提高你的音阶·钢琴(1-3级)【新华集团自营】 下载 pdf 电子版 epub 免费 txt 2025

该书是世界 的英皇考级三位一体考试中钢琴音阶类 辅导教材之一，是英国皇家音乐学院教授保罗·哈里斯在 版英皇考级标准要求下而重新编写的，在世界几十个 广泛应用，深受教师推崇、学生喜爱。现我社将其从英国菲伯尔音乐图书出版公司引进中国出版发行，纳入现有的“英皇考级辅导教程”系列，力求为钢琴学习者音阶演奏的培养指引一条新的道路，为 多的英皇考级学生提供帮助。本书为1-3级，主要包括基本的音阶练习、指法组合练习、反向音阶练习等，其 有价值的是将枯燥的音阶练习改编成旋律动听的小曲子，在小曲子中解决音阶的练习难点。通过逐步学习，它将极其有效地提高学习者的视奏技能。 　

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：提高你的音阶·钢琴(1-3级)【新华集团自营】在线阅读

在线听书地址：提高你的音阶·钢琴(1-3级)【新华集团自营】在线收听

在线购买地址：提高你的音阶·钢琴(1-3级)【新华集团自营】在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

书籍介绍

该书是世界公认的英皇考级三位一体考试中钢琴音阶类最佳辅导教材之一，是英国皇家音乐学院教授保罗·哈里斯在英皇考级标准要求下而重新编写的，在世界几十个国家广泛应用，深受教师推崇、学生喜爱。现我社将其从英国菲伯尔音乐图书出版公司引进中国出版发行，纳入现有的“英皇考级辅导教程”系列，力求为钢琴学习者音阶演奏的培养指引一条新的道路，为更多的英皇考级学生提供帮助。本书为1-3级，主要包括基本的音阶练习、指法组合练习、反向音阶练习等，其最有价值的是将枯燥的音阶练习改编成旋律动听的小曲子，在小曲子中解决音阶的练习难点。通过逐步学习，它将极其有效地提高学习者的视奏技能。 　

• 作者：langndo 发布时间：2015-12-04 15:47:21

  资讯特丰富，特全面，去新西兰旅游带上这本书应该能提供不少的帮助

• 作者：ceci 发布时间：2022-11-25 19:29:06

  有的地方还算精彩，整体说不上特别出彩和独特，前面几方势力的描写感觉有点美剧苍穹浩瀚的感觉，但铺垫太长导致后面收尾有些仓促，虽然出场人物众多，但几乎全都是没的感情的工具人，特别是扎拉阳这条线。人类的结局全靠蠕虫嘴炮就搞完了？

• 作者：H.弗 发布时间：2010-05-05 22:14:10

  虽是教材 但写的还不赖 比起某些专业心理咨询与心理治疗的书籍还实用点……那么多量表 最有意思的感觉还是MMPI 况且第二版都多了那么多功能 蛮好玩的~

• 作者：天长地久 发布时间：2022-04-24 12:45:15

  袋鼠也有妈妈吗，就像你有我也有

• 作者：法海二哥是意哥 发布时间：2023-02-15 17:16:55

  刘涌的辩护律师

• 作者：Covfefe 发布时间：2021-08-12 09:50:02

  神农架地处湖北西部边陲，被长江与汉江夹在中间，将我国西部高山板块与东部丘陵平原连接在一起，是我国地势第二阶梯与第三阶梯的缓冲区，总面积逾3253平方千米，森林覆盖率达67%，是全国乃至世界范围内都极具影响力的绿色宝地。得天独厚的地理构造使中高山地域环境和低山丘陵完美地融合在这里，呈现出东北高山林立、重峦叠嶂，西南峡谷众多、丛林茂密的绝美地貌。恩施大峡谷位于湖北恩施土家族苗族自治州恩施市屯堡乡和板桥镇境内，长约108千米，总面积约300平方千米。除庞大的峡谷之外，更以两岸丰富而典型的喀斯特地貌著称。溶洞、天坑、地缝、天生桥、大断崖、地下河、峰林等，全汇聚于此。其中，前山绝壁、龙门峰林、云龙地缝、龙桥暗河、屯堡清江河画廊、铜盆水森林公园等著名景点驰名海内外，终日游人络绎不绝。

• Review of Jian Xu, A Material Culture Study of Bronze Weapons before the Eastern Zhou Dynasty

  作者：鵬鵬 James 发布时间：2016-10-01 05:20:44

  Published in Frontiers of History in China, vol. 11, no. 3 (September, 2016)

  http://journal.hep.com.cn/fhc/EN/10.3868/s020-005-016-0027-3#1

        Like elsewhere in the world, weaponry in China has long been regarded as the symbol of warfare and violence. Hitherto much scholarly attention has been given to the Shang (ca. 1,600-1,046 BCE) and Zhou bronze eating and drinking vessels, as well as to musical instruments, without an equivalent understanding the significance of the contemporary bronze weapons, which are extent in a surprising quantity. To fill the gap, in this groundbreaking book revised from chapters of his Ph. D. dissertation at Peking University, Jian Xu brings together the much-overlooked ritual implication embedded in the bronze weapons of early China, covering the span from the Erlitou culture (ca. 1,800-1,500 BCE) to the Western Zhou period (1,046-771 BCE).

         As the title reveals, Xu has sought to re-examine bronze weapons within the theoretical framework of material culture. Despite the fact that material culture as an interdisciplinary arena of inquiry has been widely acknowledged within Anglo-American academia, the introduction of this Western invention into Chinese scholarship is still in its infancy. According to Anke Hein, Chinese archeology has a strong typology-oriented tradition “that is based both on local traditions of historiography and antiquarianism and the nature of early Western archaeological endeavors in China, and has strongly political determinants as well.” [1] Following this parameter, in the Introduction, when Xu discusses the complex scholarship on bronze weapons of early China, two major approaches are apparent. The antiquarian approach embraces a tradition, tracing back to the Northern Song period (960-1,127 CE) when important scholarly writing took up found and collected objects under the rubric of “studies of metal and stone” (jinshi xue金石學), that is, more liberally, “studies of bronzes and stone inscriptions.” Celebrated by antiquarians for their textual and historiographic values, bronze objects’ archaeological information has been downplayed or edited out when being collected and catalogued. By contrast, the other approach focuses on archeological discoveries in situ, which marked the beginning of modern Chinese archaeology basically surrounding the 1928 excavation of the sites at Anyang Yinxu, Henan, which were led by Li Ji 李濟 (or Li Chi, 1896-1979) (p. 9). From Xu’s view, except for few like Max Loehr (1903-1988), most scholars who adopted either of these two approaches─which are confined to incomplete materials─have innate defects in their formalistic analyses. Divergent and even conflicting naming and classifying systems of bronzes weapons based on previous approaches also impede further understanding (p. 17). Departing from past scholarship, therefore, Xu adapts the American archeologist Lewis R. Binford’s (1931-2011) theory of three archaeological systematics─technological, social organizational, and ideological—modified by Binford based on the cultural anthropologist Leslie A. White’s (1900-1975) categorization of cultural systems.[2] Such a framework, as it is argued, focuses on investigating material objects as cultural products and “lies in the shared frame of thought that culture is defined by human behavior.” [3] With this multi-dimensional conceptual tool, as thoroughly analyzed by the following four chapters based on a comprehensive and systematic database, Xu treats bronze weapons as material agents through which a broader and more complex cultural system can be peeked into.

       

        Dealing specifically with Binford’s first dimension, Chapter One probes bronze weapons’ stylistic developments, ornaments, and metallurgic information. It begins with Xu’s methodological reflection on Gustav O. Montelius (1843-1921)’s typological paradigm, which has long remained dominant, and seems continue to be so, in the field of Chinese archaeology. Covering archaeologically excavated burials, public and private collections, the bronze weapons concerned are classified as the dagger-axe (戈 ge), spear (矛 mao), halberd (戟 ji), axe (斧鉞 fu yue), sword/dagger (短劍 duan jian), knife (刀 dao), arrowhead (矢鏃shi zu), helmet (胄 zhou), and armour (甲 jia). According to Xu’s formal analysis, stylistic changes of weapons serve to differentiate whether a specimen was intended as a utilitarian instrument, or as a “sign” which is highly decorated. Xu argues that the interaction of two elements─functional and non-functional─played a crucial role in dynamic changes of bronze weapons before the Easter Zhou. While the functional element features utilitarian designs intended for military use and killing, and the non-functional element features superfluous ornamentation such as graphic carvings and inlaid turquoise, one can find that neither of the dual natures of weapons can completely rule out the other.

        In order to reveal the role of bronze weapons in social stratification, Chapter Two reconstructs the burial contexts of excavated specimens. With emphasis on their material contents and spatial distribution, the burials include such well-known sites as the pre-Shang Yanshi Erlitou (Henan), the Shang cemeteries at Panlongcheng in Wuhan (Hubei), Xin’gan Dayangzhou in Jiangxi; also Western Zhou cemeteries at Zhangjiapo near Xi’an city (Shaanxi), Mapo and Beiyao in Luoyang, to name only a few. Although all of these burials’ occupants were aristocrats, some were even kingly elites, but the variety of combinations of bronze weapons with other excavated objects within burial space has yet to be intensely studied. Take the burials of Panlongcheng (M1, M2, M11) as an example, although scattered in separated places, bronze ritual vessels and weapons were mostly found outside the coffin on the second tier of the tombs, thus suggesting that they share the intended value for the deceased. In general, when compared with the widespread combination of dagger-axes and spears, the rare combination of axes and knives from late Shang tombs indicates the occupants’ higher ranking (p. 146). On the other hand, bronze specimens’ variations in type, quantity and combination also indicate chronological, cultural, and regional differences.

        Under the influence of White’s cultural neo-evolutionism, Binford tends to view material tools’ dynamic mechanics as a focal part of humans’ technological means in his treatment of social processes. Therefore, Binford’s technological-cultural orientation, as Xu rightly puts it, fails to recognize objects’ religious/ritual expression and cultural relativism (pp. 149-150). Building on his criticism regarding Binford’s defect, Xu’s three case studies presented in Chapter Three follow the perspective of cognitive and contextual archaeology [4]─two theoretical syntheses of New Archaeology readily available to his interpretation for bridging the material and symbolic aspects of archaeological finds. (1) With the focus on willow-leaf shaped swords, he shows the ways in which the roles that bronze weapons played in different cultural zones—signifier of cultural identity, valuable items, or prestigious goods—express diverse social values. (2) Inspired by Katheryn Linduff’s studies of gender in Chinese archeology, particularly the case of Fu Hao from late Shang Anyang, Xu points out that, except for those from the tombs at Tianma-Qucun, bronze weapons were also buried with female occupants, suggesting that weapons did not necessarily express masculinity in the Shang and Zhou cultures (pp. 160-161). (3) The Chinese archaeologist Guo Baojun 郭寶鈞 (1893-1971) has keenly proposed the “beaten tomb (毆墓 ou’mu)” hypothesis, according to the Rites of the Zhou (Zhouli), to explain why many bronze dagger-axes’ and halberds’ blades were found broken during his excavation of the Western Zhou cemetery at Xincun, located in Xunxian, Henan (p. 162). Based on Guo’s widely-acknowledged interpretation, Xu further argues that, compared with the late Shang period, the deliberate destruction of dagger-axes and halberds became more evident and widespread among Western Zhou burials, and probably thereby developed into a regular worship practice.

        Made with precious material that was strictly control by the ruling elites, jade weapons in early China, given their scarcity and ritual significance in burials, are taken up in a comparative study of contemporary bronze weapons in Chapter Four. Archeological data demonstrate that several types of stone or jade weapons dating to the late Neolithic period, such as the axe, dagger-axe and knife, predate the bronze counterparts and had an impact upon their early designs. Most distinctive are jade axes featured in ritual practices of the Liangzhu culture, developed in the Lower Yangzi region around 3,400-2,300 BCE. Jade weapons, particularly the dagger-axe, had gradually declined in quantity and size by the Eastern Zhou (ca. 770-255 BCE), along with their shifting role from the ritual emblem to ornament-oriented accessory (p. 205). The stylistic and symbolic interaction between jade and bronze weapons, as Xu suggests, constitutes a parallel development to understanding the diversity of social and ritual symbolism in the Chinese Bronze Age.

        Even without a concluding chapter, Xu has convincingly shown us that bronze weapons before the Eastern Zhou as a whole deserve being equally perceived and treated as ritual artifacts in their own right. By challenging the preoccupied dichotomy between ritual artifact and utilitarian instrument, this book also offers a close study of objects driven by a shared academic agenda in fields of Early China in particular and Chinese archaeology in general. Although why the Eastern Zhou has been excluded from his discussion remains to be specified, and a critical reader may raise questions of how and why the end of the Western Zhou, alongside political turmoil and ritual reform, marks a radical impact on bronze weapons, Xu is fully aware of the potential bias brought by archaeological evidence. Theoretically and practically, this book incorporates pioneering Western conceptual tools into Chinese scholarship and its local contextual analyses, thus making a welcomed attempt in the rising Chinese New Archaeology.

  Footnotes:

  [1] Anke Hein, “The Problems of Typology in Chinese Archeology,” Early China 2015.18, 3.

  [2] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeology as Anthropology,” American Antiquity 28.2 (Oct., 1962): 217-225. White divides culture as a whole into three categories: technology, social system, and philosophies, see Leslie A. White, The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Society (New York: Grove Press; London: Evergreen Books Ltd, 1949): 392.

  [3] Lewis R. Binford, “Archaeological Systematic and the Study of Cultural Process,” American Antiquity 31.2 (Oct. 1965): 203.

  [4] For theoretical developments and practices of these two archaeological syntheses within the wave of New Archaeology, see Ian Hodder and Hudson Scott, Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), especially chapter 2 “Processual and system approach” and chapter 8 “Contextual archaeology”; Colin Renfrew and Chris Scarre eds., Cognition and Material Culture: The Archaeology of Symbolic Storage (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1998); Colin Renfrew, “Towards A Cognitive Archaeology: Material Engagement and the Early Development of Society,” in Ian Hodder ed., Archaeological Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012): 124-145; Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice (London: Thames & Hudson, 2012): 381-420.

• 企业应学习恐怖组织创新学

  作者：魔熵散势 发布时间：2010-09-10 16:09:48

  【魔熵•黑道商学院】黑帮最重要的两件事，便是如何“赚钱”与“分钱”： 智慧的企业家们，都懂得这个道理。 黑帮MBA信条里 这总是放在战略管理的第一位

  【魔熵•黑道商学院•时间筹码】 黑帮内部谈判效率奇高，胜过多数500强企业 超越国内100强N倍 . 议程清楚到接近透明的地步。“我们要不要宰了他？”与会人士全都有备而来，很少有人说废话。 师姐忍受不了残忍掠夺人生珍贵青春时间筹码的某500强 投身到"黑道"了 呵呵

  【如何运用恐怖组织创新管理模式来运营企业】

    要适应现在高速复杂的情报变化环境 恐怖组织哪些方面的管理模式和方法值得企业借鉴的.. 我们先抛出几个论点 请大家赐教

  1. 恐怖组织通过什么机制营造创新氛围和环境? (企业文化层面)

   2. 战术上, 面对严酷的监控和反恐, 他们是如何培养个人应变能力? (员工核心能力提升)

   3. 如何通过情报散播实现病毒营销引爆时尚或进行品牌摧毁? (蓝海突围策略或红海狙杀方针)

  4. 恐怖组织的创新策划机制和动力源泉有哪些? 恐怖组织的薪酬结构是什么样的? (动力机制) 我们觉得以上问题其实非常值得一些正在努力创新公司来关注和思考的问题, 也敬请各位在竞争情报CI 实战中 继续越轨创新突破......