Page 2 of 3
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:28 pm
by SuburbanThug
beats me wrote:I’m sure many a 70-year-old went up to a pop band back in the 50’s and went “Your outfit here does not feature strings, woodwinds, or brass sections. How dare you call this a concert! Full orchestras will never die!”
I'm pretty sure the pop bands weren't calling themselves orchestras...
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:31 pm
by SuburbanThug
Jack McOck wrote:SuburbanThug wrote:It's funny how often accuracy and snobbery get confused these days... Only 31 and I feel like I'm approaching 70.
I often rate the quality of a thread by how much unsolicited personal information people volunteer.
I guess this thread is doing great then since only the tiniest, pretty much least personal, unsolicited information has been offered up. This thread gets at least 4 stars for now!
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:33 pm
by beats me
SuburbanThug wrote:beats me wrote:I’m sure many a 70-year-old went up to a pop band back in the 50’s and went “Your outfit here does not feature strings, woodwinds, or brass sections. How dare you call this a concert! Full orchestras will never die!”
I'm pretty sure the pop bands weren't calling themselves orchestras...
I’m pretty sure full orchestra classical music doesn’t own the rights to the term concert.
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:39 pm
by SuburbanThug
Hey, you can call it whatever you want. As long as enough ignorant folks follow suit you can change the meaning of the word altogether. In the interest of preserving history and not appearing like jerks to your predecessors I suggest calling your ragers ragers, your raves raves, and your weekenders weekenders. For instance we do not call Movement a 3 day rave here. It's a festival whether it's got DJs or not. We call the after-parties, well, parties. Maybe we've just got a strong history here but the use of the term rave pretty much implies that your new.
Oh, shit. You can probably infer where I live from this post. Sorry to drag us down to three stars!

Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:30 pm
by Da hand
beats me wrote:Not being able to call a large gathering of people where there’s only DJs playing, an epic light show, and most people are bouncing off the walls drunk or high a rave is the same snobbery that says anybody spinning anything other than vinyl isn’t a DJ. Get over it.
The only difference is it’s not at some secret unsanctioned location. Everything else is exactly the same.
As SuburbanThug wrote, YOU can call it anything you want, but the truth is that the term "Rave" is only used at the rarest of occasions by party/event goers and organisers. Things change with time and this is one of those things. You might have to get over it

Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:34 pm
by TomViolenz
Jack McOck wrote:SuburbanThug wrote:It's funny how often accuracy and snobbery get confused these days... Only 31 and I feel like I'm approaching 70.
I often rate the quality of a thread by how much unsolicited personal information people volunteer.

Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:09 pm
by andydes
Oh God no, not a change of word meaning!
wikipedia wrote:
In the late 1950s in London the term "Rave" was used to describe the "wild bohemian parties" of the Soho beatnik set. [5] In 1958 Buddy Holly recorded the hit "Rave On," citing the madness and frenzy of a feeling and the desire for it to never end. [6] The word "rave" was later used in the burgeoning mod youth culture of the early 1960s as the way to describe any wild party in general. People who were gregarious party animals were described as "ravers". Pop musicians such as Steve Marriott of The Small Faces and Keith Moon of The Who were self-described "ravers".
I'm a cancer and born in the year of the snake.
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:09 pm
by beats me
Da hand wrote:beats me wrote:Not being able to call a large gathering of people where there’s only DJs playing, an epic light show, and most people are bouncing off the walls drunk or high a rave is the same snobbery that says anybody spinning anything other than vinyl isn’t a DJ. Get over it.
The only difference is it’s not at some secret unsanctioned location. Everything else is exactly the same.
As SuburbanThug wrote, YOU can call it anything you want, but the truth is that the term "Rave" is only used at the rarest of occasions by party/event goers and organisers. Things change with time and this is one of those things. You might have to get over it

True.
andydes wrote:Oh God no, not a change of word meaning!
wikipedia wrote:
In the late 1950s in London the term "Rave" was used to describe the "wild bohemian parties" of the Soho beatnik set. [5] In 1958 Buddy Holly recorded the hit "Rave On," citing the madness and frenzy of a feeling and the desire for it to never end. [6] The word "rave" was later used in the burgeoning mod youth culture of the early 1960s as the way to describe any wild party in general. People who were gregarious party animals were described as "ravers". Pop musicians such as Steve Marriott of The Small Faces and Keith Moon of The Who were self-described "ravers".
Uh oh. Lies!! The DJs, promoters, and attendees of the renegade parties of the 90’s clearly have ownership of the term rave.

Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:26 pm
by Erik Mitchell
I still use the term rave because I'm old balls
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:53 pm
by SuburbanThug
beats me wrote:Uh oh. Lies!! The DJs, promoters, and attendees of the renegade parties of the 90’s clearly have ownership of the term rave.

Aw, don't be upset. Some people just like for terms to retain their meaning so that history doesn't become a convoluted mess. The beatnik meaning of the term and the 90's usage are very similar. Note the repeated usage of the word "party."
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:07 pm
by H20nly
don't be a square daddio
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:45 pm
by SuburbanThug
H20nly wrote:don't be a square daddio
Know your groceries.
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:41 am
by RonaldDumsfeld
If it's likely to be any good, i.e. illegal, in a novel venue, competent promoter who cares etc etc it's still called a 'Rave'.
If it's likely to be totally shit, i.e. legal, sanctioned, in a commercial venue, 'orofessionally' policed and frankly nowadays awful it's always been known as 'clubbing'. As in ' I'm a total twat with more money than sense and no taste at all so I'm going clubbing with tarquin and Fiona this weekend'.
It should be called getting farmed. Because that's what it feels like. You stand around for hours in the cold to get in, get humiliated by the bouncers, have all your money extracted by a bunch of greedy cunts and then get thrown out into the steet.
Guys. It's been over for 15 years. Get used to it.
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:30 am
by SuburbanThug
RonaldDumsfeld wrote:If it's likely to be any good, i.e. illegal, in a novel venue, competent promoter who cares etc etc it's still called a 'Rave'.
If it's likely to be totally shit, i.e. legal, sanctioned, in a commercial venue, 'orofessionally' policed and frankly nowadays awful it's always been known as 'clubbing'. As in ' I'm a total twat with more money than sense and no taste at all so I'm going clubbing with tarquin and Fiona this weekend'.
It should be called getting farmed. Because that's what it feels like. You stand around for hours in the cold to get in, get humiliated by the bouncers, have all your money extracted by a bunch of greedy cunts and then get thrown out into the steet.
Guys. It's been over for 15 years. Get used to it.
Pretty much sums it up.
Re: Is it still considered a rave?
Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:51 am
by re:dream
Still going strong down here
