John Weinzweig’s Woodwind quartet : a study in compositional development and serial methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
John Weinzweig was the first Canadian composer to use techniques of serial organization in his compositions. Through his teaching, composing, and promotion of Canadian music, he has been influential in the development of Canadian music. Because of this, it is of interest to study one of his significant works, the Woodwind Quintet (1963/64). This work exemplifies Weinzweig's serial techniques, including the use of row forms that share common segments (such as dyads, trichords, tetrachords, and hexachords), as well as an allusion to octatonic sounds. This thesis approaches Weinweig's work first from a serial standpoint, and then examines how the composer approaches the idea of motivic development within his work. Thorough analysis of twelve-tone relationships, themes, textures, and rhythms reveals how Weinzweig focuses not just on serial materials, but also on other aspects of composition. Following a brief introduction about the composer and the piece, Chapter 1 examines the properties of the row used in the Woodwind Quintet. The discussion continues, in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, by examining each movement from a different analytical perspective, giving an overview of the work as a whole. Texture and instrumentation are the focus of the discussion of the first movement; segmentation is examined in the second movement; and rhythmic motives are studied in the third movement. Rotation, inversion, and other serial techniques are examined in the work as a whole. This thesis attempts to give an overview of Weinzweig's compositional style while discussing specific passages from the Woodwind Quintet and their unique manner of development.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".