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
Abstract The present contribution to the Colloquy takes issue with problematic positions on aesthetic autonomy in music, which have appeared over the past couple of years in the pages of this journal. The tone is frank, the intention is constructive and the point is to engage in an exchange of ideas with colleagues who may have different points of view on these matters. Resume La presente contribution au Debat critique des prises de position problematiques, apparues depuis quelques annees dans les pages de cette revue, concernant la notion d'autonomie esthetique dans le domaine musical. Le ton est franc, l'intention est constructive et le but est de susciter un echange d'idees avec des collegues dont les points de vue sur ces questions peuvent differer. Over the past decade, the notion of aesthetic autonomy has come under attack. Evidence of this is abundantly present in recent articles of our Review, where we read that the dangerous illusion of autonomy in the arts and sciences (Beverley Diamond, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 17) has been successfully challenged by American ethnomusicologists and popular music specialists (John Shepherd, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 10). According to David Gramit, we find ourselves in this state of affairs because of musicology' s consistent failure to link its object of study (the self-contained, autonomous work of Western art music) to broader political and cultural concerns (Gramit 1998, 20). Before going any further, I would like to clearly state that this letter is not a call for a return to older practices, where musicology was often reduced to middle-aged gentlemen comfortably chatting about their favourite bits of the canon over a glass of sherry at the local faculty club. In my view, good musicology has always been and should remain a bright, multicoloured, multicultural world (Shepherd, in Shepherd and Diamond 1998, 10), in which all approaches to the study of music (be they formalist, hermeneutic, aesthetic, historic, socio-economic, cultural, etc.) can be compared and criticized. It is worth noting however that there is nothing new here. Marxist-oriented historians such as Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, who founded the Annales d'histoire economique et sociale in 1929, postulated that anything can be part of historical discourse. At about the same time Max Weber's truly pioneering essay, The Rational and Social Foundations of Music, was published posthumously1 and Theodor Adorno began working towards his sociology of music.2 Also, 1 see no problem in examining the ideological underpinnings of all approaches to the study of music, which, as Gramit (1998, 20) has correctly pointed out, may intentionally or inadvertently limit the object of musicological inquiry in a way that excludes from the start much of what could fall within the scope of the discipline. Having said that, I believe we should heed Carmen Sabourin's warning against entering all too quickly into that supermarche de la pensee, which has sprung up over the past decade (1997, 1 13). Take for example Lawrence Kramer's attempt to ground a radically new musicology (which I would add in passing explicitly rejects the notion of aesthetic autonomy). In a scant few pages Kramer blithely skips through the ideas of Carl Dahlhaus, Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva, with Jean-Francois Lyotard lurking unacknowledged behind the scene (Kramer 1996, 16-21). This kind of drive-thru musicology is superficial in the extreme and should be criticised as such. (The disclaimer that this brand of musicology revels intuitively in the hie et nunc in order to get beyond the aporia of modernist musicology is simply disingenuous.) In the following, I would like to bring up a few points concerning aesthetic autonomy, which appear to have been neglected in recent writings on the subject. 1. It is ironic that those who benefit most from the concept of aesthetic autonomy should be attacking it so vigorously. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it