The Ethics of Barber Beats: A Recent Vaporwave Genre

By Vaporwave Casual (pseudonym)

“Barber Beats” is the name of a subgenre of vaporwave that has emerged in the past few years. Vaporwave is a genre that emerged in the 2010s, consisting of plentiful samples slowed down, combined, and chopped up, with added production effects and flourishes. (One commenter under Pad’s video – an overview video watched for this piece – described it as “just chopped and screwed for white people” if that helps.) I watched three recent Youtube videos on the history of this new subgenre: two documentaries (one 3-part) and one shorter video. I also pored over the comments to learn more, especially about the ethical issues people have with the genre. 

            While I did not know the name of the genre for a long time, like many people interviewed in these videos, I use it for homework and otherwise as background music. While a few songs here and there have caught my ears, I haven’t thought of the genre as “real music” per se. This is a lot of what made me not think to investigate it. 

            Many of the ethical issues discussed when Barber Beats is brought up – clear from the Youtube comments, especially on the video source that blew up the most – are part of its parent genre vaporwave. These ethical issues are the lack of clearance for samples and profiting off of them (especially profiting off music by Black and

 Asian artists), the controversial right-wing attitudes of several notable artists and listeners, the appropriative usage of Japanese aesthetics, and more recently, the genre’s receptiveness to AI. 

            The first issue has reportedly existed since the early vaporwave days but has become more vocal with Barber Beats. Barber Beats utilizes samples to an even larger degree than Vaporwave originally did: some are just entirely an obscure song slowed down with different production than the original. Some Barber Beats creators do not use the term “artist” (Pad’s video), or lightheartedly balk at the title (OSCOB – “Barber Night Delight”). There is a general self-consciousness and guilt that seems to underlie the fact that the music is “stolen”: many Barber Beats creators would put disclaimers in their Bandcamp bios stating the music is “plundered”/”stolen”. In the documentaries when asked directly some associated with the scene attempt to justify this by saying that Youtube’s song claim system sends the money to the original artists, and that they don’t upload to Spotify to avoid infringing on the original artists’ profits. (There is also of course the fact that Spotify might remove their work for plagiarism.) While sometimes the songs are claimed, especially on the channel that I have used to listen to this music, often songs are not claimed at all and I have no idea who made the original, hence my ignorance of this fact for so long. It is also controversial that some people have begun releasing their tracks physically for money, with the releasers crossing their fingers that no one copyright claims their wares. Some do directly acknowledge that their music is heavily sampled and do not monetize it; others such as Rombreaker and Mabisyo eventually began to make original music in the genre, or like Telenights have always made original music. And some do credit their samples in the descriptions of their videos (being a mostly online genre that has only recently begun to make forays into the physical world). 

Many directly oppose the characterization of the sampled music as “lazy” or not adding value. Defenders say that Barber Beats makers introduce people to music they would never hear otherwise. Copyright law is often archaic and unhelpful, and the job of a Barber Beats maker is to “recontextualize” the music with its visuals – some argue it’s not even a music genre. 

            These visuals often draw on very masculine images of Greco-Roman statues, or anime artwork. The majority of the images show men or if they show women they are sexualized in some manner. While there are some explicitly female Barber Beats artists such as dudette division, many put forward a masculine-coded image. Like Vaporwave, the idea is to evoke feelings of nostalgia and complex wistful emotions. The genre is also strongly in favor of anonymity so its exact makeup is unknown. This additionally helps artists escape any heat for their political beliefs. The first Barber Beats artist, Haircuts for Men, had his right-wing political beliefs revealed in 2020 and has garnered controversy. Vaporwave unfortunately has a not insignificant association with the right wing and fascism and this carries on that legacy. However, some artists such as Modest By Default use explicitly leftist imagery and titles – MBD’s “Curse of Colonialism” series uses images of various Global South freedom fighters as album covers.

            Both the smaller documentaries I viewed were created by Barber Beats supporters – one fan and one artist. The creators and interviewers noted the positive impact the genre has had on their lives. Several of those interviewed who were white men talked about how it helped them through tough times, and/or serves as a creative outlet. While this is especially good due to the toxic constraints of masculinity many men face, that white men especially may indulge in unhealthy mechanisms to excise, it does not erase the fact that the genre makes liberal use of Black and Asian artists’ music in the name of “aesthetics”. Many artists carry on the vaporwave tradition of using Japanese text (often through translation software) for their song and album titles, which a non-fan commenter described as “tired”. There has also been a friendliness towards the use of AI artwork and I unknowingly listened to at least one AI album (I believe AI is unethical and I would prefer not to interact with anything made by it).

            Overall, I think I will be more carefully considering which artists from the genre I use for homework music in the future, keeping it to originals. A caveat is that I’m not deep in the scene so these are all criticisms that have been brought up before for years; nothing particularly exciting. The documentaries are linked below. 

The Controversial Music Genre of Barber Beats by Pad Chennington https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxp4Qos39Zo

BARBERGEDDON – A Barber Beats Documentary (Parts 1 – 3: first three videos in playlist) by UNDERSAKEN

Barber Night Delight ft. Macroblank – A Vaporwave Documentary by matsby/Enzo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMGZDNDgE

The Righteousness of Punishment

By Joey Lewis

CONTENT WARNING FOR MENTIONS OF PRISON AND SLAVERY.

Long ago, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to mortals, and that changed the world forever. Now, let’s put aside the morality of Prometheus’ actions, and step into Zeus’ sandals for a moment. If you’re Zeus, you’re very unhappy. Your so-called ally just disrespected your authority, stole your stuff, and gave it to someone else. He was already quick to betray the Titans, your old enemy. Will he betray you as well? Topple everything that you and your family fought so hard to achieve? You decide Prometheus cannot be trusted; he’s a dangerous liability. 

 So you bind him with indestructible chains, lashed to a stone on a mountaintop indefinitely. At this point, you’ve already won—Prometheus won’t be stealing anything for as long as he’s chained up there. You can simply walk away, move on. To live in the world that traitor created, and accept it.

            Instead, you send an eagle to eat his liver every day for all of eternity. You give him a fate of endless suffering. Why?

            Perhaps you wanted to send a message, and because titans can’t be killed, this is your next best option. But maybe it’s more personal…

            Humans have been writing of revenge for as long as we’ve been telling stories. This is because revenge does happen, but also because it’s comforting. Humans have an inherent sense of justice, no matter how misguided, we often act upon it. Create systems of arbitration. Build prisons. Hold executions. 

And then we go further—weave justice into the very fabric of the universe, or at least the universe as we see it. Heaven and Hell, Elysium and Tartarus, Svarga and Naraka. Or my personal favorite, Anubis, who would weigh your heart against a feather. If it was heavy with sin, he’d feed it to Ammit. No matter the religion, death is no escape from justice.

The systems and mythologies of justice are, in my view, products of fear. Specifically, the greatest fear is to be at the mercy of someone or something else. That great harm can come to you, and not only would you be powerless to stop it, but the perpetrators could live happily ever after. That no consequences would ring out across their lives, as if your suffering was a meaningless chapter in their story. To be robbed of your agency, even in death. 

            The gallows aren’t just a deterrent, but an equalizer. Come and see the execution, today at noon! We shall gather in the town square, and jeer at the man whose every step is undercut with the clack of shackles, whose red and tear-stricken face is framed by the noose. And when the lever is pulled, we shall rejoice in the flailing of feet, in the purpling of face, and every killer and rapist and heretic shall be assured that their fate will be the same. 

            Of course, due to developments in social scientific understanding, views on crime are far less unilateral. Social instability, addiction, lack of opportunities—crime is looking increasingly to be an issue of policymaking rather than individual moral failings. I don’t want to shift all the blame away from individuals, but the range of decisions a person is willing or able to do is greatly influenced by their circumstances. And let’s not forget that the justice system is one of those circumstances; the fear of punishment is a deterrent. No matter how humane it is, nobody wants to go to prison.

            Yet I’ve seen people argue otherwise. Some people believe that some would kill a family of five for a lifetime of room and board at a Norwegian prison, which is a statement of either the terminally insane or the terminally online. Regardless, these types of arguments are the justifications of those who defend America’s current prison system and the death penalty; That the greatest defense against crime is not to empower, but to instill fear.
            I can’t help but think that there might be another motivation slinking just beneath the surface. To celebrate the violence of prison gangs, the retribution of damnation, all “because they deserved it” is nothing but an emotional indulgence. Occasionally I’ll see a news article about some murderer released or paroled, and people will comment something along the lines of “I can’t believe he only got twenty years.” Instead of asking “Has he paid for what he’s done,” why don’t they ask “Will he kill again?” 

            Justice is a social technology, and this is its ultimate, material purpose: To prevent violence. Not just physical violence, but psychological violence, such as harassment, or financial violence, such as burglary. The US prison system, with its abysmal recidivism rates, is not optimized for this. Prisoners should have adequate shelter and nutrition, should be protected from inter-inmate violence, and should receive education, counseling, and psychiatric help as needed. If someone is set to eventually be released from prison, then they should be released as a better person, one who will not want or need to commit any violence for the rest of their life. 

Instead, prisons are intended to be punishment. And to some, punishment of the wicked is righteous in itself. These people find the conditions of a Norwegian prison appalling. “Why should they get anything? They had their chance, now they must pay.”  And the owners of private prisons nod along in agreement as they profit from the labor of convicts and grow fat on livers. “It’s fine if they work for pennies on the dollar. It’s what they deserve.”

Deserve. That’s an interesting word. Who among us can say what someone deserves as a consequence of wrongdoing? It might seem simple, and sometimes, it is. Mishandle a gun, and you lose your gun. Commit a DUI, and you get a license suspension. What’s the commonality here? Prevention. Yes, there are punishments—fines and short prison sentences to deter. But the main goal should be preventing the perpetrator from making the same mistake by teaching them an important lesson, revoking privileges, or both.

But is being sent to prison not the ultimate revokement of privilege? The privilege of freedom, of adequate food and security of your person? The privilege of social company? Of freedom from slavery? Yes, and it’s all a gross violation of rights. It’s not uncommon for people to be wrongfully convicted, but that’s not my concern here. A murderer is just as harmless in a Norwegian prison cell as they are in an American one (assuming the prison guards are doing their job properly). Why go the extra mile? Why send an eagle when they’re already chained? 

Especially because sometimes, the guilty don’t stay guilty and the innocent don’t stay innocent. Stealing fire from the gods can be illegal one day, then universally praised the next. There was a time when you could get ten years for possessing marijuana. These days, it’s legal in 24 states. Or it used to be legal to kill, as long as the victim was your slave. Marital rape only became illegal in 1993, and homosexuality was legalized in 2003. 

How can anyone decide on an adequate punishment for a crime if we can’t consistently define or quantify evil? How can we weigh the hearts of mortals if we are mortals?

Yet people still clamor to play the role of Anubis. I see this in conservative-minded people, but also the more progressive. There is a feeling as of late, something that doesn’t have to be said, because you can feel it. In the weather. In your paycheck. In the eyes of the youth. We are all living through a great injustice, and no matter your exact political affiliation, most blame the rich and powerful as the cause. Not wrongly so. 

And these contemporary revolutionaries call for the guillotine. Can they not foresee? Is it too dark there, in the shadow of Robespierre? Liberation does not mean vengeance, it means taking power away from those who use it to hurt others. It means getting everyone to rethink how we as a society distribute power, about how we make decisions. It means collective action and mass public pressure, civil disobedience, and new systems to iterate on the old. It might also mean bloodshed, but pray it does not. Violent revolution is only for those who are backed into a corner. If a civil war comes, then I suggest you get a head start and begin mourning the dead. It won’t be the glorious revolution you may imagine.

I’d like to end this by telling another myth—a contemporary one. I need not name an example, for it is so common that you likely already know it. It tells of a hero who suffered a great injustice and went on a quest for revenge. In doing so, they caused great harm to others and themselves. Blood is shed, and the injustice is not undone. It can never be undone. The hero realized that their quest wasn’t driven by a desire to save others from the same injustice, but to hurt others, because the hero was in pain. And so, in the end, the hero chose to better the world—to liberate, not avenge.

Some Thoughts on the Weaponization of Paranoia Against Leftists

By G. Eggle (Pseudonym)

CONTENT WARNING FOR MENTION(S) OF UNREALITY, GASLIGHTING, DRUGS, SLAVERY.

When thinking of paranoia, media images of people babbling about the government watching them may come to mind. Yet this is exactly a line of reasoning used against people, particularly people of color who are/were activists, to discredit their fears of surveillance often legitimized by their anti-government activities, and their knowledge of subtle and complicated government activities intended to harm others. For example, many governments in the Global South, particularly well-known in Latin America, have had political figures overthrown or sponsored by the U.S. government, yet many people in the United States would likely label this as “a conspiracy”. Other examples include phenomena of surveillance through mobile phones, such as activists’ communications and online activity being monitored by organizations such as the FBI (which similarly has evidence). 

Paranoia as a highly stigmatized aspect of mental illness also acts a double whammy for many people who have had struggles with substance abuse in the past, as there are several substances that can worsen paranoia significantly (ex. crack cocaine, amphetamines such as adderall). Many houseless people can have this struggle on top of their houselessness. This can make it harder for people to get help for the multiple struggles that they face. It also plays a part in the stigma of particular mental illnesses/neurodivergencies such as Borderline Personality Disorder, where paranoia can present as a symptom. In general, the stigmatization of paranoia and its weaponization serves to complete the same functions as usual: isolating and increasing the suffering of marginalized people, as marginalized people tend to have the most reason to oppose the government. 

The fact that paranoia has been used to pathologize people’s legitimate facts and knowledge also can create a more frightening and disorienting space for someone entering leftism. Particularly if they have struggled with it in the past, it can be very upsetting (as an understatement) learning that things that you have had to reassure yourself are “not real” in the constant attempt to keep yourself mentally tethered could in fact be real in some cases. This is not to say that every fear a paranoid person has had in the past is true, and this article is not intended to distribute medical advice, but to recount some aspects of personal experience and acknowledge the difficult and scary aspects of the situation. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that what is a “reasonable” vs. an “unreasonable” fear is highly subject to all the usual -isms that all things are subject to. Identity-related fears, such as the fear of surveillance as an activist of color, fear of attack for a large variety of marginalized people, fear of getting sick for immunocompromised people, etc., may be not taken seriously in some cases for these reasons – they are seen by white, able-bodied, cisgender, and such therapists as “unreasonable” since they have not experienced these things, heard about them, or been at risk of them. As usual, medical literature has drawn from the experiences of mostly white, able-bodied, cisgender men, and decisions about what is reasonable is based on their experiences and the desires of the state (suppression of dissent and critical thinking). 

Additionally, this opens the wider conversation about what neurodivergent traits are seen as “acceptable” or “relatable” particularly by highly regulated (along the lines of acceptability, popularity, etc.) spheres such as social media but also within interpersonal relationships. While this is a much larger conversation, it is clear from the examples above that paranoia generally does not fall into those categories. But why? As hinted at above, it is likely that some of the stigmatization of paranoia in general comes from the fact that it is stereotyped as involving anti-government theories (while this is not always the case in real life). Those in power have something to gain in their attempts to delegitimize people by weaponizing medical diagnoses – as historically done against marginalized groups with examples such as “hysteria” against women and pathologizing U.S. slaves’ desire for freedom, and continues to be done today – against them. This pressure also serves to isolate those people, distancing them from others, from both potential help if they are suffering and from potential community and comrades to believe them, and take action against the injustice or atrocity that they are aware has been committed. 

Due to the constraints of the pamphlet this was a very sparse overview of the topic. In general, though, it’s to ask you to think about what “conspiracy theories” you believe related to government activities – those that you do believe as a leftist, and those that you do not, and to think about your reactions to the people who voice them. And, outside of government-related theories, to (re)think about your reactions and thoughts on paranoid people in general. 

Find Native Plants in Your Eco-Region!

By G.P. (Pseudonym)

Reading recommendations for figuring out what native plants are in your eco-region!

 EPA’s Ecoregions Level Map to find your region: https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states

bplant.org, after you find your region go to this site to see what native plants historically have lived there. https://bplant.org/

From Instagram account @yardfarmer.co .

The Politics of Hating Your Professor

By Bixby (Pseudonym)

A common sentiment found here at Wooster that always catches me off guard is this intense vitriol towards professors. Students will casually and angrily speak about how they were given so much homework or an inconvenient office hours time, always with an anger that far outpaces my own towards professors. So, I wanted to try and figure out: what gives?

In my opinion, there are several reasons that students may feel entirely justified in unleashing intense frustrations at their professors. 1, Professors make a lot of money; 2, students are stressed in pretty much all interactions with professors; and 3, professors are authority figures.

The first can be a difficult question. How much money do professors make at Wooster?

According to univstats.com, professors at COW made an average of $74,902 in 2022 (increasing 3.92 percent from 2021). This was higher than the national average of four-year colleges, the national average, and the Ohio average. However, this actual salary varies by type of professor. Across 4 ranks – Professor, Associate, Assistant, and Instructor – the range was $94,329 to $53,686. According to this same site, in 2022 Wooster had the least Instructors (5), followed by Professors (52), then Associate Professors (48, and the most Assistant Professors at 71. .You’ve probably noticed by the rapidly shifting staff, including one-year partnerships, in many departments. According to Forbes, the average annual salary in the U.S. for 2022 was $59,428, which is higher than the instructor salary and almost level with the Assistant Professor average salary of $62,031. So it sounds like most of the faculty should be doing just fine. 

The other thing to discuss, though, is the scam of salaries. Essentially salaries pay you a fixed amount per pay period, regardless of your hours or your overtime. As such, salaried employees can be subject to and fully expected to engage in massive workloads and work hours, and in the current internet age, also be expected to reply to work communications around the clock outside of work. Understandably, though, professors’ work hours differ highly based on their institution, their students, and their environment. For example, a 2018 Atlantic article drew anecdotal data from professors’ responses to a tweet saying professors worked over 60 hours a week on average. Many professors disagreed, saying they worked the U.S. standard of 40 hours, while others concurred with the original. One tweet where a professor implied to graduate students that working less than 60 hours a week was not enough reveals that institutions and academia culture in general can exert a strong pressure to work ludicrous hours. Others discussed if enjoying their work made it “work” (a discussion for another day…). 

However, workload also varies based on one’s identity. A 2016 paper by Dave A. Louis and five others details the plight that Black faculty often face at white-dominated institutions, where their personal resources are sapped with abandon by the institution as they are expected to serve on cultural committees, provide informal mentoring and support to Black students and their peers, and cope with microaggressions. This all increases their workload and decreases the relative value of their salary. 

While the question of if professors’ salaries are proportionate to their work doesn’t have a conclusive answer, due to the vast differences in experiences across institutions and personhoods, there is certainly evidence that your professor could be under this kind of pressure.

Secondly, students are stressed in nearly every interaction they have with professors. Even ignoring the constant, underlying stress that many of us feel at college while school is in session, interactions with professors typically involve questions about assignments, deadlines, requests for extensions, the announcement of a new assignment, and just general work that directly increases our stress levels. Interlocking with the fact that teachers are authority figures who hold vast power over students with GPAs, referral power, etc., and students are forced to pay disproportionate attention to those things, it can make perfect sense to want to rail against them for the power they hold

Under capitalism, though, many people both have and do not have power. Professors do have considerable power over students and there are many instances where they have exercised that power to continue students’ oppression under the school system. Before college, many students have faced trauma through the school system, and may already have a justified anger or wariness towards them. But professors are also governed by stringent regulations on content and time, intense overwork pressure from academia, general institutional rules, and tricky regulations around unionization access – for example, professors above a certain rank not being allowed to unionize due to being classified as “administrative staff” (insidehighered.com…). And some professors have been leftist allies throughout history and around us now, supporting students in the fight against oppression, either directly such as through protest or indirectly (such as supporting a student who is struggling with things beyond their control, and teaching students information they need to know despite numerous attempts by the state to obscure that information).

In my opinion, professors function similarly to many positions of power in workplaces, where they have the chance to protect their workers (students) as much as they can within their binds, or they can simply turn the other way. It really depends on the individual professor (including of course if they spew violent rhetoric). Now that you have this extra context… it’s up to you to decide what you feel are the ethics of it.

Sources

https://www.univstats.com/salary/the-college-of-wooster/faculty/

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/average-salary-by-state/

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/02/how-hard-do-professors-actually-work/552698/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/14/federal-appellate-court-decision-could-make-it-harder-adjuncts-form-unions

Louis et. al, 2016, Journal of Black Studies: “Listening to Our Voices: Experiences of Black Faculty at Predominantly White Research Universities With Microaggression.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0021934716632983 .