MICHAEL R. STEINBERG. Listening to Reason: Culture, Subjectivity, and Nineteenth-Century Music. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2004. Pp. xiv, 246. $29.95
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is a collection of essays on musical criticism, most of them previously published in earlier versions, each focusing on selected musical works from the canon of German composers (Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms) with some excursions outside this canon in the last three chapters. Michael P. Steinberg defines his work as “the discussion of music as a key genre in the history of cultural and aesthetic form, and equally as a significant existential component in the history of cultural life” (p. 1). The underlying theme of the book is subjectivity, which the author defines as “a mode of first-person experience resistant to the articulation or representation implied in the category of the subject. As the experience rather than the position of the ‘I,’ subjectivity displaces the paradigm of an autonomous subject facing an outside world in favor of a lived experience that is inherently contingent on culture. Subjectivity is thus a mode of experience where self and world are difficult to distinguish” (p. 7). Music, Steinberg notes, participated in an important way in the making of modern subjectivity; in fact, modern subjectivity relied on the belief in music's formal and cultural capacity to organize subjectivity. This idea of the privileged position of music in organizing subjectivity, Steinberg argues, stemmed from German Romantic theory in the early nineteenth century and continued in the works of Schopenhauer, Wagner, and Nietzsche.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.009 |
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".