The aesthetics of computer music: a questionable concept reconsidered
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some informal remarks I made at a conference in 1979, I expressed a reluctance to deal with the subject of aesthetics, which historically is a product of European philosophy and which remains a troublesome concept for contemporary music where an aesthetic term such as ‘beauty’ seems to be studiously ignored (Truax 1980). In a recent, also informal article (Truax 1999) addressed as a ‘letter to a twenty-five-year old electroacoustic composer’, I predicted that the term ‘computer music’ would probably disappear since in an age where the computer is involved in nearly all electroacoustic music production, this term, which once distinguished a type of music from that made with analogue, electronic equipment, seemed today to be impossible to define rigorously. Therefore, the concept of the ‘aesthetics of computer music’, proposed as a panel discussion topic, initially seemed to me to be doubly suspect as to its meaning.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it