Template:Yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Digitalisation of data and the advances in ''information technology'' allow us to manipulate, desiccate, desecrate, defibrillate and duplicate our [[data]]. We can, in theory, handle ''any'' kind of syntactical complexity, optionality, or flexibility — if the [[algorithm]] is good enough, a machine can, instantly, ingest and process any textual construction, however dense. These are the tools we have available to us: with a simple cut-and-paste we can replicate, vary and augment at will. | Digitalisation of data and the advances in ''information technology'' allow us to manipulate, desiccate, desecrate, defibrillate and duplicate our [[data]]. We can, in theory, handle ''any'' kind of syntactical complexity, optionality, or flexibility — if the [[algorithm]] is good enough, a machine can, instantly, ingest and process any textual construction, however dense. These are the tools we have available to us: with a simple cut-and-paste we can replicate, vary and augment at will. ''But this is not to say we should''. This we call the [[Yngwie Malmsteen paradox|Yngwie Malmsteem paradox]]; [[Nigel Tufnel]] might have called it the [[Jazz paradox]]: Just because developments in guitar technology<ref>Scalloped frets, flat radii, locking tuners, rectified amplifiers etc.</ref> and technique mean you ''can'' play 64th note flattened mixolydian arpeggios at 200 bpm ([[Yngwie Malmsteen|Yngwie]]) or whole-tone improvisations using inverted variations of the #7aug13 chord (Jazz), ''doesn’t mean you should''. <br> | ||
''But this is not to say we should''. This we call the [[Yngwie Malmsteen paradox|Yngwie Malmsteem paradox]]; [[Nigel Tufnel]] might have called it the [[Jazz paradox]] | |||
:Just because developments in guitar technology<ref>Scalloped frets, flat radii, locking tuners, rectified amplifiers etc.</ref> and technique mean you ''can'' play 64th note flattened mixolydian arpeggios at 200 bpm ([[Yngwie Malmsteen|Yngwie]]) or whole-tone improvisations using inverted variations of the #7aug13 chord (Jazz), ''doesn’t mean you should''. <br> | |||
Revision as of 11:58, 2 July 2019
Digitalisation of data and the advances in information technology allow us to manipulate, desiccate, desecrate, defibrillate and duplicate our data. We can, in theory, handle any kind of syntactical complexity, optionality, or flexibility — if the algorithm is good enough, a machine can, instantly, ingest and process any textual construction, however dense. These are the tools we have available to us: with a simple cut-and-paste we can replicate, vary and augment at will. But this is not to say we should. This we call the Yngwie Malmsteem paradox; Nigel Tufnel might have called it the Jazz paradox: Just because developments in guitar technology[1] and technique mean you can play 64th note flattened mixolydian arpeggios at 200 bpm (Yngwie) or whole-tone improvisations using inverted variations of the #7aug13 chord (Jazz), doesn’t mean you should.
- ↑ Scalloped frets, flat radii, locking tuners, rectified amplifiers etc.