The article also mentions that earlier ending events made to accommodate aging millennials have seen an unexpected and huge interest from Gen Z
But yeah, the decline of the nightlife and hospitality sector is what this article is about, as the regulated rave experience is very mainstream and has been for a long time now
The production value is quite high now and still improving so I don't see why the illicit rave experience would be so interesting when the facilities would be so lacking in comparison. There are lots of electronic dance music events on boats, cruiseliners, retired battleships and more.
Music festivals are bigger than ever though, and they are so frequent and numerous that you can go as frequently as people were going to clubs. I have multiple friend groups where that’s all they do and it is far more intense than just being out passed 3am, although many do officially end their main programming at 1am, many don’t.
> The production value is quite high now and still improving so I don't see why the illicit rave experience would be so interesting when the facilities would be so lacking in comparison
A few reasons:
1. security at official music events are often complete arseholes and can totally destroy the vibe. Think of all the row rent chip on their shoulder wannabe cops, then place them in a field of drunk partying adults with complete power and almost zero oversight (+)
2. Advertising everywhere
3. Massively overpriced food and drink
(+) While I fully understand that once you've got multiple thousands of humans in a field, you do need security, at small illegal raves - say a few hundred people - there's no need and the vibe without feeling like you're being watched is spectacular.
> (+) While I fully understand that once you've got multiple thousands of humans in a field, you do need security, at small illegal raves - say a few hundred people - there's no need and the vibe without feeling like you're being watched is spectacular.
On the other hand - saying this as a former tech guy for illegal raves - even in small raves below 100 people in attendance there's so much potential for shit to go seriously wrong. Obviously substance consumption related issues ranging from ODs over contaminants to mixture effect amplifications, that's the most pressing issue, but you also have your fair share of travel accidents aka someone tripping over tree branches, and you will always have a few people (mostly male, but also a few female) who won't understand borders in all possible ways if they're not sober.
Back then a lot of that dark shit was swept under the rug, let us be very clear here. That's the sad price to pay for fly-by-night events without proper security, EMS and whatnot else that is required for licensed events.
All of these except for the last require medical staff, not security. In my experience, the medical staff at festivals of all sizes are amazing people. I don't see how an illegal rave could ever have medical staff though so it's a personal risk that people can choose to take.
As for people not understanding boundaries, small groups of adults, up to a couple of hundred, are generally self policing. I've witnessed a couple of guys being forceably ejected from gatherings, but over the hundred or so I've probably attended in my life (raves I mean) I've only seen this being required a couple of times.
And I would say the large festival audiences are wholly unfamiliar with that, given that the option of the bigger elaborate event was always in their face. There was nothing they needed to find or be in the know about, and to them, the festivals are that same journey.
Regarding expense: not everyone is broke. And many people have shifted their budget to exclusively going to music festivals. I know lots of people that scoff at the idea of going to a nightclub or “going out” at all, but praise and prioritize going to music festivals. Even more are on payment plans for festival tickets far in advance, they are confident they can sell them at a premium if they don't go.
I’m just reporting what I’m seeing and applying market dynamics to it.
Given the tension with “wooks” that bum their way to the bigger festivals and have little to support themselves or any integration into society, I see intentional segregation with the current generation of festivals goers that supports an intentional interest in paying a premium for the exclusion it comes with. Event groups found that pool of wealth and demand, and are capitalizing on it to its extreme. But this crowd is really not trying to be around the other budget conscious crowd at the warehouse and barnyard, and there are plenty of good vibes to be had - you just choose which festival has the vibe you like. if one is too fratty for you, or has too many influencers, then you can still go to the “PLUR” one.
> The production value is quite high now and still improving so I don't see why the illicit rave experience would be so interesting when the facilities would be so lacking in comparison. There are lots of electronic dance music events on boats, cruiseliners, retired battleships and more.
There will always be people attracted to the underground scene where the production value doesn't rank higher than the energy on the dancefloor.
It's good to have both options but they are very different experiences, the mainstream stuff with high production value is a show, it's meant for people who are going to parties to see specific artists and their shows.
That experience is quite opposite of what a good underground rave is, it's much more raw, less concerned about the surface-level showmanship; artists are there to provide a journey to the ones on the dancefloor but not to be the main star, the main star is supposed to be the party itself.
I really enjoy much more the experience of the underground scene, I don't see phones up in the air recording, I don't see people staring at a light show/screens with AV, the experience of getting lost with a crowd of people, all dancing, interacting among each other.
Personally I think it's quite good to have the mainstream scene, it filters out quite a lot of people who wouldn't belong in an underground rave.
I agree, I was surprised to read "real raves don't happen in legal venues" - first time I've heard that line of thinking. Been raving for 20 years and here is what a rave means to me: very dancy music, electronic of some type (doesn't need to be pure edm), no judgements, kindness, love, good energy. I'd argue this is unsurprising given where the idea of a rave came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Tests
"No judgements" is not something I would attribute to legal venues. I mean there are SOOOOOOOO many clubs with dress codes, and that's just scratching the surface.
It is my understanding that rave culture evolved out of the 90's illegal party scene which grew from the 80's acid house music scene. But even if you take it from the Acid Tests that would mean the parties were only legal for a year and have been illegal for nearly 60 years.
To some a rave is just any party, to me it refers to the event being a grassroots operation. For the people, by the people and which is usually done on the cheap because artists aren't usually rolling in dough.
To each their own though. I'm not gonna police your use of the word (unless you publish it apparently).
Have you ever been to a rave? I've never seen a fight break out at a rave, but I've seen plenty in clubs. The levels of self-absorbed, inconsiderate, and assholish behavior are usually excruciatingly high at clubs, and tolerably low at raves.
I've never seen a fight at a club. At this one big (80k) festival in northeast lake region Germany neither. In my experience, fighting and aggression are caused mainly by, in decreasing order of importance, alcohol, cocaine, crammed+overfilled spaces. Then a very long gap before bullies and such appear on the list.
> I don't see why the illicit rave experience would be so interesting when the facilities would be so lacking in comparison.
I swear if you strip away legal pot and LGBTQ rights (not saying those are bad) we have culturally returned to the 1950s. This is a very conservative period with little interest in or tolerance for actual outside-the-lines culture or experience.
I have noticed that after normalizing anything, counterculture areas of California will always have something even more unfamiliar trying to get tolerated and representation
But I don’t see what you’re referring to
I think there is a disinterest in illicit raves because the market has reached parity and beyond for the experience that the market actually enjoyed. If it fails to do that or the illegal raves are better again, I think there is still interest in that, far bigger than whatever was happening in the 90s
To me the giveaway is the decline in sexual experience among young people. This is like a top line KPI for youth culture and socialization since when people have a lot of positive social interaction and mutual bonding experiences they tend to have sex.
Loads of people have commented on these trends. I’m not pointing out anything new, but I do think a lot of people don’t see it because it’s hidden behind a facade of very visible socially liberal movements that garner attention out of proportion to their numbers. These folks do not represent the mean or the median of the culture.
If you are in the Bay Area or LA or really any metro California city that isn’t a deep suburb your experience might be different. These areas have always been more liberal than the average and enduringly so. The SF Bay was where gay people could go back when there was not just a strong taboo but in many cases real persecution.
Edit: with the last election I think the conservative zeitgeist is going to finally crest, and probably inspire a backlash that will start the pendulum going the other way. Things like politics are the lagging end. There’s also a backlash brewing against social media including dating apps, which are one of the drivers for both youth alienation and promulgation of reactionary attitudes. Right wing cultural fear mongering has excellent memetic fitness on social media.
> the decline in sexual experience among young people
Can I push back just a bit. I'm the parent of a teenager and we've had the talk. The kids are alright. When I was a teen I felt everyone felt pressure to be sexually active. While the boys carried the brunt of peer pressure it was the girls who had to deal with the actual fallout. Todays teens are dealing with a lot right now. And my impression is they have a healthier relationship with sex then our generation ever did. Girls have agency, and outside of the social media chucklefucks it's taboo to be serial sexual harasser and be treated with any sort of respect.
I don’t disagree. I’m a dad of girls too and things are better for them today as long as we can hold off the idiots who want to LARP The Handmaid’s Tale.
But that kind of intersects with my next point. There is this vast number of basically hikikomori out there, not to mention lots of mostly boys with very screwed up images of sex from early and uncritical consumption of porn and “masculinity” grifter bullshit. It’s from among these groups that every sort of toxic authoritarian movement is drawing its support.
There’s a lot more unhealthy antisocial stuff out there, and overall I think it’s worse. It’s become more extreme. There isn’t a middle. Young people are either healthy today or they are fucked.
Sex happens in private (mostly, and I'm not judging those who prefer otherwise) and people lie about it. A lot.
But a more publicly observable and, obviously, very adjacent indicator is kissing.
Time was, you'd see a lot of people kissing in public. Not just quick ones either. Pretty normal to walk past bars and there'd be a couple (or more than one) making out by the smoking area. Same in bars beyond a certain time of night, same in a lot of city parks. Sometimes even on the subway. Teenagers walking home from nights out or drinking in the park. (Legal here in the UK and not frowned upon like in the US). In the middle of club or festival crowds.
And whether you think that's cool or gross, there's notably less of it around, and that's been a trend for quite some time.
Maybe the 70s through 90s was an anomaly, it would have been heavily frowned upon before that, but something certainly changed in the mid/late 00s.
Okay this is an interesting topic but I think you are conflating several things.
The decline in sexual experience is occurring in California metros too. Its really interesting how the behaviors have shifted and surprising to me. But people are bonding, social, far less exclusionary, inclusive to things they’ve never heard of - unless you’re the wrong star sign, ironically, or political party.
I date 20-somethings, it’s just different than what I see with people I grew up with. I would say chronic anxiety and demisexuality are common, the most notable to me, and drive a lot of these shifts. But the libidos are there, their age-peers don’t know what they’re doing with really offputting habits or aren’t as interested either. I just cant extrapolate a real exclusionary streak from conservative leanings. Your algorithm is just cooked right now.
You say people are bonding in a less exclusionary manner, but that doesnt mean they aren't bonding less as well.
The chronic anxiety you mention, as well as the pervasive loneliness and depression I observe, seems to indicate a lack of healthy and supportive social bonds.
Good point. The subset of 20-something year old women I date are social and have lots of anxieties, but it doesn’t really inhibit their ability to have a support system.
I can see that there are plenty of other people who would have more difficult doing this by nature of not attracting positive attention and interest by default.
> 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?
When I was young, people had different political opinions and would still be friends and party and do things together. Only some odd fellows would make a fuzz and try to exclude somebody for politics, usually the opposite happened.
When we're older, then political affiliation starts reflecting more on a persons character. Then we've all been through (or should have been through) the different situations where politics have a real world impact on our lives that we can understand and relate to.
When you were young, political differences were more likely about how much tax rich people should pay. Now, political differences are more like who should go in the gas chambers. You can respectfully disagree with people who think the tax rate should be 20% instead of 30%. You cannot respectfully disagree with people who think you belong in a gas chamber.
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.
Whatever you think political party association is, it's not arbitrary. It tells you something about someone's character. People choose political parties based on their personality type to a significant degree, which is not the case for star signs. You don't have to believe that the parties are different, but surely you believe that people don't choose a party by flipping a coin.
I don't think this is entirely true. Most people are normal, but if I'm a woman dating a young conservative man. That conservative has a non-zero chance to actually believe shit like "your body, my choice." Probably don't want to be dating that guy. It's not a guarantee, but a danger signal.
Upvoted you, because opinions should be safe to voice even if one disagrees with them. This does appear to be a common concern. I also happen to know many families that vote Republican where the woman also happens to "wear the pants".
100% of modern misogynistic rhetoric and all the new erosion of women’s rights is coming from the right. Ignoring that fact is just stupid. “Wearing the pants” doesn’t mean shit when they also vote a rapist into office.
Let's say that's true: all misogynistic rhetoric is coming from the right. This does not also mean that anyone on the right is automatically a misogynist.
I know, you'll have a knee-jerk reaction to the above. Let me illustrate the point. 100% of "white people are oppressors" rhetoric comes from the left. By your logic, no white person should vote Democrat. Ah, but you'll say that not everyone on the left is hung up on this, not everyone is actually an oppressor, and we can all get along. Well, the same point applies to the right and misogynists then, doesn't it?
Just because certain media outlets brainwashed you into thinking that Blue Collar == Republican (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.
You don't even believe this yourself, and are just trying to come up with a pithy comeback. Sorry, this one fell flat. The celebration of the Republican triumph definitely does not look like backpedaling. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
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.
Yeah I agree. Internet puritanism, some might call it. Turns out the possibility of being recorded all the time and having your life upended based on some 15 second clip of you makes people conservative and wary of risks
> The article also mentions that earlier ending events made to accommodate aging millennials have seen an unexpected and huge interest from Gen Z
As a millennial in Belgium, my parties started no earlier than 23:00 and ended at 05:00.
But maybe it makes sense that this is disappearing? My parents started partying at 19:00
> The article also mentions that earlier ending events made to accommodate aging millennials have seen an unexpected and huge interest from Gen Z
I do not find it surprising. When I was younger (college age and soon after), I wanted events to start sooner and late events oftentimes discouraged me. It sucked even at that age. It is one thing to start dancing at 8pm and have endurance till the early morning, because you feel like it and have nothing to do the next day. And something completely different if you have to wait till 1am till the event starts. You get tired and dumber the next day, but the amount of dancing you got in exchange is just lower.
I was not using stimulants or anything like that and frankly, dropping amount of stimulants use among young people would explain larger younger crowd at earlier events.
But yeah, the decline of the nightlife and hospitality sector is what this article is about, as the regulated rave experience is very mainstream and has been for a long time now
The production value is quite high now and still improving so I don't see why the illicit rave experience would be so interesting when the facilities would be so lacking in comparison. There are lots of electronic dance music events on boats, cruiseliners, retired battleships and more.
Music festivals are bigger than ever though, and they are so frequent and numerous that you can go as frequently as people were going to clubs. I have multiple friend groups where that’s all they do and it is far more intense than just being out passed 3am, although many do officially end their main programming at 1am, many don’t.