پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 158 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,225 |
| تعداد مقالات | 67,685 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 114,974,056 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 89,646,430 |
تحلیل مفهومی ساز موسیقایی | ||
| نشریه هنرهای زیبا: هنرهای نمایشی و موسیقی | ||
| دوره 26، شماره 3، مهر 1400، صفحه 33-42 اصل مقاله (896.08 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jfadram.2021.308857.615464 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| احمد رحمانیان* | ||
| گروه طراحی صنعتی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| با وجود اهمیتی که مسئله تعریف ساز موسیقایی در حوزه موسیقی‌شناسی برای دیگر مسائل نظری و عملی موسیقی دارد، تعاریف موجود و معیار، مثل هورن‌باستل (1933)، بیِلاویسکی (1979) و لیسلاف-متسن (1985)، دست‌کم از حیث منطقی بعضی از الزامات تعریف، مثل تعیین طبقه وجودشناختی موضوع (یا معرَف) و مانع بودن، را برآورده نمی‌کنند. مقاله حاضر، به این مسئله که ساز موسیقایی چیست می‌پردازد، با هدف ارائه تعریفی از این مفهوم که همه الزامات منطقی تعریف را برآورده کند. بدین منظور در این مقاله روش کیفیِ تحلیل منطقی یا مفهومی اتخاذ شده است، که از روش‌های اصلی علوم قیاسی و مهم‌ترین روش در تعریف مفاهیم علمی است. این مقاله از طریق سلسله‌ای از تحلیل‌ها اقدام به تعیین هریک از معرِف‌های منطقی ساز می‌کند. در تحلیل اول مشخص می‌کند که ساز از حیث وجودشناسی به طبقه مصنوع فنی و به عبارت دقیق‌تر سیستم فنی تعلق دارد. در تحلیل دوم و سوم، هریک از فصل ممیزهای ساز مشخص می‌گردد که عبارت‌اند از دو دسته ویژگی کارکردی و ناظر به طرح (یا ساختاری) ساز. این دو تحلیل به طور دقیقی، به ترتیب، بر اساس نظریه ICE و نظریه مدل‌سازی کارکردی صورت می‌گیرد و در آخر به یک فرمول‌بندی منطقی از تعریف ساز منتج می‌شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| موسیقی‌شناسی؛ سازشناسی؛ ساز موسیقایی؛ تعریف؛ تحلیل مفهومی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Conceptual Analysis of Musical Instrument | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| ahmad rahmanian | ||
| department of industrial design, faculty of fine arts, University of Tehran, Tehran. Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Despite the importance of the definition of ‘musical instrument’ for theoretical and practical issues in the field of musicology (such as classification, orchestration, and education), the available definitions such as those offered by Von Hornbostel (1933), Lysloff and Matson (1985), and Bielawiski (1979), seem to be flawed, since they lack some of the logical requirements that a standard definition should meet. Specifically, these definitions need to be revised and reformed as they are not exclusive and do not clearly indicate what the most general ontological kind, class, or category of the objects ‘musical instrument’ belongs to. The present article, thus, deals with the issue of what a ‘musical instrument’ is, and it aims to provide a comprehensive definition of musical instrument, meeting all the logical requirements of a standard definition. To this end, the qualitative method of logical or conceptual analysis is used, as one of the main methods of deductive sciences and one of the most important methods of defining scientific concepts. The article also introduces the defining elements of ‘musical instrument’ through sequential analyses. In the first analysis, ‘musical instrument’ is ontologically recognized as an object of a technical system. In the second and third analyses, each of the specific differences distinguishing it from the other technical systems is identified: functional properties and design (or structural) properties. These two analyses are performed based on the 2003 version of the ICE-theory of functions, considering the multiple user roles and the functional modeling theory, respectively. Finally, a standard definition is formulated using conceptual analysis. According to this definition, a musical instrument features the following three characteristics. (1) With respect to its ontological kind, it is a technical artifact of a specified technical system. (2) With respect to its function, according to the justifiable belief of the composer, it has the capacity to produce sound with certain pitch and timbre in accordance with a particular aesthetic experience and function for the composition as a whole and its effect on the listener. According to the justifiable belief of the performer, it has the ability to transform scripts into sound with certain pitch and timbre. And, in the case of the listener, it has the ability to create aesthetic experience by producing sounds with certain pitch and timbre. In addition, a musical instrument has the capacity to produce sound with certain pitch and timbre as its proper function is taken into account by d-agents; it is also constantly (i.e., not as an exception, for trial, or fun) used by u-agents as an instrument with the above capability by u-agents. In other words, some pieces are made or arranged by the composer, some other pieces are performed by the performer, the way of working with it (its use plan) is taught, and the sounds produced by it are recognized as distinct with appropriate aesthetic properties by the listener. (3) And finally, with respect to its structure, a musical instrument is a given normal configuration that consists of an energy element, control element, and sound element. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| musicology, organology, musical instrument, definition, conceptual analysis | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Baker, L. R. (2008). The shrinking difference between artifacts and natural objects. American philosophical association newsletter on philosophy and computers.
Bielawiski, L. (1979). Instrumentalmusik als transformation der menschlichen bewegung. mensch-instrument-musik. Studia instrumentorum musicae popularis VI.
Dournon, G. (1992). ‘Organology’, Ethnomusicology, An Introduction. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Draeger, H. H. (1948). Prinzip einer systematik der musikinstrumente: Bärenreiter. Galpin, F. W. (1937). A Textbook of European Musical Instruments: Their Origin. History and Character. Williams & Norgate.
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., Indianapolis.
Haydon, G. (1946). Introduction to Musicology; A Survay of the Fields, Systematic and Historical, of Musical Knowledge and Research (second ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall, inc.
Heyde, H. (1975). Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems der Musikinstrumente: Beiträge zur musikwissenschaftlichen Forschung in der DDR: Leipzig: VEB.
Hilpinen, R. (1992). On artifacts and works of art 1. Theoria, 58(1), 58-82.
Hood, M. (1982). The ethnomusicologist (Vol. 140): Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.
Hospers , J. (1997). An introduction to philosophical analysis (fourth ed.). Londen: Routledge.
Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. E. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artefacts (Vol. 1): Springer Science & Business Media.
Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: Creations of mind and matter: A philosophy of engineering design (Vol. 6): Springer Science & Business Media.
Kvifte, T., & Jensen, S. (2007). Instruments and the electronic age: Lulu. com.
Lysloff, R. T., & Matson, J. (1985). A new approach to the classification of sound-producing instruments. Ethnomusicology, 213-236.
Mahillon, V.-C. (1900). Catalogue descriptif & analytique du Musée instrumental du Conservatoire royal de musique de Bruxelles (Vol. 3): A. Hoste.
Montagu, J., & Burton, J. (1971). A proposed new classification system for musical instruments. Ethnomusicology, 15(1), 49-70.
Nightingale, P. (2009). Tacit knowledge and engineering design Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 351-374): Elsevier.
Reinhard, K. (1960). Beitrag zu einer neuen Systematik der Musikinstrumente. Die Musikforschung, 160-164.
Schaeffner, A. (1932). D'une nouvelle classification méthodique des instruments de musique. Revue musicale, 10(11), 215-231.
Schaeffner , A. (1946). ‘Les instruments de musique’. La musique des origins a nos jours (N. Dufourcq Ed.). Paris: Larousse. Simons, P. M., & Dement, C. W. (1996). Aspects of the Mereology of Artifacts Formal ontology (pp. 255-276): Springer. Tatarkiewicz, W. (2006). History of Aesthetics: Edited by J. Harrell, C. Barrett and D. Petsch: A&C Black.
Thomasson, A. (2007). Artifacts and human concepts. Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation, 52-73.
Vermaas, P., Kroes, P., van de Poel, I., Franssen, M., & Houkes, W. (2011). A philosophy of technology: from technical artefacts to sociotechnical systems. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, and Society, 6(1), 1-134.
Von Hornbostel , E., & Sachs, C. (1914). ‘Classification of Musical Instruments’, Ethnomusicology, An Introduction (H. Myers Ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Von Hornbostel, E. M. (1933). The ethnology of African sound-instruments. Comments on Geist und Werden der Musikinstrumente by C. Sachs. Africa, 6(2), 129-157.
Wood, W. H. (2009). Computational representations of function in engineering design Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 543-564): Elsevier. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 904 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 630 |
||