Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory ed. by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theoryed. by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin Matthew Bribitzer-Stull Music Theory and Analysis (MTA) International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory. Edited by Pieter Bergé, Steven Vande Moortele, and Nathan J. Martin. Published bi-annually. Vol 1, Issue 1(September 2014). ISSN: 2295-5917 (print) / ISSN: 2295-5925 (online). Print-only subscriptions are not offered. Pricing varies based on institutional or individual subscriptions and discounts are available for members of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory and for literary agents. Inquiries or submissions: Music Theory & Analysis, Leuven University Press, Minderbroedersstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email: mta@lup.be. As a music theorist writing a review for a journal read largely by music librarians, I fear abrogating the first dictum of all effective communication: know your audience. For that reason, I will strive to avoid analytic jargon and theoretic hypothesizing as much as possible, viciously redacting terms like Auskompenierung, “Klumpenhouwer Networks,” and “medial caesura,” wherever I might be tempted to use them, in favor of articulating how the first issue of the Music Theory and Analysis International Journal of the Dutch-Flemish Society for Music Theory(herein MTA) fits into the larger universe of English-language music-theory journals and—most importantly—whether or not it is the best interests of inquiring music librarians to scrape together the dregs of the acquisition budget to subscribe to yet another specialist publication. I suspect if you have made it this far into my review, then you might be wondering, “Is the successor to the Dutch Journal of Music Theory( Tijdschrift voor Muzietheorie) worth purchasing?” My answer, in a word, is “yes.” “Yes,” that is, if your library serves any population of faculty, students, musicians, or community members with an interest (professional or otherwise) in music theory and analysis. While any self-respecting music library will carry top-tier titles like Music Theory Spectrum, The Journal of Music Theory, and Music Theory Analysis, musicologists in general (and music theorists, specifically) publish analytic work in a wide variety of places. Those same populations often seek to read the work of their peers (and assign it to their students), so it’s important to know which journals will deliver the most bang for the buck. Simply put, I expect MTAto provide a good return on investment. First, the preliminaries. This is a peer-reviewed journal with an international editorship, advisory board, list of contributors, and intended audience. Its focus—music theory and analysis—is evident in the title. Unlike many other similar journals, however, MTAattempts something novel: fostering discussion and interaction between scholars and musicians working both in North America and in Europe. Said discussion and interaction is long overdue, for ever since the middle of the twentieth century North America and England (and, one might mention, Finland) adopted Viennese theorist Heinrich Schenker as the flag-bearer for tonal analysis, while Germany remained wedded to the writings of its native son, Hugo Riemann, and other countries like France and Italy reworked time-honored traditions based on practical methods like partimenti. In short, the present day bears witness to a Tower-of-Babel situation in the field, with scholars interested in the same body of musical works often unable or unwilling to understand and value what one another is doing when it comes to theory and analysis. Delving deeper, how does MTApropose to rectify the current state of affairs? Is simply juxtaposing work by scholars trained in different traditions enough to stimulate real dialogue and interaction? Juxtaposition is a starting point, and there have [End Page 196]been plenty of anthologies including works by a variety of scholars publishing on a topic of similar interest that do just that. It seems, however, that this has not been enough to stimulate lasting engagement between diverse approaches. Thus, it is heartening to see that MTA’s editorial board includes well-known scholars from the US, Canada, England, and mainland Europe, many of whom—like Alexander Rehding, John Koslovsky, and Christian Thorau—have established international reputations. More important, the editors of...
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.021 |
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".