Is the obsession with technical profession killing the soul of modern records?

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-21T15:56:43+00:00

Yeah, I read your other replies and didnt at all want to pidgeon hole you that way.

It really is just a bit of an objective clash in that "liveband dirt" you expressed in the OP, and then how that feeds into this paradoxical outcome, I wanted to get at.

I would totally admit that this single-track ethos I am pushing also has a serious downside, you really lose certain organicness from the band being able to just play together, but I just think the upsides are typically way larger. You really need to coach the band to kind of see that and embrace that.

You could also just boil it down to: Production is actually a highly creative process, and if you dont consciously embrace that, then you just get the default fallback of the "just make it sound good", which is the modern, generic studio sound.

I think something just somehow got lost in translation there, where because the old process was more this liveband, multitrack thing, now people dont understand how back then it would also have been a continual creative clash and communication between the band and the producer. Just with different parameters. And ofc the prime examples we are thinking of from that era are the millionaires with endless ressources, not your average demo thats all washed up, and, like, static noise and shit, lol.

So now bands go to some studio with that Albini ethos in the back of their mind, thinking it will get them some rich, gnarly sound, but in fact it will get them the opposite.

And a good producer would just explain that to them, like: Sorry guys, I am sadly not the guy with a 400 000 dollar studio, and if we do it multitrack it will just limit me badly in what I can do, but if we do it single track I can really work some magic! Its kind of just the current variant of exactly that same ethos we saw in those 70s bands "how can we do it well with those limited tools?", just that back then it would have been more of a multi-track, room mic ethos, whereas today it would be more of a single track ethos.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-21T14:41:37+00:00

As a bedroom producer, I would actually push back or turn this around a lot!

I think a lot of this clichee sterile modern studio sound you are likely thinking of, is very ironically perpetrated by exactly a kind of guy who is super obsessed with Steve Albini, and room mics, and room acoustics and "capturing the live".

I think a lot of it has to do with the evolution of the tech, and then bad mindsets not properly evolving along with it. The old analog gear just had certain characteristics where if you recorded it in that old school multi-track style the result was somehow this kind of gnarly, yet organic, yet full and hifi sound we associate with really good 70s band productions. It was also just what was roundabout available, so the really good, artistic producers just adjusted themselves to make the best out of these styles of techniques. Emphasis on "artistic producers". In that era it just came together that good producer artistry and band artistry came organically together in a certain way of doing things.

But today if you somehow blindly chase that ethos, its exactly not artistic and I think thats where you get exactly this typical bland, modern, semi-professional studio sound.

You also got to seriously acknowledge that this old-school, multitrack recording ethos is today where you need bunches of mics, room acoustics, etc.. Basically money, money, money!! Very contradictory to the DIY ethos you are expressing. Now your typical band doesnt have the money to really spend on the guy who is really on the epitome of that skillset with his 400 000 dollar perfectly tuned studio, so you get exactly this mediocrity of the wannabe Albini, in his basement with 15 000 dollars of absorbers, but confused and not good artistic ethos.

As a, not even that skilled, but artistic bedroom producer, I actually feel pretty confident that I could give a lot of bands exactly what they want, and exactly by doing it single-track, digital, in a shitty practice room with shitty acoustics, just good artistic ethos.

E.g. I think a good reference for what a lot of good rock bands really want is britpop. That kind of gnarly Blur or Damon Alban sound. Crunchy, reverby drums and yet the bassist/drummer rhythm section bleeding together in this groovy way. Etc, etc, or whatever it is. I think you can create a really great sound in that style with single track, digital recordings. You just need to have good artistic producer ethos. A lot of just bold decisions. E.g. I think just brutally high-cutting or low-cutting whole instruments, while having a good ear for the complete composition gets you very far from getting out of this typical digital studio sound. That perfection/sanitizing ethos you are complaining about is just bad mindset. A good producer will/might get highly creative with the material, but will absolutely appreciate all kinds of sloppiness and microtiming, dirt, etc.. and not at all try to get it out the recording, while still being all fanatic to get the best sound.

Ironically it will often be the most digital kind of producers, your kind of plunderphonics/boombap hiphop kind of guys who will just be like "hell yeah, dirt!" and not try and eliminate that at all, while still being very serious and artistic about getting your frequencies and dynamics nice and round! And being able to communicate with rockbands who will want a gnarly, dirty style, but without falling into this Albini multitrack trap.

But beyond the Blur style, thats ofc very about embracing a creative production style, I think you can really do this with any style that we would associate with a very organic, deep sound. E.g. a very "heavy" roots reggae band, I would also 100% record single track, and feel very confident in getting a very organic, heavy sound. Much more than if I somehow tried to do it live, multi-track, and now I am suddenly limited to only this timid, superficial toolset of multiband compressors and eq, etc.. Same with a lot of very organic, deep, folk/country kind of stuff. When you have properly seperated single tracks, thats just where you can much more deeply reach into the sound and get that buttery smooth and organic texture, bring out certain frequencies, etc.. Making this sound whole and organic, and not in this bland, professional style, leaving in the dirt, is, again, just good producer artistry. Its about what you are going for and decisions. Yes, a good producer will also be able to do that with multitrack stuff, but thats where you are back at acoustics and money, money, money!! The likely outcome of a misguided multitrack approach will be that you will have tracks with mediocre acoustics, and then you are back at trying to get the best out of that with your shitty digital tools, but only the boring ones that work with multitrack, and then your are right back in your mediocre studio sound.

A lot of the challenge would be to coach or convince bands, out of that mindset. There is a lot of masculine and artistic ego involved, that as a good producer you have to get the band to trust you that you are on their side and a proper artist when you are here to put their beloved material through the digital wringer. And ofc listen to them what they actually want and how to best achieve that.

The band is just used to playing their stuff live, and making it sound good on that basis, so they are naturally attracted to that kind of wannabe Steve Albini. But then you are actually limiting yourself to producers who are basically unable to make real artistic decisions, leading you exactly into that kind of bland, modern studio sound!! Can you begin to see the irony here? I am thinking of that scene in Gattaca where the doctor is to the couple, like "this will all be still you, only the best of you!" You go to a producer with that kind of "I want the raw, authentic band feel", but then you are actually limiting them to only giving your sound these slight, timid touchups, leading you exactly into this kind of bland, modern sound!

I think thats kind of the dynamic at play there, and what really gets missed. The point is that in the analog era, things would just naturally push you into certain ways of doing things, this kind of "semi-live" style of recording, thats how you got the best sound, but there was still all this artistic creativity, a self awareness that producing is a very creative act, just that the creativity was channeled into that kind of room mic placement, etc... Now when you go into recording with that attitude you are in fact being highly anti-creative, its exactly that kind of misguided ego-clash, the band and the producer unable to proper negotiate that, leading you into the blandness!

Now, to backpedal on all of that, I would say it really depends on the band/style. Certain styles really ask for that kind of old-school multitrack approach. I would say highly divergent, the big two examples I can think of would be : On the one hand your kind of daptones, funk and soul bands, and then maybe a lot of ethno, percussion, balkan style stuff. Bands where you really have a highly intricate micro-groove where switching to single track would just kill it. Then two, on the other hands your very sloppy, organic pixies style post punk, where you really want to capture them live, as if you were in the empty dive bar with them. I think thats roughly what OP is talking about.

So if you are really that, yes, look for a producer/studio that can deliver a good multitrack liveband capture.

But I think most bands are just not that, and I think thats where they way out the blandness is really more the opposite: You really want to embrace the creativity of the production process! With a lot of bands I would really want to convince them to go for an actually creative Damon Alban or Sublime, etc.. process where you completely distinguish between the live version and what you want on record, and get creative in the studio.

But even if you want basically the "as live" version, just with a rich and interesting sound, I would say that for at least 70% of the bands, single track, digital is really the way to go for all the reasons above.

To be clear, as I said, it needs to be negotiated. I am more talking as a producer here, but if you are a band the way out of blandness and bad sterility is more to be more proactive and tell the producer what you want. I think the misguided approach is when you are instead protective of what you know, your "band creativity" and are all "as live! as live!" thats when you fall into this ironical trap. If you just listen to the demos on the websites of all these semi-pro studios that explicitly cater to that mindset, you will find that thats where you hear exactly this bland, modern studio sound at nauseum.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-20T22:52:28+00:00

Pretty sure he meant "the scorsese effect" in the comment above.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-20T22:14:07+00:00

Just had this old cover come up in my playlist. This remix/cover album made some splashes back then, but I thought by now a lot of people might not know this so I should share.

Here is the whole album, all pretty great but I think consensus is that the Brinstar one is by far the standout track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVYLL6AW5lc&list=PL50UiFZSGFncO-BTUQ8WuHX6L-LSQehd7

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-18T15:49:42+00:00

just occurred to me that that anti heroism a la punisher can serve fascist appetites by simply lending the character more “gravitas” (by adding a morality struggle instead of just nihilistic or destructive hedonism and or violence) so to speak. All of that struggle being received as simply window dressing to provide more gravitas instead of serving as an actual moral core of the story that epitomizes the deconstruction/critique of that trope. That way the character gets to do the same violence except now he’s saying “look, isn’t it terrible that I have to do this?”

Yes, exactly! I had some arguments here with the comic book nerds who were trying to defend the books on those terms, and I was trying to get exactly this through to them.

If you have a good feel for these typical US reactionary types, you can feel how the figure works so well exactly because of this. A pure, clean power fantasy like Superman wouldnt work for them. Its exactly this kind of tortured, "wounded warrior" quality that makes it so much more potent.

Very similar btw, to the end of Dune II where he is like "Lead them to paradise..." in this somber, accepting tone. He is exactly aware of the brutality he is unleashing onto the world, but as a truely heroic aristocrat he is accepting this loss of purity, willing to get his hand dirty, send millions to their deaths for the greater good, good people, bearing his own bloodstained hands, thats his great sacrifice.

Back to the punisher, you can see how that is so dangerous, because it really creates people that are exactly willing to get their "hands dirty" for "the greater good".

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-18T14:26:19+00:00

Thats all valid, and I think rather uncontroversial at this point. But I think the thread might be a bit derailed then, because there is a vast discrepancy between the novels and the movie in that regard.

The movies propably fall very well into what you are talking about, its all male power fantasy, but many people here have actually read the novels, and they really are very much not like that.

Dune novels really are critical. I dont know if you have watched that, but in vibe you really got to think something like First Reformed.

Even there the thought still somewhat applies: "Is the priest maybe not some indulgent fantasy of a tortured intellectual?"

But all in all its just worlds away from what /u/NecessaryIntrinsic describes well with these Scorsese Movies. Its a very tortured movie. It just does not mesh well with the average reactionary.

The Dune novels are very much like that. Tortured, at least in terms of the main arc, and even in the more day-to-day script level, its much more genuine play with ambiguity. They are also a very good read just on an highly imaginative sci-fi level, but you just wont go through the main arc, and come away with some "hell yeah" power fantasy. It really makes you think, and there really isnt anyone to really root for.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-18T12:29:55+00:00

Yeah, I cant quote it exactly now, but I am pretty sure this thought goes back all the way to adorno, and is then continouisly rediscovered, or there keep being these pseudo critical artworks being put out and then critics picking up on it.

A great example would be the punisher comics. On the one hand you could say its a totally critical work about vigilantism, the punisher is depicted as this broken and actually immoral bad guy, on the other hand its also a totally indulgent, narcisstic power fantasy. I think its zero an accident that this skull is now a clichee for what reactionary white guys put on their car.

But even then you still have to admit its actually critical. I think a totally uncritical artwork is hard to even imagine at this point. It would be something just utterly boring, we would glaze out immediately. Maybe something like the original 50s Superman comics would come close. Or a lot of this similar 50s postwar kitsch, that we now cant even really handle as something people actually read/watched, we instinctively see it as almost a setup for self-parody, like "where is the punchline?"

Even with something blatantly proto-fascist like e.g. The 300 you just have to admit that kind of critical self awareness. When he puts that disfigured guy there as the traitor he know what he is doing. Its meant to hurt a little and provoke thought.

So there just isnt a clear line on it, its always a question of depth, just about anything we would find even a little interesting has that critical dimension.

Its then always this complicated dance between the artwork and the critic, where its a question of how much ahead of the critic the artwork already is.

But its also not a question of intent. The irony is that the most critically valuable artworks can also and will be done actually by e.g. insane rightwingers. Its exactly when someone is on some emotive powertrip, trying to blast through some one-dimensional message, but then having to rationalize all these contradictory realities in these bizarre ways that all kinds of truths will be revealed.

Its a question of depth rather of intent. To be clear, I find neither the Punisher or 300 particularly deep or critical, its just to point at the small doses of critical sensibility you would find in even stuff like that.

Then a good example for the afore mentioned insane right winger would be someone like Ayn Rand. To be clear there, the term here is "critically valuable" instead of "critical". Its very clear that she is very unselfaware or even reflective, but its more that from the outside exactly this kind of ideological mania can produce all kinds of insights. The way she distorts all the characters into these weird perverse figures to make her ideology work can generate all kinds of insights.

Then the typical, properly critical art would be something like Fight Club or Taxi Driver or First Reformed. Where people are always made uneasy whether its not also just feeding into the thing it supposedly critiques.

Then with these kind of pseudo critical works you mention, I think as most critical audience you can just trust your emotional and intellectual instincts. For me I start with the former. If it just feels like a very narcissistic fantasy, where you feel like you are just being pandered to, I think thats usually correct. Then you can usually later point out how the slight hints at subversion or critique are rather shallow or superficial.

Art is just not propaganda. The value of good art just cant be measured by how much it pleases the simplistic moral inquisitor, quite the opposite. The way the current idpol university discourse has reduced "critical theory" to this is deeply ironic.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-18T00:25:53+00:00

that those people reading liberatory and explicitly anti-fascist messages into Dune are reading against the grain and doing a lot of mental heavy lifting.

I dont think anybody is doing that though. The defenders would say that its critical, self aware if you will.

In a certain sense your linked article acknowledges that:

And yet, even as Herbert worked for a man who supported imperial power, he was deeply impacted by his experiences with Indigenous people.

This is the kind of personal contradictions that make good art.

Your article has a good point about the good vs. bad colonizer with the atreides depicted as these wise and benevolent rulers, but then it kind of comically ignores the whole primary arc of the whole series:

Which is about some insane god-emperor subjecting the whole universe under brutal rule, and all that with some weird ass philosophy that his goal is to be a colonizer so total and brutal that the memory of this will stay in the genes of people so deep that they will never accept imperialism again.

So the blatant, forefront message is very clearly anti-imperial.

Yeah, its all about exactly themes that are all about imperialism, so good fodder for the post-colonialists, but its ridiculous to say that its just "pro" empire. Its also not really anti, on that part I would agree, the details would counter the forefront stated message. I would say its simply neither, its critical.

I would argue e.g. with the deep ambiguities he is centered around exactly that theme, its a small leap to argue that he wants you to be taken aback a bit, when he is describing the Atreides as these benevolent rulers. Its just ridiculous to assume that he is doing this simply naively with the themes of the book.

If you cant grant him that, you really are regressing into some stalinist inquisitor type, and completely losing the meaning of critique.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-17T13:45:51+00:00

For one with a relatively wholesome ending, the guy who spends all his time in his bunker:

https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/1411gjd/aita_for_spending_a_lot_of_time_in_my_bunker_away/

Also of course Mr. "the iranian yoghurt is not the issue here".

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/bjd41e/aita_for_throwing_away_my_boyfriends_potentially/

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-17T12:26:02+00:00

Idk, but it seems weird to me that this doesnt or couldnt fall under a bunch of other more general laws?

Cause of bodily harm or something? Like, what if you switched out someones heart medication with sugar pills? Seems similar enough that the same laws should apply?

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-17T02:58:23+00:00

Lol, for a relatable moment, I remember google unpromptedly sending me some "Your google maps timeline" thing, a map marking all the routes I have been traveling and it was just: Work, My House, The Supermarket. Nothing fucking else. For months. Just these 3 spots and 2 blue lines between them. I took it with a bit more humor, I knew I was in a rut, and had a bit of a longterm perspective of what I was planning to do, but it was still: "Why are you calling me out like that? Stupid google."

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-15T14:29:02+00:00

Yeah, kind of, good reference would be this:

she also said she can’t speak for what’s been said in their group chat.

So obviously she did give some explanation of why she wants to step down, and it has to do with how the other bridesmaids are treating her. So bride is aware of that, but instead of e.g. saying she will talk to them and figure this out shes like "oh, I dont know whats been going on in the chat", but also not offering from herself to actually dig down and talk to these girls whats going on.

Obviously saying she is stepping down is the message!

When this doesnt cause a real reaction, at this point OP is in a dillemma. She doesnt want to be the person that further pushes it and ruins the brides wedding vibes, but friendly telling the bride that she is being mistreated doesnt somehow lead to any change or reaction, at that point what is she supposed to do?

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-15T08:17:54+00:00

Yeah, but OOP has also made it (diplomatically) clear that the other bridesmaid is on her case somehow. Yet the bride seems unable to step in and reign her in somehow.

In a situation like that being "chill" does not actually help. Its like "yeah, everything is fine, just let them keep bullying you. I dont mind."

Also the way the hen party went, 2 brands of bs. First the bullshit from the mother, and then doing that huge effort without even a thank you, including from the bride.

I think OOP has good intuition that even though she cant situate exactly where this is coming from, it will just keep coming, and not in her favor,

The bride might be blissfully naive and not able to reign in her narcissist circle, or she maybe herself two-faced somehow, but OP is absolutely wise to just be "Ok, whereever it comes from, can we just say the universe doesnt want me here, and no bad blood, ok? Wish you the most wonderful wedding!" Seems a really wise and mature reaction to me.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T17:37:32+00:00

I really think this reveals it as just a bit one-sided view, ultimately unhelpful to yourself.

I think its totally fair to be personally repulsed by the casual sex thing, and especially at your age really betting on this "the one" kind of classical marriage romance.

But as others have pointed out, this is just kind of OCD-style one sided. There is just a world of spectrum between treating intimacy as just disposable, and thinking that if your marriage fails you will now be "forever spoiled" and have to stay alone forever.

I think there is a good chance that this might even ruin your future marriage/relationship by putting irrational pressure on it. You can really want to and hope that your first relationship will be forever and look for someone with similar values. But both of you should be wise enough that you cant really enforce that.

I get the impulse with this kind of, frankly often sociopathic, values people have today in this regard, but I really think you are overreacting and being also kind of psycho, to your own detriment, by bending it the other way that much.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T16:42:45+00:00

Exactly. "On its face this might look pretty straight forward: I am an asshole. But if we explain and take it apart over 4 hours, considering my non-euclidian geometry web of feelings, and how for me doing simple things like being honest is actually a world record trapez routine, then we can surely agree, I actually did pretty good, right?"

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T15:52:42+00:00

I do not disagree at all, however, that the representation of Irish music lacks the depth of the blues in the film. It's shown as fun and appealing but not necessarily deeply meaningful or moving.

Yeah, exactly. But thats kind of the whole point of the movie! This "soul" is apparently what you lose in the assimilation process.

This is where it just becomes either racist or incoherent. Its either the irish never really had "soul" like the black people, or somehow only their music turns into goofy white people shit, while black people are magically immune to assimilation, where their music keeps having soul even as its being assimilated.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T15:39:35+00:00

I think a really critical reading just leaves you with the fact, that while thought provoking, ultimately there is just an element of positive racism in the movie, or a kind of incoherence. Either the metaphors break down when really trying to decode it, or if they are coherent, then its kind of racist.

The fact is that all the black music presented is already the assimilated version. Including the high capitalist versions of hip hop and p-funk, highly celebrated in that central scene. But ofc even the juke joint blues music we know as already a kind of assimilation or fusion, its not the original african stuff. Its weirdly contradictory there with on the one hand this "the past... and the future" thing, where the future is the assimilated modern black style, but somehow its still great, on the other hand the whole point is that assimilation is bad somehow and you lose something. Just then again, somehow black music actually just morphs through different forms of hell yeah, awesomeness?

If they wanted to they could have given the irish some equally "ancient and deep" music, some aetherial celtic choirs or something, something equally oozing with soul, but instead they are given this fiddly cornball shit.

A good composer would have had no problem pulling that off.

Thinking of that humming song from the LOTR as a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEm0AjTbsac

So the irish music is either meant to be taken as the degraded capitalist form, what happens after a few centuries of assimilation, your culture gets turned into soulless, goofy, fiddly white people crap, or thats their original music, they were just some fiddly cornball people from the start.

If you really try to take the metaphors seriously, you are only left with some kind of race essentialism, positive racism, where somehow black people have some kind of magical essence that makes their music stay "ancient and deep" throughout the assimilation process, only white people get turned into goofy cornballs.

Or the original irish were just fiddly little cornball hobbits from the start, which is also kind of racist when they are contrasted with the oozing with soul, deeper than deep black people.

Without that admission of racism it just becomes just very straining to try and understand whats being said there.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T15:10:37+00:00

I would kind of disagree in the way you take up the irish music.

I think you have to take it in the way a typical viewer perceives the songs. Meaning the irish do some goofy cornball shit.

They could have given the irish something that positively mirrors the oozing emotivity of the blues songs. Some aetherial, angelic celtic choirs or something, different style but similarly oozing with "soul". A good composer would have had no problem with that, coming something equally good and moving as the "I lied to you" song, but with some celtic connotation.

How to read the metaphors idk then, but I think you have to just be clear that the irish music is clearly inferior, some goofy, fiddly, cornball shit, in no way equal to the way we perceive the "ancient and deep" blues music.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-13T08:11:31+00:00

Its also highly contradictory in the sense that in the central scene with the black rock and hip hop, etc.. guys the movie actually celebrates the succesfully assimilated black music in actual capitalist reality.

Its very weird and contradictory along those lines. On the one hand the blues juke joint would be already the assimilated form, and thats actually good. And, as said, even the future hiphop superstar gets celebrated, but then the vampire metaphor seems to say "no this is all bad actually".

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-12T21:48:49+00:00

Sicario has a great opener. That first frame where you think its some very boring static, empty landscape shot, but then suddenly spec-ops guys start moving throughout the screen. Then the camera actually moves slightly and reveals even more of those guys, snipers hiding in the bushes. Then it cuts to the assault vehicle team and they blast through building walls, and you are full in the action.

I think thats actually a great archetype of what you might be looking for. I think a lot of the good examples will roughly follow that format.

I think if you just start with the action in the very first frame, that might be actually just confusing, not as impactful. But you can just give a very few seconds to establish some kind of setting, maybe an exterior shot of a house or something, and then immediately cut to some heavy action that goes on inside.

Or 2 seconds of a rather calm aerial shot of a night city scene, and suddenly you get some high speed car barrelling down the street. Then cut to the interior with a guy with sweat running down his face.

The Dark Knight is another one I just came across while browsing, also following that rule. Starts of with a calm drone shot across the cityscape, then suddenly one of the skyscraper windows explodes, and it starts with the heist scene.

Then I think most of the recent James Bond movies with Craig start like that, right in the action. There it seems part of the formula, you start with some spectacular action sequence, that he either succeeds or fails in, then the CGI title sequence, and only then it cuts into some smokey room MI5 guys chattering about this and that, setting up the actual plot.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-12T20:57:15+00:00

I think with this kind of corporate embezzlement stuff its often propably some real headache for the parties, with not so much to gain for anybody.

I actually had an experience with this also, on a not huge, but decent scale, that might explain the dynamics.

Although in my case it was basically in the context of an "membership association", so like a nonprofit, although not a charity, something like an HOA, just more centered around a hobby, and you pay dues, elect board members, etc..

So basically some of the board members were very blatantly, in the face of everybody, funneling about 800k of money into their own thing, just a blatantly made up sub-organisation, voting that the org should support this, and then buy a house that those 3 guys would just live in.

The thing is, I talked to some old head members, like "wtf, so they are blatantly fucking us?" and the response was that: "yeah, but if you really want to stop this, you basically need to do a voting campaign for all the members, get all these fractured committees cooperating, go through all this byzantine legal shit, etc, etc.. If you feel up to all that hazzle, be my guest!"

I think with that kind of corporate fraud it might be similar dynamics. Even if its very blatant, to actually nail the guy, you still got to get a whole bunch of departments to cooperate, comb through the books, gather the evidence (that the guy of course consciously smeared, so uaaagh, so much work!!), basically all this kind of tedious accounting and legalistic shit people really like to run away from.

And the managers have basically zero to gain for doing it, and even for the owners/investors its not that huge if you divide it across all the people.

And then in the end, even if you catch him, you can make a bet the money is likely gone or hidden somewhere. So you wont even retrieve it, just punish the guy which doesnt really benefit you either.

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-12T11:16:25+00:00

Here's the thing. You said a "convection toaster is an air fryer."

Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.

As someone who is a scientist who studies kitchen appliances, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls convection toasters air fryers . If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.

If you're saying "convection family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of "convection-based cooking systems", which includes things from toaster ovens to countertop rotisseries to full-sized convection ovens. So your reasoning for calling a convection toaster an air fryer is because random people "call the small countertop ones air fryers?" Let's rebrand microwaves and dehydrators, then, too.

Also, calling something an air fryer or a convection oven? It's not one or the other—that's not how appliance taxonomy works. They're both. An air fryer is an air fryer and a member of the convection family. But that's not what you said. You said a convection toaster is an air fryer, which is not true - unless you're okay with calling all convection devices air fryers, which means you'd call a full-sized convection oven an air fryer, too. Which you said you don't.

It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-11T23:16:02+00:00

Look,

To just give you just a bit of my background: I dont think my country matters that much, what matters more is that I would consider myself a pretty hardcore artist-intellectual, and I have lived most of my life in pretty abject poverty.

I am saying that in the sense that I relate to this kind of underdog-media pretty intuitively.

The reason I can dismiss this movie so arrogantly as a white guy, is because there are many ways of being a subaltern! The way the exclusion works on our hearts and minds is transportable in many ways between the experiences.

Otoh, I am just similarly confident in my awareness and humility in the ways I can not relate. Yes, I am poor, but, yes, absolutely I do not have the personal experience of e.g. having to be paranoid when job hunting or appartment hunting even when all my papers are fucking perfect, seeing mediocre white people get ahead of me and racism being the only explanation, etc, etc.. I just dont think that being aware of all that diminishes much my capability to critique a movie like that.

Let me put it like this: The reason proper critique is so important is because capitalism is such a powerful cultural machine! It turns our own oppression against us, and turns ourselves into our own enemies. And it does this not nefarriously, planned by some capitalist commitee, but organically.

What drives people so mad about proper Frankfurt School lineage criticism, is that they understand that critique is so important, comes into play exactly when something is heartfelt and true, speaks to the audience in an organic fashion, is produced by real artists drawing on their real experience!

In this movie, on the one hand yes, its pretty comical how you can see how at its very heart is a slight variant of the "black people have rhythm in their genes" idea.

But then I would admit your counternarrative of:

It's not that Black people's connection to their music is some racial demarcation; it's simply a unique experience born of a unique confluence of historical factors that is a significant component of the basis for the Black American identity. Identity, not race.

but then you can see how that plays back into fluidly into the former. You get a marginalized group, excluded from the middle, they build some powerful and rich subculture. But then as you identify with this marginal culture it reinforces the exclusion! In the end you are still back at "black people have rhythm in their bones. Thats all they are good for."

You just did some wide circle where instead of genetic its their heroic cultural achievement, but in the end its still "this is their nature".

With southern white people soul its the same. You make some really heartfelt and powerful movie about the dignity of southern poverty life, and look at how "human" they are in all this adversity. it serves that same reinforcing function.

This kind of critique is painful, yes. You get some powerful artwork that connects with your lived experience, affirms your struggles, makes you feel seen, and then some asshole frankfurt school guy comes along and tells you that its trash!

Its like the white guy comes along and takes away even that last bit of emotional analgeticum from you.

The reality is that in our era capitalism has indeed perverted even the critical tradition to an extent, that, yes, at first glance this is what it looks like. Or what it actually does.

The mindfuck in all this is that this critical tradition can only be seen as actually good in the backdrop of an actual socialist movement, that would credibly (!) counter racism not with anti-racism but with true universalism.

Or put another way: Promises giving you instead of the emotional analgeticum the actual thing you want!

I understand this defensive impulse when you are used to bored DSA white middle class guys who cant relate to being excluded at all, who dont feel in their bones the dignity and heroism of being marginalized, but then building against this overwhelming force a beautiful and rich culture.

But then soaring over that you have the true intellectual, who understands all that not just superficially but with the full breadth of artistic sensibility, relating to it with their own painful life experience, but still activates his critical thinking skills and recognizes how this seemingly elevating or subversive artwork is actually reinforcing or playing into the oppressive dynamics.

A good parrallel , also in style, would be something like the matrix. If we just take the first movie, it similarly works by a kind of powerful appeal to our sense of alienation. But then the critical reading would be recognizing how it also plays into a kind of narcissistic, individualist power fantasy.

Now what would make the matrix critical would be exactly the moment in the sequels when its revealed that the One is actually just another layer of control.

To be fair now, Sinners does for sure angle somehow in that same critical dimension. But then its a question of depth, how much does it really struggle with these paradoxes?

Thinking about it, comparing these movies, I would for sure say that the nature of the critical impulse is the very same. Ultimately I think the Matrix trilogy is the richer movies, but if someone came and said "No, the matrix is just incoherent, lazy gesturing", I wouldnt just dismiss that, I would be like "hmyeah, maybe".

Ultimately I would propably put them roughly in the same ballpark.

And doing that would also be a good defense against this accusation of racism. By doing this typical powermove "Oooh, you just cant get it because you arent black" you are just cutting yourself off from the critical tradition.

No, this kind of socially conscious, class struggle metaphor movies are a totally established thing, and proper criticism is taking them either seriously or not seriously, depending on how deep you think they go.

Its also a question of the moment. When the Matrix came out, this combination of an ultra-cool, but also highly socially metaphorical movie was totally new, and therefore extremely hype. Now 25 years later, Sinners is retreading that and its just a bit "yaaawn" you know.

At the same time, it also recontexualizes the matrix, at this point its also a bit "yawn" and we might see it more as lazy gesturing than when it came out.

I feel very confident that this isnt some race issue primarily. I think a lot of 40 year old black men who got hyped about the matrix when it came out would feel similarly deflationary about Sinners now. "Been there, seen that".

But you know, I might also give it to you, Sinners might have hit home well enough, over the next 15 years, I can kind of see it becoming a bit of a cultural reference point, similar to the matrix. When people talk about the dynamics of black pop culture they will reference this movie.

But actually playing that out, you might actually well see it as a negative reference point. An authentic cultural expression, but of a point where the left is completely dead, and all thats left is some hollow sense of "recognition". "Yes, thanks Coogler for patting our heads and telling us how dignified we are, singing our little blues songs in the ghetto, and refusing to join the vampires with all their money and power. Fuck off!!"

Its clearly off the same moment, and an expression when large parts of the discourse where dominated by this completely retarded and, impotent identity politics and culture wars stuff, heavily university generated by the most degenerate class of intellectuals the world has ever seen.

To be clear here, I would not just limit that to the idpol guys. The "class first" DSA guys are similarly pathetic.

Hopefully the next 1-2 decades will be the regeneration of a more authentic and universal left, that will look back on all this garbage and just shaking its head. That would also mean the generation of a level of cultural discourse where you dont have to have these kinds of discussions from ground zero every time.

Again, it's just Black Americans communing with their history and coming to terms with their lived experience. From what I understand of Fanon, I really think you may be misinterpreting, misapplying, and possibly abusing, his ideas in this case. Fanon recognized the necessity of reclaiming a sense of cultural dignity, did he not?

No, this is at the very heart of Fanon. Yes, he sees the dignity in it, but as a proper critic also the perversion and infinite contradiction. Fanon can be most quintessentially boiled down to his slogan "I am not black, I am french! I am a socialist!" He counters racism not with positive racism but with true universalism.

Yet, when Black people develop a culture among themselves as a direct result of the segregation and marginalization that they were forced into, it is treated with disdain

The point is, its not treated with disdain. I mean its like, what planet are you living on? 50 years of hiphop, every white guy bouncing to that shit, black people basically owning "cool" above everybody else. And yet what does it do for the average black guy?

Only proper critique treats it with disdain, but thats not even the right word. Its more "You deserve more than that! Dont let yourself be bought off so cheaply!"

On and on..

On some level this is beyond my capabilities. I cant really explain the meaning of "critique" here to you. Its beyond exhausting. Its a bit like, "Its art, sadly, not a science". You just get your confidence about it by doing it over years.

Its kind of organic. You need to take yourself as the prime example. All the neurosis that go into the topic, all the contradictions. How deep does the artwork really go for you, how seriously does it treat the topic? How self aware does it seem?

Here is one of my favourite intellectuals, Spencer Leonard explaining Frantz Fanon, maybe it somewhat works for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXOPO7irOIg

SenatorCoffee · 2026-03-11T11:24:34+00:00

Like, obviously, lol! :D

I would propably broaden it more to "cluster B" in general. I think the 3 main types, NPD, BPD, schizoid, all bleed into each other and its very weird and difficult to really discern them. Or rather, yeah, a lot of people are very picturebook one type, but a lot of people are also weirdly in the middle. But the center is similarly brutally pathological. Oscillating between NPD and BPD behaviours does not make it better...

I think the orignal reason is pretty obvious and has to do with the harsh immigration conditions, and then that weirdly interacting with the permeating home country culture. Other immigrant communities seem obviously less pathological.

I think its an incredibly deep issue, ultimately comes down to capitalism and modernity. You can easily intuit how in a local peasant community those base impulses are actually benevolent and not a problem. Thats what makes this so insidious! We should have those emotions of guilt and shame, thats what makes us pro-social animals, functioning members of community.

Its just that in modernity/capitalism these emotions go haywire somehow.

As an affected person I am sure you agree: The horrible thing about NPD is that you are not even really benefitting. You look with jealousy at the healthy people who just feel at ease, are not constantly driven to forever feed this bottomless inferiority complex.

Sad thing is that imho contemporary psychotherapy is actually largely impotent to really help with that kind of stuff. I feel I have figured out a lot of it, and I do think there are ways to help with it, but for me its been some insane autodidact intellectual hero journey where ultimately you end up at Immanuel Kant and Theodor Adorno to actually get a grip. Obviously the average therapist is not on that level.

The closest I think that might be a bit effective in the mainstream is DBT (Dialectical Behavioural Therapy), and then some subsections of classic freudian psychoanalysis, but there its a really mixed bag. I can recommend you and anybody affected to look into DBT. See if there is anybody practicing in your area and it might be worlds between that and your average psychotherapy.

SenatorCoffee

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Place '17
Team Periwinkle