Review of David Ferris, <i>Schumann’s Eichendorff</i> Liederkreis <i>and the Genre of the Romantic Cycle</i> (Oxford University Press, 2000)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
David Ferris's book is one of several studies of Robert Schumann and his music that have recently appeared with Oxford University Press.(1) Focusing on one of the most fascinating genres in which this composer worked, and on perhaps the most beautiful of his examples of that genre (the Eichendorff Liederkreis, op.39), Ferris's book is a welcome addition to Oxford's "Schumann series."It is refreshing to read a study of the Romantic song cycle whose primary focus is not Dichterliebe (which is by far the most frequently analysed Romantic song cycle).Numerous earlier writers have argued that Dichterliebe is an organically unified cycle, and have used their analyses of this cycle as the basis for a model of unity and coherence, which, they imply, is applicable to the Romantic song cycle in general.Ferris has deliberately chosen to emphasize a cycle to which such a model cannot easily be applied (although previous writers have, in accordance with established views of what constitutes a cycle, sought to explain even op.39 as "an integrated musical whole that is unified by a web of motivic relationships and a symmetrical arrangement of keys" [page 4]).Ferris attempts instead to approach the work without preconceptions about unity and coherence, and in a manner consistent with the aesthetics of the period in which it originated.The result is an interpretation of op.39-and of the Romantic cycle in general-that diverges significantly from those of earlier writers.Instead of asking, "How is Schumann's op.39 unified?," Ferris addresses the following questions: (1) What is the Romantic view of unity and coherence in the song cycle?(2) How does this view compare with current conceptions of unity and coherence in the cycle?(3) How could the latter conceptions be complemented and modified by taking into consideration the Romantic view?In his effort to answer these questions, Ferris consults a wide variety of sources: nineteenth-century writings on aesthetics and philosophy; nineteenth-century music journal articles (including Schumann's own writings); the 20 th -century theoretical and musicological literature on Schumann's song cycles and the song cycle in general; Schumann's autographs; and, of course, the text and music of Schumann's op.39.[2] In his first chapter, Ferris establishes a context for his investigation by describing three trends in recent research on the Romantic song cycle.The adherents of one trend, including Arthur Komar, David Neumeyer, and Patrick McCreless, consider cycles in theoretical terms, and attempt to discover unity and coherence within them.(2) A second trend, originating in part as a reaction against the first, involves the investigation of the historical context of, and contemporary perspectives on the Romantic cycle.(3) Whereas Ferris finds this endeavor laudable, he notes that it has not resulted in any significant change in current conceptions of the song cycle, partly because the scholars in this group have brought to their investigations a preconception similar to that held by the first group-the belief that true cycles involve some kind of musical coherence, particularly tonal coherence.The third trend, which more closely approaches Ferris's viewpoint, is that represented by recent writings of John Daverio and Charles Rosen.(4) Both of these authors begin to consider Romantic cycles in connection with aesthetic and philosophical trends of the early nineteenth century, in particular, the ideas of the brothers Wilhelm and August
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».