A complexidade rítmica no Estudo Percussivo II de Arthur Kampela The rhythmic complexity in Percussion Study II by Arthur Kampela
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo discute o uso das estruturas rítmicas complexas, tais como quiálteras dentro de quiálteras na obra Estudo Percussivo II, de 1993, do compositor brasileiro Arthur Kampela. Em alguns casos, serão demonstrados procedimentos de notação da escrita complexa do compositor britânico Brian Ferneyhoug. Isso se dá pelo fato de ao transformar uma semínima em uma quiáltera de cinco, Ferneyhough utiliza uma simbologia acima da quiáltera, indicando que são cinco semicolcheias no lugar de quatro semicolcheias, desta forma, o compositor britânico faz a indicação da mesma figura rítmica ao utilizar a semicolcheia. Diferentemente, Arthur Kampela no Estudo Percussivo II, utiliza uma escrita peculiar na qual ele não faz a mesma indicação das figuras rítmicas como Brian Ferneyhough. Este artigo propõe uma discussão a respeito desta escrita peculiar no Estudo Percussivo II. Para finalizar será abordada a escrita complexa sobre a ótica de outros compositores como Pierre Boulez para que a partir desta visão sejam propostas outras possibilidades de escrita rítmica no Estudo Percussivo II. This article discusses the use of complex rhythmic structures, such as tuplets within triplets in piece Percussion Study II, of 1993, by the Brazilian composer Arthur Kampela. In some cases, it will be shown notational procedures of complex writing by British composer Brian Ferneyhoug. By turning a quarter note in one of five tuplet, Ferneyhough uses an above the tuplet symbology, indicating that there are five sixteenth notes instead of four sixteenths; the British composer thus uses an indication of the same rhythmic figure, using the sixteenth note. In Percussion Study II, Arthur Kampela uses a peculiar writing in which he does the same indication of rhythmic figures such as Brian Ferneyhough. This article proposes a discussion about this peculiar writing in Percussion Study II and finally there will be shown the complex script from the standpoint of other composers such as Pierre Boulez, and from this vision, will be offered other possibilities notational Percussion in Study II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".