Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The genesis of the present volume and its focus on issues of form in rock music was an SMT Popular Music Interest Group session entitled "(Per)Form in(g) Rock," presented at the November 2010 meeting of the Society for Music Theory in Indianapolis.The session title, devised by Brad Osborn, reflects its integration of formal theory ("Form in Rock") and performance ("Performing Rock").The session comprised four papers exploring issues of form in popular music, with a response by Mark Spicer.As a way of reflecting the aural and performative traditions of rock music and reconnecting the practices of theory and analysis to that of music making, each presentation-including the response-incorporated live music examples, which have been replaced in this volume by audio and video excerpts.These five papers are presented here in expanded form, along with three essays concerned with aspects of form in pop-rock music not addressed in the original session.[2] The Popular Music Interest Group decided to focus on the topic of form in rock music because it has been undertheorized compared to form in art music, and underanalyzed compared to other modes of popular music analysis such as hermeneutics, intertextuality, style analysis, and social and cultural contexts.Formal patterns in rock often feature greater complexity than is generally realized, particularly in regard to the interactions of form with domains other than pitch, such as rhythm, texture, and timbre.This holds true even for the apparently straightforward simple and compound strophic forms that abound in the pop-rock repertoire, as well as for more intricate multipart and through-composed forms.[3] Published scholarship on form in rock has been accumulating at an increasing pace over the last decade.Formal analyses have typically focused either on the delineation of sections through lyrics, chord patterns, texture, and key, with secondary considerations of rhythmic activity, register, dynamics, and timbre, or on the interaction of these sections with overall forms as regards repetition, ordering, thematic content and interrelationships, and rhetorical function.General discussions of formal sections and patterns include the brief definitions of basic section types in Stephenson 2002; a survey of the relationship of section types to larger formal patterns in Covach 2005; a detailed investigation of phrase, form, and function in Everett 2009; historic, cultural, and generic contextualizations in Middleton 1999; a model for the interactions of formal sections and tonal centers in Capuzzo 2009; and an exploration of large-scale dramatic structures in Spicer 2004.(1) There are also many studies of idiomatic formal structures and relationships within the works of a single artist or band-or genre or era, although these are less common-and comparisons of a given song's transformation through covers, remixes, and mashups.(2)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,437 | 0,259 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».