Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
dSWAP(U,V)= k i=1 |ui −vi|
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
RE: dSWAP(U,V)= k i=1 |ui −vi| (in reply to sean65)
|
|
|
My 2 Euros... i like the idea, nothing unusual coz we talk about it here too, but its incomplete (by picking only one rhythm per style), and the results not right. People have always tried to form the things they dont understand, or trying to understand in terms that can be understood. Science is nothing else. On the one hand it is hard to do science in art, because it seems easier to just feel it (for those who have practical knowledge), on the other hand, making music being understandable in words would make it easier for those who cant spent years on listening etc. Drawing paralels, when i take my physics or mathematics book, it contains the kumulated knowledge of some 400 years. But reading & understanding it would maybe only take couple of years. Any guitar method contains a little theory in the beginning. So far i havent seen a method that is about compas, but it would be interesting (given its correct). It would need to give much more rhythmic examples than this paper though.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 12 2010 3:58:45
|
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
RE: dSWAP(U,V)= k i=1 |ui −vi| (in reply to Ron.M)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron.M quote:
when i take my physics or mathematics book, it contains the kumulated knowledge of some 400 years. But reading & understanding it would maybe only take couple of years Understanding, maybe....but truly getting a feel for it lies deeper than just understanding...and that's what all the great researchers had. Same in guitar.. You can understand what something's about... but truly getting a feel for it is a different thing IMO. And that's what all the good players have. [Being a good player is more a mechanical thing IMO. For example you can have feeling, but be in bad shape as a player, or have an injury.] I took the book as an example of how effective science is when its about knowledge, ie understanding (1). To have a feeling (2) for something does not require any understanding in "terms" (ie words & explanations). Yeah they are different things so i wouldnt want to say one thing is better than the other. They serve different purposes: science for understanding, practice (listening+playing) for feeling. IMO. Basically i just wanted to say dont write science in art off too fast (with the exception of this paper), coz there is some benefits, although i would agree in that it is absolutely not necessary. (and apart from that its not that developed either) Arash, thats correct. As we see, compas is more important than music.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Apr. 12 2010 6:27:48
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.078125 secs.
|