Music-Dance (and Design) Relations in Ballet Productions of Ravel’s Daphnis et Chloé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates music−dance (and design) interplay and balletic challenges in Daphnis et Chloé, focusing upon the Ravel−Ashton−Craxton production for The Royal Ballet (1951, revived in 2004), in comparison with the Ravel−Fokine−Bakst original of 1912. Sources drawn upon include accessible choreographic materials of Frederick Ashton (1904−88), held at the Royal Opera House Archives in London, as well as first-hand correspondence with the designer John Craxton (1922−2009). In order to explore the main music−dance relationships and emergent meanings, the study engages with multimedia ideas founded upon “consonance” and “dissonance” (Albright 2000), supported by music analytical (Cook 2001; 1998) and conceptual blending approaches (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). Particular moments from the ballet are selected for interpretation and, moving beyond rather over-simplified oppositions of unity versus independence or consonance versus dissonance, a case is made for complexes, transformation, and plurality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".