• 3 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 24th, 2023

help-circle

  • it completely depends on context and interpretation. there isn’t one correct way to play an accent, and you are correct that it doesn’t explicitly mean to play louder. what you’re describing as an accent is kind of like a fortepiano. similarly, what i described as an accent closely aligns with a sfortzando. point is, accents are vague and there isn’t a correct way to play one. more specific styles aren’t necessarily correct, and an interpretation is generally only made unambiguous with notation like the aforementioned fortepianos and sfortzandos




  • the ’ is a breath mark. in this context, it’s indicating a wind player to breathe at that moment. the same meaning applies to vocalists. it can also appear outside winds or vocalists. in such cases, it means to take a slight pause without necessarily altering tempo (usually by shortening the preceding note) the > is an accent. it indicates to play with greater emphasis. how that emphasis comes through depends on the musical context, but it often means playing that note louder or stronger


  • answer

    mahler symphony 7 mvt 3. it’s a really subtle motif that might be easily mistaken for symphony 1, where a very similar motif is used more prominently. in the 7th, it’d be difficult to catch this motif at all unless you’re looking at the score. guessing which symphony and movement this is from, even knowing it’s mahler, would normally be very hard!





  • icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    my parents were understandably pissed because i had deleted at least a few hundred gigabytes of photos and videos from the last decade. iirc i was banned from touching the computer for at least a year, which was funny because i was literally the only one who used it


  • icosahedron@ttrpg.networkto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneRule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    28 days ago

    growing up my family had a mac desktop that i had access to while really young. eventually realized mac is a little terrible, so i tried bootcamp to get some proper use out of the computer. i successfully installed windows, but somehow fucked up and formatted the mac partition. all for windows to also suck


  • lithium only has one valence electron. it really wants to get rid of that valence electron. halogens such as the pictured fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have seven valence electrons. they really want to obtain one more valence electron to form a stable outer shell. thus, the lithium donates its electron, forming an ionic compound










  • i’d agree that we don’t really understand consciousness. i’d argue it’s more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we’d find it. also anesthesia isn’t really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/

    and Penroses’s Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it’s a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it’s where i found that info)

    besides that, Orch OR isn’t exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i’m no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i’m missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).

    other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.

    then we have integrated information theory. it’s a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it’s also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it’s been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it’s clearly not a perfect theory.

    point is, you’re right. we don’t really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose’s theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn’t empirically testable. we don’t know, and maybe can’t know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere