Polymetric Crossrhythm as Aliasing

or Why Carriage Wheels in Westerns Appear to Rotate Backwards and What That Has to Do with Global-Southern Music and Digital Signal Processing

There is a great deal of debate in music-theory circles about what the term ‘polymeter’ means. I’m going to ignore this and use my (and a few other people’s) definition. Polymeter, to me, is when two musical streams have the same smallest subdivision in common but have different numbers of that subdivision making up one cycle.

I was just listening to Fodé Seydou Bangoura’s music when I heard yet another delightful polymeter, which I’ll call crossrhythm so that fewer people stop reading this post in anger.

In this crossrhythm, the background meter is some multiple of 3. (Whether it’s exactly 3, 6, or 12 doesn’t matter for the present purpose; it only changes the arithmetic a little, with essentially the same result.

Over this background is a solo that, given the tones and accents, has phrases in groupings of four subdivisions. I call this a polymeter; I think many people call it one type of crossrhythm. More importantly, it is what we call aliasing in digital signal processing (DSP).

Here’s how (and why):

If one stream has groupings of three, like so:

1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1

and the other has groupings of four:

1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4

and the former only “looks up” to check where the latter is each time it’s back at 1, then here’s what it sees of the second line:

1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1

1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4

which, given only when the base rhythm “looks up” at the other, is like this:

1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1___2___3___1

1___________4___________3___________2___________1___________4

The act of “looking up” each time the base rhythm gets to one is equivalent to the human eye’s (probably, the neural circuitry’s, rather) rate of perception (sampling). Since we can’t see as fast as the spokes of the wheels on a horse-drawn carriage spin, we see the spokes at each time point we’re able to take a visual sample, just like the first rhythm taking a sort of “downbeat sample” and seeing the second rhythm going slowly backwards: 1, 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, …

If you know DSP, you must have noticed that my example is the opposite of actual aliasing. In signal processing, when the signal we are trying to capture has higher-frequency components than how fast we can sample, we see those high-frequency components folded down to lower frequencies. To match this, the music example should look more like the following.

1___2___3___4___5___1___2___3___4___5___1___2___3___4___5___1

1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4

However, in this case, the perceived second stream is simple going very slowly, not going backwards the way the spokes do in the westerns. For that, we just need a bigger difference between the reference rhythm and the overlaid one.

1___2___3___4___5___6___7___1___2___3___4___5___6___7___1

1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4___1___2___3___4

Now we see the “spokes” slowly turning in the opposite direction: 1, 4, 3, …

When I set out the write this post, I didn’t realize that there would be some cases in which the slow (aliased) rhythmic stream would meet the reference meter without the reversal of direction. Does this happen in aliasing in DSP? It does: Aliased components show up in both positive- and negative-frequency basebands. But that doesn’t seem to answer my question because they combine to form one real-valued low-frequency signal.

I think the answer is that whenever signals (rhythms, turning wheels) are periodic and there is a phase relationship between two such entities, that phase relationship is modulo-2π: If you switch where you look up or down the cyclic waveform, you’ll see the phase shift moving forward or moving backward.

A better answer, perhaps, is that the crossrhythm examples are akin to passband sampling, where a communications signal is modulated up to a band with a lower and an upper bandlimit but the Nyquist requirement is a lot nicer than the usual more-than-doble-the-highest-frequency but simply more than double the bandwidth. In that case, I expect to see the wagon wheels going forward as well as backward, depending on which end of the band we are close to.

Regarding Short-Sighted Critiques of Decolonial and Postcolonial Efforts

Recently, I’ve found myself exasperated by the infighting among well-intentioned academicians who ought to be on the same side, especially at times like these.

The criticism of decolonial scholarship for being written in English is absurd, not the least because the go-to solution is often to expand the discourse to the languages of Latin America, by which what is meant is Spanish and Portuguese … which of course have nothing to do with colonialism at all!

Even overlooking that big problem for the moment, do these critics not see the “turtles” aspect of their hopeless attempt? Even if we expanded decolonial scholarship so as to always also be printed in Spanish and Portuguese (plus Dutch and French, so as not to leave out Suriname and French Guyana), won’t we soon be critiquing that, in turn, as lacking representation from the world’s Arab speakers, Persian speakers, Central Asian Turkic speakers, Swahili speakers, Oromo speakers, Hausa speakers, Manding speakers, Igbo speakers, Urdu speakers, Hindi speakers, Tamil speakers, Ainu speakers, Lao speakers, and on and on? (And if mattered so much, shouldn’t the push be for publishing in Quechua, Kakchiquel, Guarani, Garifuna, etc.?)

Pointing fingers in this way, i.e., making oneself look oh-so-meta while deadlocking useful discourse, seems self-serving to me—serving the global-northern academics who are doing it.

On that note, while some of my work has received this and one other types of critique for being colonialist from white academics, I think it says more that scholars from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, and Nigeria are comfortable enough with my work to make use of it in theirs.

(Does the last paragraph constitute self-promotion? Yes, but without putting someone else down and even promoting others. We’re not in a zero-sum game.)

Some Pesky Subgenres

No one dared or wanted to admit it at the time, but Nü Metal and Grunge had quite a bit in common.

What’s my positional framework for this claim?

I’m making this claim from just the simple heavy-rock’n’roll perspective; I don’t even have to go to a global-southern perspective to say this.

In terms of the appearances, geographic origins, and the preferred foundational cultural elements of the bands associated with Grunge in the ’90s and with Nü Metal in the aughts (and late ’90s), most critics I was aware of, as well as I and the other music-obsessed people around me, saw these subgenres of heavy rock as utterly distinct. Perhaps this was because I had lived and continued to live in the PNW. It’s hard to imagine a Portlander in 2005 daring to say Korn and Gas Huffer were very alike in any way, musically or otherwise.

There was always SYSTEM OF A DOWN, whom no one could resist being in awe of, but they were seen as an exception. Here in the PNW, people tended to look down on Nü Metal. Perhaps we were still resentful that Melvins had not become a national phonemenon. (Perhaps most were glad Melvins didn’t inadvertently sell out, as all bands who happen to succeed and live long enough to enjoy it are said to have done.)

Imagine if Kurt hadn’t killed himself. But I digress.

I noticed this aural similarity most when a lesser-known band called The Union Underground became my obsession for a while in the mid-aughts. The artwork (the “aesthetic”) and the timing was pure Nü Metal. The sound, though, was not entirely so. If you ignored the release date and the artwork — few people can do this — it sounded like it came from the heyday of Grunge. What stood out to me musically was not drop-D tuning and a scattering of Hip Hop elements. This was much more closely an offspring of Pixies, Melvins, and Gruntruck than of Shootyz Groove, follow FOR NOW, and Ice-T.

I’m probably an aural purist. Many more people, in my experience, view music as a broader phenomenon. They see the outfits, hairstyles, cover art, and other forms of expression and identity, including ethnicity and lifestyle, as part of what makes an artist Punk and not Pop, Industrial and not Hip Hop. I’m thinking of Avril Lavigne and Consolidated, respectively. Starting with the latter, Consolidated has mostly been considered an Industrial act by fans and promoters. What they do in their music is to use samplers (I know this from meeting and talking to one of them outside the context of music) and to rap. It seems to me there’s some serious pigeonholing of Hip Hop by the industry (if not also the fans) when Eminem is part of Hip Hop without a doubt, but white guys who rap about veganism, feminism, and immigration while criticizing bullying, homophobia, and mysoginy over samples are labeled Industrial rockers, not Hip Hop MCs. If we were honest, we would at least, then, include PUBLIC ENEMY in the Industrial bucket. But no, it’s all about your race, not your lyrics, instruments, or style of music.

In the case of Avril Lavigne, I keep trying to find a song of hers that sounds like Punk Rock to me. It’s the same with the “punk idol” of my generation, Billy Idol. He sneers. He was in Generation X, who sang about drinking and stuff. He wears spikes and studs, maybe even a Mohawk. He must be punk, right?

Heck, I like several of his songs; I totally enjoy BLUE HIGHWAY, DAYTIME DRAMA, EYES WITHOUT A FACE, REBEL YELL, and CRADLE OF LOVE.

I just don’t think those songs have anything to do with Punk Rock the genre. And it’s not that I don’t count it if it’s not by Sex PisTOLS, X-Ray Spex, SUB HUM ANS, or CRASS. I’m happy to include The Stranglers, The Jam, and pre-Punk punky bands like The SONICS, DEATH, MC5, and New York Dolls (heck, Green Day, too) among what I consider “punk”… (though I draw the line at that blinky band).

And Punk Rock is an excellent example of how much lifestyle and philosophy matter. It could be a way to pursuade me that I’m wrong. I realize there’s more to punk than distortion, speed, and some sort of a British working-class accent, whether real or fake. Punk is DIY. Punk is community. Punk is—no, briefly was nonconformity. Videos of the very early days of punk reveal people in myriad creative DIY garb that reaches far beyond safety pins, fishnets, and dyed glued hair. You see sparkly dresses and garbage-bag dresses, both groups fully integrated with the earliest and less conspicuous users of safety pins—out of necessity, not fashion.

So… Did The Union Underground play any Grunge? I say they did, and to a notable extent. Did Billy Idol, Avril Lavigne, or Miley Cyrus make any Punk Rock? They probably did at some point, but I haven’t heard it yet. Are they punks? I don’t know. Since Fat Mike opened a punk museum in Vegas, it doesn’t even matter. Who would have thought LINKIN PARK would have the final word.

Anyway, what made me think of this stuff all over again was listening to VERMILIOIN PT. 2 on SlipknoT‘s awesome VOL. 3: (THE SUBLIMINAL VERSES). I don’t think that song counts as Metal of any kind except probably Grunge.

Three Observations along the Lines of the Ones I Made Earlier about Dog Poop and Parking[1]


  1. If you wishcycle[2], your bicycling-instead-of-driving is canceled out.
  2. If you have a Spotify plan, your posts in support of small or indie artists are canceled out.
  3. If you shop on amazon, your critique of just about any -ism is canceled out.

PS: Why are people wearing chin masks? Outdoors, walking alone, not talking on the phone, with a mask on his chin only… Is it to protect shaving cuts?


[1] As a reminder:

If you leave your dog poop on the African American church’s yard (the one with the “Be a good neighbor. Pick up after your dog.” signs), your BLM sticker is canceled out.

If you park your electric vehicle squarely in or diagonally across the bike lane (taking up a parking space, the bike lane, and part of the right lane), your environmental karma is canceled out. (The diagonal version has become more common in Capitol Hill this fall. People are quitting the parallel-parking process halfway through.)

[2] Both in the five apartment buildings I’ve lived in in Seattle and in all the buildings I visit on campus, people are putting these two items in the recycling bins far too often: plastic bags (classic wishcycling) and burritos (what the…). Congratulations, you’ve ruined another batch. (And a batch is the size of a semi trailer.)

The Latest from the Department of Redundancy Department

I can’t say for sure why I care; maybe it’s because I learned English as a second language. We worked very hard on making our written and spoken English flawless. And that was what our teachers genuinely seemed to want for us. So, now, when I observe native speakers of English make the mistakes that my classmates and I would have lost a lot of points for, I feel bitter and annoyed — the latter because it’s really not that difficult to do better.

One increasingly common redundancy I’ve been observing is ‘collaborate together’.

Why say this?! You cannot collaborate alone; togetherness is built into the meaning of the word. The “co” means ‘together’. So, “collaborate” means ‘work together’. Are we worried that others are not going to understand? Is it because no one trusts anyone else to know the meanings of words? If so, this behavior is making it worse.

There is also the 2025 favorite, “Welcome in!”

What else could it be but “in”? I suppose you could welcome people to your garden party by saying “Welcome outside!” (or “Welcome out!”), but that’s awkward; you wouldn’t say that. In any case, how many shopkeepers are welcoming people somewhere outdoors? Welcoming is almost always for when someone enters, not exits. Is “welcome” too plain?

That brings me to the next one: “Enter into…”

What the heck? When’s the last time you saw anyone enter out of someplace?

Mini Book Review: Doc or Quack

I saw the 2025 book Doc or Quack: Science and Anti-Science in Modern Medicine (by Sander L. Gilman, on Reaktion Books, UK) and thought I had to read it right away.

It seems like a well-researched work, but 70 pages in, I think there needs to be a re-edited or re-written edition because, so far, it is a collection of historical information the point of which is unclear. In fact, the point the author is trying to make—at least, the impression I have of what point the author is trying to make—keeps shifting. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that there are little to no connecting phrases between sentences: no ‘therefore’, ‘nonetheless’, ‘despite’, ‘moreover’, ‘yet’, ‘furthermore’, ‘similarly’, ‘in contrast’, ‘unlike’, ‘having said that’, etc. The sentences that seem to be taking us in different directions follow one another (at least for the first 70 pages) without any indication of what the author wants us to make of them.

What I’ve been able to work out is that the definition of ‘quack’ was at best arbitrary and at worst entirely based on power. I was aided in reaching this conclusion by having read half a dozen other books on the history of medicine. Those other books claimed quite clearly that so-called mainstream medicine did more harm than good prior to the twentieth century. This helps me try to nail down what the author is getting at, but I cannot be certain I’m not misunderstanding because every two or three sentences, he seems to be heading off in a new direction.

For instance, the passages discussing how the Third Reich planned to make homeopathy part of their “legitimate” institution of medicine (and then got distracted) have come up a couple of times without any clear explanation of what the author is getting at by bringing up that history.Reaktion Books needs to take another editorial pass through this work, which promises to be very enlightening, but fails to be decipherable.

quick note…

Books, music, and TV in 2025: There has been unusually good stuff lately for me. I’m just going to mention them by name and give some quick impressions. I don’t know if I’ll write reviews later, but definitely not now.

NONFICTION BOOK: Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value (Julian Johnson): brilliant, thorough, balanced, enjoyable.

NONFICTION BOOK: Epistemic Injustice: Power & the Ethics of Knowing (Miranda Fricker): precise and thorough.

NONFICTION MUSIC-INSTRUCTION BOOK: Decoding Afro-Cuban Jazz: The Music of Chucho Valdés & Irakere (Chucho Valdés & Rebeca Mauleón).

FICTION BOOK: A Closed and Common Orbit (Becky Chambers): a marvelous treatment of questions of personhood and consciousness, perhaps up there with Hofstadter & Dennett’s The Mind’s I.

“TV” SHOW: LUCIFER (NETFLIX): The best-concluded show I’ve ever seen: It’s not my favorite show ever (probably my third, definitely in my top five), but it is the most satisfying way to complete a show I’ve yet seen (better than my favorite show, Babylon 5, and my second-favorite show, The Good Place).

LIVE MUSIC: Helmet, at the Crocodile, Wednesday, March 5, 2025: I didn’t know music could be this heavy and be this tight. I do believe there was exactly one bad note in that whole performance. And Helmet is definitely even better live than in the studio (I now think) because having the vocals take a back seat and having the guitars and the perfect drummer for this band be so up front in the mix made the music better in a way I could not have imagined previously.

RECORDED MUSIC: I’m slowly getting familiar with and really digging ONDA by (Korean band) Jambinai. Check them out if you like originality and surprise in your rock music.

Cafeteria Evil

I’m so done with Seattle.

It was only 2.5 years ago that I went from merely being excited about living in Seattle to really feeling like this is home—I belong here—to feeling like I love it here.

My job, the neighborhood, the buildings downtown, all the lakes and what-not that are so reminiscent of the Bosphorus, being in a city again—I loved it all. But no more. Living in Capitol Hill, seemingly the world capital of inconsiderate jerks, has worn me out.

What’s more, Seattle is also the epicenter of so much that’s wrong with “America” today. Not all that’s wrong, and by far not the worst of what’s wrong, but we are the enablers of the greater wrongs.

What has primarily chipped away at my love and like of Seattle has been the fake goodness. It doesn’t matter how many BLACK LIVES MATTER stickers and rainbow flags you display if you park your Rivian in the parking lot of the African American church on Sunday when it’s not open to public parking (and you don’t go in); if you don’t pick up your dog’s poop from the same church’s front lawn (right next to the signs they put up that say “Be a good neighbor. Pick up after your dog.”); if you park your Nazimobile (you know which one that is) right across a crosswalk, fully blocking the curbcut (blocking wheelchair access) or the bike lane; if you cannot wait 15 seconds for the car in front of you to parallel-park and must launch into oncoming traffic, nearly hitting a pedestrian in the process; if you come to a four-way stop and, seeing the other three cars stopped, go right through without waiting your turn; if you can’t make room for the single pedestrian or the wheelchair coming toward you as you and your friends walk three abreast and take up the whole sidewalk, forcing the other person to squish themselves against a tree or a wall (or, if they’re in a wheelchair, stop and yell “Excuse me” three times before you’ll notice); or if you can’t once be bothered to greet your neighbor who greets you every time you run into each other outside the elevator.

If you can’t do the little things that simply constitute common decency, then it doesn’t matter how you voted or how many rainbow flags and BLM stickers you display: You can’t care for abstract strangers (poor people, Black people, non-tech immigrants, people in wartorn countries, etc.) if you can’t be bothered to be merely decent to your neighbors.

Seattle has become a place for the good-and-evil buffet where you can choose any combination of symbolic virtues and practical evils you can: You continue using amazon because it’s ten cents cheaper. Never mind that you have a mid-six-figure salary! That dime you can save is more important than doing what’s right (supporting local stores and brick-and-mortar bookstores* or resisting a multi-monopoly). Or you ignore and disrespect the Black community, protected by your BLM bumper sticker.

So, yeah, I’m sick of the fake liberal/progressive nonsense of Seattle. Gimme fewer stickers and more decency, common courtesy, or just some situational awareness and consideration for others; then I’ll reconsider.

* PS: As an example, a used-book store in Capitol Hill has signs asking people to stop taking photos of their books and then ordering them on amazon (while still standing in the aisles of the store).

My Seven Eras of Music Delivery, Your Qualia, and My Certain Lack of Free Will

I was reading someone’s post recently about what they called their seven eras of music delivery and noticed that I also have seven, although mine are different. They are:

  1. the 8-track-tape-cartridge era
  2. the era of the 45-RPM 7-inch vinyl single
  3. the cassette-and-12-inch-LP era
  4. the CD era
  5. the early days of downloading, before the MP3, with the UNIX format .au files
  6. the peak era of downloading: MP3s
  7. the era of streaming and ultra-expensive vinyl

Era 1: My earliest memories of recorded music are of 8-track cartridges that my parents and I listened to in the car. It was on these strange storage devices, the primary feature of which, I was told, was that they could skip from the middle of a song to the middle of another song with the push of a button, that I first heard Santana (off this compilation), Demis Roussos (this exact release, from which the songs I remember best are My Only Fascination and Lovely Lady of Arcadia), The Beatles’ She Loves You, Simon & Garfunkel’s El Condor Pasa and Cecilia, Fredrick Davies & Lewis Anton’s Astrology Rap, The Emotions’ I Don’t Wanna Lose Your Love, and a few selections form the musical Cabaret. I didn’t know any English at that time—I still remember the gobbledygook phonetic lyrics I sang along to She Loves You. (Şilagzu, if you can read Turkish.)

Each of those songs is still magical to me.

Era 2: At the age of 3, I’m told, I wanted the household record player to be placed in my room. At first, I mostly listened to the records of children’ stories my parents had bought for me. (Here’s an image of one, at least until it is sold and the page is no longer there.)

Then, sometime between the ages of 6 and 10, my mother and I once stayed at my aunt and uncle’s boat which was moored at the marina of a hotel on the Mediterranean, outside Antalya. Almost every night, the open-air disco would, at some point, feature the song LE FREAK by Chic. Each night, if it had not already been played while we were sitting at the outdoor disco’s dinner area, I would refuse to go to bed until I heard it. I also had gobbledygook phonetic syllables attached to that song (Frigav). That word happened to be mildly reminiscent of the name of the ice-cream bars you could only get during the intermission at a movie theater: the Alaska Frigo. The aluminum wrapper would send a terrible shock through your teeth.)

I had also taken over my parents’ 7-inch 45-RPM singles at this point: I had two singles by my favorite singer (favorite, that is, until I heard Chic) and one by my second-favorite singer. (I have yet to finish finding all six songs on MP3 or something rippable to MP3. As of early 2025, there’s one to go.)

Then, sometime around age 11 and shortly after my father died of cancer, my mother must have bought some compilation LPs of pop songs because I was suddenly listening to New Order, Shannon, The Romantics, Local Boy, Gary Low, Kajagoogoo, Indeep, Denise Edwards, Fox The Fox, Icehouse, Natasha King, Matthew Wilder, Gazebo, Chris de Burgh, Alphaville, and Madonna.

Some time after that, I went out and bought a few single-artist albums: Hot Dog by Shakin’ Stevens, the eponymous debut of (the band) Nena, and Michael Jackson’s Thriller, with Flashdance following soon afterwards. (I used to longingly stare at Purple Rain and Victory at stores, but those were always too expensive.)

In ninth grade one of our teachers arranged  a Xmas/NYE gift exchange. A classmate gave me the vinyl record of Brothers In Arms. To this day, I am very touched and grateful.

The other recording medium of this era was the cassette tape. And given how difficult it was to afford to buy LPs, most “record stores” primarily relied on another business model. They held only one copy of each record and they would make mix tapes for you from their collection. You would choose the length (and type: Chrome, etc.) of blank tape and pay a little more than the cost of the tape. You could specify everything you wanted to go onto the tape; you could specify some of it and leave the rest to them; or leave it all up to them (preferably after they’d gotten to know your taste). It was one of the ways we found out about music that was new to us (and typically, older than us).

You could also buy albums this way. I paid to have POWERSLAVE recorded onto a cheap cassette and my favorite birthday gift of my whole life is still the dubbed tape of Alphaville’s Forever Young my mom got me.

Era 4: CDs came a few years’ later to my part of the world than they did to the US. My first one was a Glenn Miller compilation, a present from my aunt. I was mesmerized by this shiny object with precise writing printed right on it. I wanted to eat it and worship it. I also remember sniffing it. (It smelled very good.)

My first five CDs still feel miraculous to me—fantastical otherworldly objects. And it continues to make me sad that so many of my friends would, in later decades, say things like “CDs are no good except as coasters.”

I still think they’re beautiful.

Era 5: Before anyone else had heard of downloading songs (that I know of), people doing work using UNIX systems started exchanging songs at some point in the mid-‘90s. This is how I became familiar with Björk (oodles of whose albums I’ve legally purchased since), Young MC, and the brilliant Ode to My Car by Adam Sandler, as well as some unidentified recordings of gamelan. I had to put them on a cassette to be able to listen to them at home. The resulting sound quality was atrocious, whether due to the tape or the .au encoding, I don’t know. By the way, I’m no audiophile. The best and most enjoyable music listening of my life was done on a mono handheld journalist-style cassette player. So, when _I_ think it sounds atrocious, it’s gotta be pretty bad.

Still, the music comes through. The brain makes sure of that. (I read on a discussion board that a music lover uses electronic equipment to listen to music while an audiophile uses music to listen to electronic equipment.)

Era 6: I have never downloaded off the original Napster, but one of the bands I was in, back when I was in three to six bands at any time, was being pirated on Napster (and getting royalty checks, too, from elsewhere—for an Australian movie). We felt pretty good about the Napster part.

Also, because I did not own an Apple device until around 2017, all my MP3s came from ripping my CD collection (and from a friend’s Nomad Zen, fully stocked with music from Jamaica and DRC, that he gave me one day, for reasons unknown). I spent most of 2002 and 2003, especially, ripping my CDs to MP3. Then, my favorite band started putting out MP3-only songs, so I started purchasing them, first at 7digital, with whom I’ve since had an unpleasant experience, and then on Qobuz (named after a Central Asian Turkic instrument, the kopuz).

Back in the early aughts, I also legally downloaded comedy from laugh.com, which seems to have disappeared long ago.

I’m still ripping (and still buying) CDs, though at a much lower rate than 20 years ago. These days, it’s because I prefer to do my own tagging. This not only avoids the typical “correcting” most database companies like to do to Portuguese song titles (which they Spanishize), but with the help of Discogs, I can locate the earliest print in the leading format of the time in the country of origin of the artist and thus know the definitive stylization for the album name and the song titles.

Era 7: I found out about Spotify in early 2008 from a friend who worked for CDBaby. I immediately looked it up. I was getting ready to make an account, but in those days I was still reading every word of every contract, agreement, document of terms and conditions, privacy statement, and such. I don’t remember now what I didn’t like about their policies but I did not make a Spotify account—and it turns out I was right. (Who could have guessed so much evil could come out of Sweden!)

I did stream from Tidal for a bit and then Qobuz briefly as well. I suppose streaming is fine if you’re not obsessed with music in the particular way that I am. For me, streaming was an anxiety-producing experience: What if I missed the name of an artist because I was busy with something else? I would have to go back. That would take away from whatever work I was trying to do and concentration I had managed to have. And what if I liked something so much that I wanted to make sure no merger, IPO, hostile takeover, or license change could take it away from me?

What if there’s so much stuff I like that I can’t function as a proper adult?

And that’s why I still buy physical media and then rip it (or purchase digital files on Bandcamp and Qobuz). I need to control the possibility of what I could listen to at any time. I want that full control right up to the moment I die.

Anyway, how about them vinyl releases? (or, as I heard some people say “vinyls” [yuck]… I just received marketing from Laufey that said “vinyls”… Needless to say I’m not buying that product.)

For a while, I was really happy with the upsurge in vinyl availability. That was back when they still came with download cards.

Have you noticed? The download cards are gone. Now, they really just expect you to pay US$35–65 for a single LP and pay more if you want it digital too. Or maybe they assume everyone is streaming, so this is a non-issue. But even streaming technology is going to be replaced by something else eventually. Maybe it won’t be era 8—maybe it’ll be more like era 15—but the streaming player will soon be replaced by an implant. And maybe it won’t stream from a server at all. Maybe we’ll all get an AI that makes up the music, the biographies and histories, the band and artist names, and everything else based on its reading of our brain waves. If it also controls our input and output ports, we could “interface” with friends who have “the same taste” in music and be discussing two entirely different fake songs, fake bands, or fake genres and not even know it because the two AIs handling our “quality time” together would sensor, filter, transform, and augment whatever the other person is saying to match what each of us would most enjoy hearing. If this sounds dystopian, think about our subjective sensory and affective experiences and how none of us has any idea (and could never have any idea) if the experiences we bond over are, to the other person, what we think they are. The philosophical term ‘qualia’ is a handle for realizing whether the question has any meaning. How could anyone—you, me, or a third party—ever know whether what I experience as the color blue is what you experience as the color blue? Maybe it’s your yellowish orange; maybe it’s your ‘sour taste’ or ‘dull pain’. Probably it’s neither. In any case, where in the chain of my sensory nerves would you have to insert yours to find out?

I don’t think there is any point of insertion at which this would work.

And I think this is similar to—in the frustration it can cause and in the realization it leads to—Gazzaniga’s point about free will: At which point along the chains of cause and effect would you want there to be this fully arbitrary freedom?

Let’s say you decide, as an exercise in free will, to refrain from urinating for as long as possible, resulting in urinating while making a presentation to the board of trustees or at a conference. Now, that would be an act of free will. How many of us are willing to do this?

I’ve always known my answer to the trolley problem. If I were to find myself in the circumstances of the trolley problem, I would be proof against free will. There are two possibilities: I pull the lever; I don’t pull the lever. (If you want to make it more general: I do the thing; I don’t do the thing—I intervene; I don’t intervene.)

If I do the one I believe I would, where’s the free will in that? That action was determined well in advance by the combination of my nature and nurture. After all, I’ve known about it for over a decade. And if I do the opposite, how would that be free will if some subconscious part of me suddenly acts in the opposite way of what I think I would do.

Either way, I clearly end up not having free will. So, maybe let’s not worry so much about the coming era of implants and sensory cocoons, with AIs repainting all our interactions with other entities to make us think we are connecting at a deep level while experiencing arbitrary AI hallucinations. We won’t know the difference.

We are lying.

To ourselves, to everybody.

Technology is not making life better. It was, probably, on balance, for a long time (for the global north, at least), but we passed a threshold somewhere around 2 to 3 years ago.

Here are three anecdotal, personal, unscientific, unrepresentative examples. (I don’t have to prove stuff every day, right? I’m sure someone will study all this eventually.)

I wanted to do at least one thing today. The first thing I set out to do, upon getting up around 4:45 AM was to find and hire an editor who would convert an article I had written some time ago from the Sage Harvard style to the Chicago style. 10 hours and three freelancer portals later, I’ve got nothing to show for it. Just to get one of the portals to send me a 6-digit code so I could make an account took four hours. I thought maybe I was using the wrong browser, so I tried other ones. I thought it wanted a non-personal e-mail address, so I provided my work e-mail address.

Nope.

No clue what was going on, and I’m really sad because this platform seemed to have just the right people. Another platform, on which I searched for another couple of hours had two people who seemed to come close, but I wasn’t sure.

My frustration with this was getting so high that I wanted to listen some music to calm down.

My Sony WH-1000s had started making a screeching noise, with no rhyme or reason as to the timing, so I had ordered some earbuds about a week ago. Since then, it’s been hell trying to read the tiny instruction manual (even with my glasses on) and trying to make sense of how to put the darn things on. With help from other people, after a few days I got to the point I could put the left one in such that it would stay. The right one pops out within minutes no matter which combination of “wing” and tip I try (or who puts it in for me).

What’s worse, the music sounds like a mosquito. I knew the bass response couldn’t have been intended to be this bad, so I tried going against the recommendations: I put the earbuds deeper into my ears.

The music finally sounded normal. And after less than five minutes, they both popped out. (One fell in the dog’s water bowl.)

My previous pair were JBLs. One of those had popped out while I was walking the dog on a sunny and beautiful spring day. At that moment, I happened to be standing in place. (I was waiting for the dog to finish inspecting part of a small neighborhood garden.) The left earbud plopped out, bounced off my chest, slid down between my torso and my jacket, and … vanished. I looked all over that tiny garden and the sidewalk. I looked for a long time.

That’s why I went back to the Sony headphones, but one day a couple of weeks ago, they screeched (it’s very loud) at just wrong time, so I ended that audio relationship right there and then.

I won’t even get into the day’s third big frustration; this much should do. What I feel the need to point out is that in 1984, say, or 1990, one could buy a $20 pair of headphones and they would work right out of the box. (Did I mention I spent 35 minutes pairing the earbuds today?) It’s now 2025 and I can’t listen to music without turning my day into a nightmare. How is technology a convenience, exactly?

A Real-Life Example of How the Object Suffix in Turkish (i hali) Does away with the Need for Hyphens

On January 1st, I found myself about to text the following phrase in Turkish when I realized its potential to explain hyphenation to Turkish–English bilinguals (and other English speakers).

The phrase was konser hazırlığı telaşı sonrası temizliği. To keep things a little simpler (in terms of the Turkish grammar), I’ll switch it to this old-fashioned version here: konser hazırlığı telaşı akabi temizliği.

Here are the root versions of the five nouns [1] that make up this compound noun: konser, hazırlık, telaş, akab, temizlik.

Here are the English equivalents of the Turkish words:

  • konser: concert
  • hazırlık: preparation
  • telaş: tizzy, bustle, panic, rush
  • akab: after, later, subsequent, following
  • temizlik: cleaning

If we simply string the root nouns along in English, as too many people seem to think it’s okay to do, we get “concert preparation bustle aftermath cleaning” (which, technically, has no meaning in English—it’s just a string of nouns, much like ‘argues strawberry pivot the of’ [2]).

Because English has no written way of indicating relationships of modification among nouns [3], the correctly written [4] English expression (a noun made of five nouns) is built up as follows.

  1. concert
  2. concert preparation
  3. concert-preparation bustle
  4. concert-preparation-bustle aftermath
  5. concert-preparation-bustle-aftermath cleaning

All five of these are valid and correct English expressions.

  • Number 2 is a noun string wherein concert modifies (acts as the adjective for) preparation. It identifies the type of (reason for) preparation.
  • Number 3 is a noun string in which the now-combined unitary (indivisible) concept of “concert preparation” modifies ‘bustle’ to indicate what kind of bustle was involved.
  • Number 4 may frustrate those with mathematical minds. I have not noticed any way around this. In this case, ‘concert-preparation-bustle’ is a single indivisible concept (a noun) and it acts as the decriptor (adjective) that tells us the type of cleaning, which, again, is the reason for the cleaning.

Let’s identify the suffixes that make things so unambiguous in Turkish (and play the written role of the gestures and inflection we need to do the same in English):

hazırlık → hazırlığı (suffix -ı)

telaş → telaşı (suffix -ı)

akab → akabi (suffix -i)

temizlik → temizliği (suffix -i)

These suffixes change how the words sound. Thus, the relationships between the words are not hidden from the listener. This is why hyphens for compound modifiers are not necessary in Turkish and why they are necessary in English, which does not have grammatical cases that alter words.

Erroneous Hyphenation

There are plenty of situations in English in which modifiers are telling us about a noun independently of each other. For example, a tiny cute yellow house.

This is a house, regardless of its being tiny or yellow and independent of whether it is perceived by someone as cute.

It’s also a tiny house, independent of what color it’s been painted and so forth.

It also is apparently a cute house according to somebody. While that may be due to its size and color, we don’t know for sure. Maybe this person finds it cute for other reasons.

You get the idea… There are no hyphens because a “cute-yellow house” is not the same thing. In this new case, the yellow that the house was painted is identified as a cute shade of yellow.

If we cared to differentiate between [1] a cute house that happens to be yellow (or a yellow house that’s also cute, but not because of the inherent cuteness of the shade of yellow) and [2] a house that’s not necessarily cute overall but is painted a particularly cute yellow, we would use “cute yellow house” for the former and “cute-yellow house” for the latter… except that no one actually does this, which takes me to a more important point.

It’s better to avoid setting up situations of hyphen-related ambiguity in the first place. Instead say something like “That ugly house nevertheless is painted a cute yellow.” [5]

As I learned in undergraduate physics and found reinforced while teaching probability, circuit analysis, logic (digital and philosophical), and other topics, many (though definitely not all) aspects of life can be better understood through two-by-two tables. [6]

Table 1: Two-by-two table of house paint vs. house cuteness, to get things started

 not cutecute
not painted yellowhouse that’s neither cute nor yellowcute house that’s not yellow
painted yellowyellow house that’s not cutecute house in cute yellow paint

Table 2: Two-by-two table of house vs. housepaint cuteness, with entries in today’s impatient MO, with hyphens [7] to avoid ambiguity

 not cutecute
painted an uncute yellowuncute yellow housecute yellow house
painted a cute yellowuncute cute-yellow housecute cute-yellow house

I know these sound awkward, but they are definitely unambiguous.

Exceptions to Hyphenation

  • standing phrases
  • adverbs

The first standing phrase I became aware of was ‘snow leopard’.

Although some editors will treat this as a regular compound modifier in cases like ‘snow-leopard image’, professionals in conservation, I was told, treat “snow leopard” as if it were one word (or as if it were permanently hyphenated with an invisisble hyphen, though they did not say it that way).

So, “snow leopard image” is correct. It is either as good as or preferable to the hyphenated version because ‘snow leopard’ is a standing phrase [8].

By the way, we can’t get around this choice by dropping the ‘snow’ part because, it turns out, a snow leopard is not a leopard. So this standing-phrase business is particularly important here, scientifically speaking.

As for adverbs, in English they only ever point to the word immediately following them (as far as I know). This is in contrast to adjectives, which can act several words away; hence the potential for ambiguity. For example, if we were to say “a truly beautiful old yellow house,” the adverb ‘truly’ applies to the adjective ‘beautiful’. If it were meant to apply to old, we might have said something like “a beautiful and truly old yellow house.”

Appendix: The Original Turkish Version

For a more modern version (that adds a complication but is better reflective of current language, consider this version (which is what I was actually about to text):

konser hazırlığı telaşı sonrası temizliği

konser hazırlık  telaş  sonra   temizlik

All that I said above is true for this, except that ‘sonrası’ has been established as a commonly used noun, so we don’t add the suffix to it (again): We don’t say ‘sonrasısı’:

  • sonra: after, later
  • sonrası: aftermath (not necessarily bad) [9]

[1] A noun is a name for a thing, event, action, phenomenon, or idea. (I’m only saying this here because I’ve had adult native sepakers tell me they had no idea what ‘noun’, ‘verb’, etc. meant.)

[2] a bag of words

[3] There are excellent ways to do so with inflection or gestures, which is why, I tihnk, this issue goes unnoticed by most people.

[4] This is correct without a hyphen. It’s not supposed to be “correctly-written” because adverbs do not get hyphens, because they don’t need them: adverbs in English can only point at the immediately following word, something too many native speakers of English wrongly assume about other compound modifiers).

[5] Yes, I know; that’s far too many words for anyone to use in the 21st century. I wish my middle-school English teachers ruled the world, by which I mean ruthlessly oversaw the development of the Internet and all software.

[6] false positives, true positives, etc.; two-terminal passive devices; modus ponens, modus tollens, and fallacies;  US politics (abortion vs. the death penalty); and much more—just about everything, really.

[7] unless it’s one of the exceptions I talk about below

[8] evidently, even when the snow leopard is lying down

[9] any subsequent period