If it makes you feel any better, I always hear and appreciate the little countermelodies coming from the Euphs

Oh, don’t worry about that. The inflated egos are distributed across all the musicians too. It takes a special kind of personality to achieve that level of singular proficiency.

I think it’s one other reason to HAVE a conductor, is to have an ultimate authority on some matters where musicians egos get involved.

In many (most?) compositions, there are going to be some banger little licks in many different sections. It honestly kinda sucks sometimes when you’ve got one… but you gotta hold it back because it’s still just a supporting component. To you, as the musician… you might fall in love with it, wanna push it, take the opportunity to shine and generate some goosebumps. And, obviously, since you’re God’s gift to the world, you SHOULD. The composer was WRONG to hit you with a mp. Maybe the composer’s French Horns couldn’t lead with it, but they never envisioned your talent.

The trumpets shoot you a look to calm down? Fuck 'em. They always get the spotlight.

Having a structure with an ego to rule all egos helps (does NOT eliminate) these kinds of things.

At the highest levels of proficiency, knowing “when to play” doesn’t rreeaallyy require a conductor.

An orchestra of professionals mutates into this crazy combined organism. A hive mind, with thousands of signals being generated and consumed among the members. Negotiations all over the place.

The conductor stands in the front not just because it’s convenient, but because they’re in the best relative position to understand what the audience will ultimately hear. If I’m in percussion, positionally I’m getting a skewed take on the relative dynamics of the piccolos. As a professional, they’d have a good “gut feel”, but thier ears are simply not in the right spot to know for sure. The conductors are.

The acoustics of a performance space are drastically different when the seats are full of meat, too.

The conductor is acting as the source of truth and feedback for that hive mind, from a physical position which gives them the best understanding of the complete sound being produced. While professionals CAN do a very passable job of distributing that work, it’s an additional burden and with an imperfect set of inputs. Having one person set the tone and act as that authority frees up capacity on the individuals to do thier best work.

It’s incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to … crush the poor.

If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.

I feel like you think I’m not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.

I’m challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can’t even comprehend the premise. “I don’t want to get mashed up by a cart” necessarily translating to “I want to suppress the poor” should be setting off warning alarms that you’re not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.

I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it’d be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it’s mandatory.

Oh my god I’m still stewing over that exact same post. It’s been like a week.

Fine. The person operating the subway train. Should they be drunk? Should they have needed to demonstrate competency in operating a subway?

That’s entirely true.

But that’s still a double-edged sword we’re playing with.

If you want to run towards a an “inevitable conclusion” in the one direction (resegregation… undesirable… are you even alluding to genocide?)

I think it’s fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?

I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that’s actually more than half the battle. Doesn’t always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.

I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY’D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn’t to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.

Oh, I couldn’t tell you what the 2 things are. I don’t have a keen eye. I’m just waiting for someone who does.

A keen eye would pick up 2 subtle but clever additional references in the background and related to the specifications of those particular drives.

In university my entire dorm floor was in on insisting to my ex that it wasn’t “Big Bird”, but instead “Big Bert” (as opposed to regular sized bert)

It came up for the 100th time at a party, and I was like “go ahead, look it up” and was able to get in an edit JUST before the page load. “Big Bird (Or “Big Burt” for Canadian rebroadcast)”

It lasted for maybe 20 seconds, but it was all we needed.

You probably didn’t expect that comment to make me feel so old.

I thought it required energy to process wood into charcoal?

Carbon neutral?

I’m not sure if agree with your conclusion. You might conclude that they put great value on the deliciousness of thier food, but the relationship is inverse: less delicious = greater value.

People of of two cultures might both place high value on decorations, but one culture might view another’s style as tacky.

I was picturing a culture for whom food was strictly for nutrition.

Well, at the risk of being pedantic, you literally said:

food is just nutrition

I understand now what you intended to communicate (which is strictly different than what you said)

I got excited when I read what you said, because i thought you actually had an example of a culture for whom food is just nutrition. It’s a sci-fi trope that i find interesting because it is truly alien, and I’ve always wondered if any real culture fit that.

Even in puritan cultures that intentionally eat plain food to shun “hedonism”, food becomes a vehicle for virtue signaling. The suffering is a ritual practice. Food, even then, plays a critical cultural role.

I understand what you mean now. I’m just disappointed.

Food has ceremonial and ritual value in all of those places, it is not merely a vehicle for nutrition.

You guys

People keep making this broad assertion and then not following up.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but if there are many cultures for whom food is merely nutrition, could you name one?

From an anthropological standpoint, I’d be fascinated.

Like, this thread is full of jokes about how some cultures have shitty food, but that subjective assessment is very different than the idea that food’s mere purpose is nutrition. It implies it has no ceremonial use.

So, of the many, just even tell us one.