How similar is similar?

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Cambouropoulos, Emilios
dc.date.accessioned 2009-12-21T19:16:47Z
dc.date.available 2009-12-21T19:16:47Z
dc.date.issued 2009
dc.identifier.citation Cambouropoulos, E. (2009). How similar is similar? Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4B, 7-24.
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/22619
dc.description.abstract In the first part of the paper a theoretical discussion is presented regarding the fundamental concept of similarity and its relation to cue abstraction and categorisation. It is maintained that similarity is by definition context-dependent and strongly interrelated to cue abstraction and categorisation. Emphasis is given to determining the musical surface that can act as a musically pertinent lowest level of abstraction on which similarity between musical entities can be measured. Then, each of these concepts is examined in more detail with respect to a number of research studies presented in the recent special issue of Musicæ Scientiæ on musical similarity (Discussion Forum 4A, 2007). Views claiming that a geometric piano-roll-like representation is the most appropriate choice for polyphonic pattern matching, or that musical repetition is structurally significant if at least fifty percent of a pattern is equivalent (i.e. if it is more similar than dissimilar), or that dramatic disparities between musical similarities and corresponding categories can be found in empirical studies, are critically re-examined with a view to clarifying the fundamental concept of similarity. en
dc.language.iso eng en
dc.subject.other similarity en
dc.subject.other categorisation en
dc.subject.other cue abstraction en
dc.subject.other musical surface en
dc.title How similar is similar? en
dc.type Article en

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record