You're right, but on the other hand, are we really expecting "Financial Times" get even get "raving" right, or knowing about the underground scene?
The article seems to be written for people who reads a newspaper with their breakfast, not for people who had yet to gone asleep while that person reads their paper.
The FT is actually entertainingly into this sort of stuff.[0]
Honestly my favourite news outlet these days, despite my being well to the left of their editorial staff. I read it mostly for their drum and bass coverage.
Yeah I'm pretty sure the Financial Times editorial board would probably enjoy sending me to an internment camp for ideological reasons but I find their coverage is great when you ignore the slant, which is obvious and tends not to obscure the actual reporting like other papers.
Well said. I like to imagine some old guy holding the pink FT pages in a London cafe, peering over his reading glasses while egg drips off of his toast onto his pleated houndstooth trousers.
some old guy holding the pink FT pages in a London cafe
Where do you think the people going to those raves in the early 90s ended up? As old guys who now have well paid corporate jobs in the city and read FT.
That guy could probably bore the crap out of today's youth with stories about how raves and music used to "authentic" and how everything today is crap.
From what I’ve gathered, nowadays, “raving” refers to all legal parties that are posted on RA as well. The biggest difference is, younger people associate specific venues/music as “rave”s, where mainstream music isn’t played, and people are more likely to party in the brains. It’s just the definition has shifted since the 2000s.
I wouldn’t discredit FT writers as well, as I’m assuming they’re writing for a specific audience.
Did you read the article? It's mostly about the business of running nightclubs and organising music events. Something that falls cleanly with the interest of the FT and its readers. The headline is just some SEO optimised clickbait to get traffic.
Plus, as I mentioned elsewhere. A non-trivial number of today's FT readers are the same people that were at those original raves in the early 90s.
I did read the article because I was interested in the decline of raves. I unfortunately found an article on something different. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they wanted to draw traffic that would be interested in the article, and thus the mixup was an accident due to not understanding the difference between a nightclub and a rave, though that does call into severe question their knowledge on nightclubs. Alternatively it is possible they knew full well they were trying to get people who were not interested in nightclubs to click on their link, in which case they succeeded. Either way, my point stands.
The article seems to be written for people who reads a newspaper with their breakfast, not for people who had yet to gone asleep while that person reads their paper.