Contrast two answers the question, because we like certain songs?
Why have certain structural characteristics.
You like to see other songs we like.
The first answer has to do with laws and regulations that make pleasant melodies. In language, we know that some of the criminal law, the forms that we know the penalties must be syntactically acceptable if not things that need to be reasonable or even pleasant to the ear. As for the melody, it seems that only some features that we can help, but do not know the vital functions. I do not expect much to come to a search of a consensus set of rules for musical expression. (Not so much about what we mean by "state" as if the knowledge is in question.)
The second answer has to do with the sense of melody out of itself, only to ask "What's significant penalties?" takes us beyond the shared language and practices requires us to examine each of the private network of thought involved. These private power itself, as in all areas of the choice: you can take the things that remind us of things we like. Now, some of us like music, like songs, carols, rhymes and the song that we like in childhood. All this raises the question: If we want new songs that are similar to what we already know how it is that our sympathy for the music start? I will return to this later.
The term "similar" also raises a question: What are the rules of musical similarities? I am sure it depends on how much the songs are "represented" in each eye. In each of these different "mind share" to do this several ways: the same melody appears (at different times) to change its pattern, fashion, or harmony. Besides the fact that individuals differ even more. Some listeners symmetry with WinCE and shapes, just like other feel absolutely fine and some issues seem trivial to escape have heard that one line. My conjecture that our sensors counterpoints fade harmonize each other memory that can still be played, perhaps Bach's mind could do this in several ways at once. Although this may be enough to help an improvised plan to be trying to play another. (Trying to be enough because improvise as stage magicians, Vamp know or exits to keep the music going when bold experiments fail.
How is that possible or improvise counterpoint to understand a complex piece? Simple statistical explanation can not begin to describe these processes. Much better is the generative and national transformations (eg, the neo-Schenkerian) theories of parsing, but only for the simplest effective. At most, the same purpose of syntax-oriented theory of music is deplorable, because trying to describe the mind produce sentences without attempting to describe as there are penalties. Meaning is more than the structure of the sentence. We can not expect to be able to describe the anatomy of the mind unless you understand their embryology. And then (as in the case more complicated), science must begin with the description of the surface systems. However, this taxonomy surface, but elegant and complete in itself, ultimately, must give way to a deeper, causal explanation. To understand how the memory process and the combination of "listening", we must learn to use more "procedural error" descriptions, such as programs that describe how the process continues.
In science, they are always the first to explain things in terms of what can be observed. (Earth, water, fire, air.] The coming of complex processes are not necessarily shown in the nature of the surface. [The constant pressure of the gas masks sudden countless micro-effects.] Speak of these things can mean or represent, we must talk about what was done.
We can not describe how the mind is without any good ways to describe complex processes. Before computers, the language was not good for him. Freud and Piaget tried attempt algebra of diagrams, other psychologists using Markov chains and die, but nobody came to Behaviorists very, very well, had stopped talking at all. Linguists have gathered formal syntax, and said at one point, but reached a limit: Transformations tion grammar shows the contents of the records (so to speak), but has no way of describing what the controls. This makes it difficult to say that the message refers to the surface underlying the designation and the intent of a baby and bath situation. I prefer the ideas of Al research, because they tend to find the first description of the case, it seems more appropriate to the issues.
I do not see why so many theorists find this approach disturbing. It is true that the new power comes from this approach has a price: it can be said with more description of modeling, but it was minor. However, that lost many people think of mathematics never seen much about these complicated things. They are often complex theorems tell us the truth about simple things, but rarely tell us truths about the complex simple. To believe otherwise is to talk or speak "math envy". Many musical problems that resist formal solutions can be still manageable in the future to grow artificial simulations musical semantic networks, perhaps by "stress" the children in the simulation of traditional musical cultures. It will be exciting when one of these children show a first touch of real "talent."
Why have certain structural characteristics.
You like to see other songs we like.
The first answer has to do with laws and regulations that make pleasant melodies. In language, we know that some of the criminal law, the forms that we know the penalties must be syntactically acceptable if not things that need to be reasonable or even pleasant to the ear. As for the melody, it seems that only some features that we can help, but do not know the vital functions. I do not expect much to come to a search of a consensus set of rules for musical expression. (Not so much about what we mean by "state" as if the knowledge is in question.)
The second answer has to do with the sense of melody out of itself, only to ask "What's significant penalties?" takes us beyond the shared language and practices requires us to examine each of the private network of thought involved. These private power itself, as in all areas of the choice: you can take the things that remind us of things we like. Now, some of us like music, like songs, carols, rhymes and the song that we like in childhood. All this raises the question: If we want new songs that are similar to what we already know how it is that our sympathy for the music start? I will return to this later.
The term "similar" also raises a question: What are the rules of musical similarities? I am sure it depends on how much the songs are "represented" in each eye. In each of these different "mind share" to do this several ways: the same melody appears (at different times) to change its pattern, fashion, or harmony. Besides the fact that individuals differ even more. Some listeners symmetry with WinCE and shapes, just like other feel absolutely fine and some issues seem trivial to escape have heard that one line. My conjecture that our sensors counterpoints fade harmonize each other memory that can still be played, perhaps Bach's mind could do this in several ways at once. Although this may be enough to help an improvised plan to be trying to play another. (Trying to be enough because improvise as stage magicians, Vamp know or exits to keep the music going when bold experiments fail.
How is that possible or improvise counterpoint to understand a complex piece? Simple statistical explanation can not begin to describe these processes. Much better is the generative and national transformations (eg, the neo-Schenkerian) theories of parsing, but only for the simplest effective. At most, the same purpose of syntax-oriented theory of music is deplorable, because trying to describe the mind produce sentences without attempting to describe as there are penalties. Meaning is more than the structure of the sentence. We can not expect to be able to describe the anatomy of the mind unless you understand their embryology. And then (as in the case more complicated), science must begin with the description of the surface systems. However, this taxonomy surface, but elegant and complete in itself, ultimately, must give way to a deeper, causal explanation. To understand how the memory process and the combination of "listening", we must learn to use more "procedural error" descriptions, such as programs that describe how the process continues.
In science, they are always the first to explain things in terms of what can be observed. (Earth, water, fire, air.] The coming of complex processes are not necessarily shown in the nature of the surface. [The constant pressure of the gas masks sudden countless micro-effects.] Speak of these things can mean or represent, we must talk about what was done.
We can not describe how the mind is without any good ways to describe complex processes. Before computers, the language was not good for him. Freud and Piaget tried attempt algebra of diagrams, other psychologists using Markov chains and die, but nobody came to Behaviorists very, very well, had stopped talking at all. Linguists have gathered formal syntax, and said at one point, but reached a limit: Transformations tion grammar shows the contents of the records (so to speak), but has no way of describing what the controls. This makes it difficult to say that the message refers to the surface underlying the designation and the intent of a baby and bath situation. I prefer the ideas of Al research, because they tend to find the first description of the case, it seems more appropriate to the issues.
I do not see why so many theorists find this approach disturbing. It is true that the new power comes from this approach has a price: it can be said with more description of modeling, but it was minor. However, that lost many people think of mathematics never seen much about these complicated things. They are often complex theorems tell us the truth about simple things, but rarely tell us truths about the complex simple. To believe otherwise is to talk or speak "math envy". Many musical problems that resist formal solutions can be still manageable in the future to grow artificial simulations musical semantic networks, perhaps by "stress" the children in the simulation of traditional musical cultures. It will be exciting when one of these children show a first touch of real "talent."
Post a Comment
Comment