The Tragic and the Ecstatic: The Musical Revolution of Wagner's Tristan und Isolde. By Eric Chafe.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eric Chafe's new book on Wagner's Tristan und Isolde sets out to achieve at least six goals: to establish more firmly the often cited connection between music and philosophy for Wagner; to show the opposition between tragedy and nature in Tristan; to show how Wagner focused on both the ‘ideal of romantic love with its metaphysical overtones and Schopenhauer's demythologizing of love in terms of desire and the biological instinct’ (p. 8); to demonstrate how Wagner's Tristan style matches both the Schopenhauerian and non-Schopenhauerian aspects of the drama; to demonstrate how Wagner's indebtedness to Schopenhauer was manifested in the musical language of the work itself; and, finally, to reveal the interrelatedness of facets of Tristan generally treated separately. By this last point, Chafe is referring to virtually every approach to the work: the Romantic aim of unifying philosophy and music; the origins of Wagner's interest in the metaphysical absolute; the influence of these preoccupations on the music; small- and large-scale musical analysis (harmonic, leitmotivic, periodic, structural, etc.); sketch interpretation; literary investigation; aesthetics; and so on. A central premiss of the book is that Tristan ‘is simultaneously both a culminating and a forward-looking work’ (p. 14).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".