Who killed the rave?
Late‑night clubbing and big-room “rave” culture are widely seen as shrinking in major cities, but many argue the underground scene is alive and has simply moved to cheaper, less regulated spaces and daytime or festival formats. Commenters point to soaring urban rents, stricter licensing and policing, post‑Covid staffing and noise constraints, and changing youth habits — from health consciousness and phone-driven social lives to online dating — as key pressures on traditional nightclubs. At the same time, electronic music itself is more popular than ever, with growing festivals, regional “burns,” and illegal or semi-legal parties suggesting the culture is evolving rather than disappearing.
What “rave” means (and why the article may be misframed)
- Many commenters say the FT piece is really about commercial nightclubs and late-licensed venues, not “raves” in the traditional sense.
- Strong disagreement over definitions:
- One camp: a “real” rave is underground, usually illegal or semi‑legal, in warehouses, forests, quarries, deserts, etc., grassroots and drug‑tolerant, not on listings like Resident Advisor.
- Another camp: “rave” now informally covers any big electronic dance event, including legal festivals and club nights.
- Several note that using RA/official listings to infer the health of underground events is inherently biased.
Is raving actually in decline?
- Some say fixed clubs, especially in big cities (Berlin, London, parts of Australia, Chile), are clearly struggling or closing: high rent, insurance, licensing, policing, and post‑covid cost spikes.
- Others report thriving underground or regional scenes: Midwest US, UK countryside, Southern Cone, parts of Germany, Spain, Nordics, California, NYC/Brooklyn, Seattle, Mexico, Australia “bush doofs,” etc.
- Festivals and one‑off “day raves” are widely reported as booming, even as weekly clubbing shrinks.
Economic and regulatory pressures
- Repeated themes:
- Commercial real estate and gentrification push out long‑running venues; landlords prefer higher‑paying tenants.
- Stricter licensing, noise complaints from new residents, public liability costs, and police hostility (especially to unlicensed events) raise risk and cost.
- Some jurisdictions treat promoters as legally liable for attendees’ drug use, which chilled large events.
- Clubs depend on alcohol sales; EDM crowds buying mostly water or doing drugs off‑site are less profitable.
Generational and cultural change
- Younger people reported as:
- More health‑conscious, sleep‑protective, and price‑sensitive; prefer earlier, shorter events.
- Socializing more via phones, games, and dating apps, reducing dependence on night venues for meeting people.
- Less tolerant of being filmed while vulnerable; constant cameras and “internet puritanism” make risk‑taking and casual hookups feel more dangerous.
- Counterpoint: heavy drug use persists in many scenes; what’s changed is format (festivals, home parties) and visibility.
Phones, vibe, and safety
- Many lament phones on dancefloors: documenting instead of dancing, self‑consciousness, weaker “vibe.”
- Some clubs and Berlin‑style venues now sticker cameras or require checking phones, which attendees praise.
- Underground organizers stress trade‑offs: great freedom and atmosphere, but real risks (drugs, medical issues, accidents) when there’s no formal security or EMS.