L’analyse musicale comme processus d’appropriation historique : Webern à Darmstadt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réception de la musique d’Anton Webern dans les cercles avant-gardistes de Darmstadt constitue l’une des questions centrales permettant de comprendre les relations entre les pensées compositionnelles de la première et de la deuxième moitié du XXe siècle. L’auteur s’appuie sur un « kaléidoscope » d’analyses différentes (voire contradictoires entre elles) d’une même oeuvre, l’opus 27 de Webern, pour montrer de quelle façon les musiciens des années 1950 ont utilisé Webern à la fois comme modèle, source d’autorité, miroir, voire prétexte de leurs propres techniques de composition et convictions esthétiques. La façon dont Stadlen, Leibowitz, Schnebel, Pousseur analysent Webern en dit long sur l’enjeu que recouvrait alors l’appropriation savante des partitions du Viennois. En complément, des analyses de Nono, Ligeti, Pousseur et Stockhausen (sur un corpus wébernien plus large) sont sollicitées. Au terme de ces comparaisons, l’analyse musicale s’avère l’instrument fondamental de transmission du savoir d’une génération à l’autre, et l’un des moyens pour déterminer l’horizon de nouvelles techniques compositionnelles.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".