would be considered creepy. And dances are an essential element helping to ... close the distance. Always were, since middle ages.

Sure, you don't understand, and that's a sign that the culture doesn't exist in the same way.

Here, this isn't an environment to chat someone up in:

https://youtu.be/T14r2dBJzvc?si=5rkQIJx_zuAtsr-B

Re: Who killed the rave?

#848

Post by anakaine »

antihero wrote: post #758
coldtea wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well raves were free parties, and could be outside or in like an abandoned warehouse etc.

I always wondered how they got enough power into abandoned places.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#849

Post by gazunklenut »

switchbak wrote: post #842
gazunklenut wrote: post #731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you thought it was about raves, why say night clubs? (In North America at least) A night club is a particular kind of venue, it's not just a location. It's very distinct from a rave, and they have very different cultures. It's confusing when you conflate the two.

> If you thought it was about raves, why say night clubs?

Because the post is about raves. I responded to a comment about nightclubs in a post about raves, its implied then they're talking about raves in nightclubs, what else would they be talking about?

> (In North America at least) A night club is a particular kind of venue, it's not just a location. It's very distinct from a rave, and they have very different cultures. It's confusing when you conflate the two.

What the hell are you talking about, raves happen in nightclubs all the time (all over the US too). You are just making up your own definitions now.

Re: Who killed the rave?

#850

Post by randomfounder »

stefs wrote: post #781
bcrl wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Toronto the decline of the scene in the late '90s was accelerated significantly when the city clamped down on promotors by restricting them from renting venues on city owned property. This was after gradually requiring EMTs and increased security at events after Allen Ho died in 1999. There was a huge protest at city hall, but that had no impact on the course of things. Combined with the recession and then SARS in…

"although people getting older with more obligations was certainly a contributing factor as well" there's always the next generation of young people. the question is: why aren't they as interested in raves than the generations before them?

I’m somewhat deep in the rave scene, and a lot of my friends are pretty hardcore about it.

It still exists, and people are more interested than ever (look at the growth of festivals and rave-adjacent events). There are regular illegal raves in every major city in California, >6 most weekends in San Francisco. But due to regulation and increased interest from the “wrong people”, they’re really hidden.

Post reply on HN