That said, of the rave era, I did always like the bush doofs best — and the ones in Sydney Park — despite the dodgy promoter aspects. The aesthetic was a little worn out though. But then I like hard acid (music) and preferred acid (drugs) to the big E. And there were a couple of promoters who didn’t try to screw you royally and were actually nice people to work with (e.g. somewhat professional, aware of the environmental and health and safety consequences, etc). I think that brings up something in relation to the idea of the utopia that Mark raises, using that criteria the most ‘successful’ events were made by people versed in the practical, not the ideal.

Club promoters were often just as bad or worse the only difference was they’d tell you they were screwing you instead of begging poverty or communitarian ideals. I thought the warehouse parties (as opposed to say the experimental music events) had sorta tapered off by the early 90s.

Another phenomenon that comes to mind is the PLUR slogan (Peace, Love, Unity, Respect) – often trotted out as a mantra throughout the 90s by the most shifty, selfish ppl in the scene(s).

Also, an obvious point, but however inclusive the rhetoric around dance parties and related events, they are also (usually) quite clearly exclusive, along subcultural & aesthetic lines. How to engage with difference is, as usual, a key question.

My position is that these supposedly utopian or autonomous (contrived) spaces are never free of context or hierarchy. I’m interested in more contingent and fluid forms of relations. My recent experiences have suggested that we mustn’t lose site of the local and the physical, ie bodies in space. Which suggests that maybe the dance parties are onto something after all, if they could get over their naive utopianism.

I could go on about the political role of sound (especially through the ritual of music) in connecting bodies to space and each other, but I should just send this before this dodgy borrowed wireless connection in London cuts out again…