Rush Cover (PB): tecnologia MIDI e performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present work is located in the niche of ethnomusicological studies on urban popular music. This study is in line with several academic works carried out in recent years in Brazil on the rock genre (ALENCAR, 2015; RIBEIRO, 2010; TROTTA, 2005). The work deals specifically with the performance of the cover band Rush Cover (PB) from Paraíba. The focus is on the musical performance itself, aiming to understand and record the processes used to incorporate MIDI technology in the band's performance. For this purpose, an interactionist research was conducted, through the ethnography of essays and some presentations made by the band. Through these observations, interviews and conversations, I became aware of the way in which the Paraiba trio introduced such technological resources in their performance, approaching the way in which this music is truly performed by the Canadian band. Further studies on the formation of Cover bands can bring to light important clarifications on the formation of the identity of the musicians and the musical scenes in which they are inserted, as well as bring important data on the early learning processes of rock musicians. World-famous bands often started playing Covers (as is the case with Rush) and many artists start to perform works of this nature, with the intention of paying tribute to their favorite artists and keeping a certain repertoire alive through performance (ZUMTHOR, 2002) and not just through records or videos collectible by fans.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".