Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines Anton Weidinger, the 18th- and early 19th-century keyed trumpet player for whom Joseph Haydn and Johann Nepomuk Hummel composed their trumpet concerti. As the most successful of many attempts to chromaticize the trumpet in the late 18th century, during which the Baroque clarino style of trumpet-playing was waning, Weidinger’s keyed trumpet enjoyed a short-lived period of prominence from about 1800 to 1804, the period during which Weidinger premiered these two concerti. Subsequently, the keyed trumpet declined in popularity, and eventually it was replaced by the valve trumpet. Both concerti emphasize the chromatic capabilities of the new instrument. A detailed examination of some passages from the third movements of the two concerti suggests a deliberate attempt on the part of Hummel (perhaps under Weidinger’s influence) to “quote” and outdo the most virtuosic passages in the Haydn concerto and to cast the new instrument as capable of playing in a “singing” operatic style. Musical quotation from Luigi Cherubini’s opera Les Deux Journées further cements the implicit connection Hummel draws between the keyed trumpet and opera (and, by extension, the human voice). The paper concludes that Weidinger and Hummel sought, in Hummel’s concerto, to announce to the musical world that the trumpet was ready to move beyond its Classical status as a tutti instrument. Though the success of Weidinger and his keyed trumpet was transient, the two concerti composed for him today stand as cornerstones of the solo trumpet literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".