Yngwie Malmsteen paradox: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


{{Yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule}}
{{Yngwie malmsteen paradox capsule}}
{{sa}}
*[[Reg tech]] and why it is so disappointing — due in part, by analogy, to [[Yngwie Malmsteen]].
{{ref}}

Revision as of 09:27, 26 June 2019

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Yngwie yesterday. Ok: yesteryear, at any rate.
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.
Towards more picturesque speech
SEC guidance on plain EnglishIndex: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

Also known as the Jazz paradox, the Yngwie Malmsteen paradox addresses the power of technology make our lives easier, by making them harder.

Modern information technology allows us to freely manipulate, desiccate, desecrate, defibrillate and duplicate data. A good enough algorithm can, in theory, handle any kind of syntactical complexity, costlessly ingesting and processing the densest textual construction. With a simple cut-and-paste we can replicate, vary and augment at will. But this generates what we call the “Yngwie Malmsteen paradox[1]: Just because guitar technology[2] means you can play 64th note flattened mixolydian arpeggios at 200 bpm doesn’t mean you should.

See also

References

  1. Spinal Tap’s Nigel Tufnel might have called it the “Jazz paradox
  2. Scalloped frets, flat radii, locking tuners, rectified amplifiers etc.